Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, today, the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration held a hearing entitled ``Another Biden Blunder: Missing Unaccompanied Alien Children and Criminal Sponsors.'' I attended this hearing. It certainly begs the question, Why, now that they are in control, are Senate Republicans continuing to focus on the Biden administration instead of examining the policies of this administration?

When I was chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, we held not one but two full committee hearings on the Biden administration's handling of unaccompanied children. It is a legitimate issue. We must do everything in our power to protect these kids, and that requires oversight of policies that are in place now, not stories of history.

Just look at yesterday's oversight hearing with FBI Director Kash Patel. Director Patel deflected my questions relating to his gutting of the unit in the FBI that was investigating something known as the 764 group--an organization the FBI itself described as a ``nihilistic violent extremist'' group that seeks to blackmail children to perform vile acts on camera.

News reports released yesterday noted that nearly every agent on Baltimore's domestic terrorism squad was reassigned this year to work full time on immigration enforcement, forcing them to walk away from investigations of the 764 group.

This change at the FBI is dramatic in counterterrorism, in counterinsurgency--all of these areas where the FBI has expertise--and developed professionals are being told they have a new assignment: Go out and find undocumented people in the United States. There are 11 million of them. In fact, roughly 20 percent of all FBI agents reportedly have been diverted from their critical national security and public safety roles, including protecting children from extremists and traffickers, to work on President Trump's mass deportation effort.

Even worse, the data show that this administration is not focusing its immigration enforcement on the ``worst of the worst,'' as the President says. Instead, they are picking up innocent, law-abiding people.

Just consider the recent raid of the Hyundai Metaplant in Georgia. Hundreds of agents from across the country raided this factory. The agents--many of whom work on priority counterterrorism and drug enforcement cases--did not have experience in low-priority immigration enforcement operations. They ended up arresting hundreds of South Korean nationals who were in the country to install equipment at the plant so that eventually American workers could go to work at that factory.

Now the South Korean Government is investigating human rights abuses during that raid, and construction on the facility is paused at least for another year, maybe two. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau was reportedly forced to express ``deep regret'' over the incident in a meeting with his South Korean counterpart.

I have read some of the news accounts. The South Koreans are livid. Here is our government, begging them to put businesses and factories in the United States, and we raid this and take away 300 South Koreans who were there for the transition on that factory. Some of them were in shackles and handcuffs.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I would like to ask, through the Chair, a basic question of my friend from Vermont.

You have been involved in politics a few years. So have I. I am trying to understand if I were a Republican Senator who voted for this kind of premium increase for people in my State, more than a handful--a lot of people in my State--how I would explain it. Do you know?

Excuse me, Senator.

When you say it is just about to happen, is it the announcement of the premium or the actual imposition of the premium increase?

Through the Chair, you used an example of Wyoming.

You said 60,000 people in Wyoming.

Well, I was trying to figure out if someone is making $82,000 a year, I think that was your reference point.

And they qualified for the Affordable Care Act health insurance, they currently can receive a subsidy to help with the payments based on their income.

And you are saying the change in the big beautiful Trump budget by our Republican colleagues is going to result in an increase in monthly premiums in Wyoming of a person making $82,000 a year of $3,000 a month?

This is not a casual increase; this is for real.

Let me ask you this question: Since we have the continuing resolution being considered, which would go into effect September 30, if we agree on one, if you took care of this tax credit issue, you could spare that family in Wyoming from a $3,000-a-month addition to their hospitalization premium; is that correct?

Let me ask the Senator from Vermont his own personal experience. Mine was that last year, I decided to replace my knee--my football knee from high school--and my hip, same year.

I started receiving these projected bills and how much I might, personally, owe if I didn't have any health insurance. We are talking about thousands and thousands of dollars. Now, these were basically elective surgeries but much more than the average person has available on hand to pay a bill.

Imagine if instead of an elective surgery, I had, God forbid, broken my leg, ended up in the emergency room, and needed help with surgery when it was all over. The net result of it is a bill which most families would struggle to pay if they had no health insurance protection.

This seems like the reality of the situation. It is your money or your life is the Republican proposal. We are either going to have you pay $3,000 or more a month in premiums or you are going to have to gut it out and hope you don't get sick or don't have an accident that could cost thousands and thousands of dollars.

I thank the Senator from Vermont as well as the Senator from New Hampshire for organizing this block. I am going just say that people have contacted me from Illinois and are scared to death about what is going to happen on October 1. This big beautiful budget bill of President Donald Trump, unfortunately, is not going to extend the tax credits available to reduce premium costs. Families are asking me: How in the world, Senator, are we supposed to pay these increased costs of thousands of dollars each month?

I don't have an answer for them, but the Senate has the answer. The Senate can change that. We can restore this tax credit. There are a lot of priorities for a lot of people, but I will tell you, if you have ever lived without health insurance, you understand it is a basic priority.

You never know tomorrow what you are going to end up paying in a medical bill, and if you aren't prepared for it, it can wipe out your savings in no time flat.

I just want to thank my colleagues from Vermont and New Hampshire for organizing this floor block.

Access to healthcare is one of the most important issues facing Americans today, and it is an issue near and dear to my heart--because I know what it is like to live without health insurance.

I will never forget being the father of a new baby, who had a serious medical condition but I didn't have any health insurance. I never felt more helpless than I did in that moment. It is a terrible feeling and something I do not wish on anybody.

Unfortunately, Republicans in Congress are preparing to subject millions of Americans to the stress-filled, sleepless nights, that come from knowing your family does not have health insurance. If Congress fails to renew the Affordable Care Act's enhanced premium tax credits before the end of this year, the cost of health insurance will spike for almost every American who relies on an ACA Marketplace plan. Increased premiums will create financial hardship for middle-income families across the Nation and cause millions of Americans to lose their health insurance.

There has been a lot of confusion surrounding these tax credits, and I want to make clear who is at risk of being affected by these cuts. More than 90 percent of families with a Marketplace plan receive the ACA's premium tax credits to lower their monthly premiums. That is 22 million Americans who rely on these tax credits to afford healthcare.

Without these subsidies, 22 million people will see the cost of their insurance premiums rise rapidly. For most families, the cost will skyrocket 75 percent. That means that a family of four making only $32,150 a year will see a nearly $400 annual increase in their healthcare costs. A family earning $64,300 will see their premiums rise to $905 a year from $180--more than a 400-percent increase.

The imminent expiration of these tax credits, combined with the devastating Medicaid cuts passed earlier this year by Republicans, will devastate families of limited means and hospitals. The increase in premiums will be too much to bear for many families. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if the ACA credits expire, 4 million people will become uninsured. And that is in addition to the more than 10 million set to lose their healthcare as a result of the so-called ``One Big Beautiful Bill's'' Medicaid cuts.

Last night, on the Senate Floor, I shared two messages my office received from Illinois constituents who are terrified about the upcoming tax credit expiration. The first message was from Kristen, from Rochester. She is a freelance writer, who has recently been diagnosed with a long-term degenerative disease. She said, ``I depend on the ACA Marketplace for insurance. Without it, one of my multiple medications could cost $7,500. Without these subsidies, I would be unable to cover the cost of my care.''

The second message was from Zach. He is a small business owner and father of four from Highland. Zach wrote, ``The Affordable Care Act has been a lifesaver for my family. It would ruin us if we lost the benefits from the Affordable Care Act. It would ruin us economically and physically if we lost these big, beautiful benefits from the ACA.''

These are real stories, from real people, who will be affected by the callous inaction of my Republican colleagues. But Kristen and Zach are not the only ones who are living in fear because of the upcoming expiration of these tax credits.

Melanie, from Elmhurst, wrote to my office and said, ``Without the tax credit my monthly payment is unaffordable, plain and simple.''

Vivien, from Evanston, emphasized that ``We cannot go back to the years when millions of Americans could not afford to get insurance.''

I could not have said it better. The end of the year is approaching, and my colleagues from the other side of the aisle seem uninterested in extending these lifesaving healthcare subsidies for Americans in red, blue, and purple States. I am calling on my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to come together on a bipartisan basis to extend these subsidies and offer families some financial relief.

Senate and House Democrats will soon introduce a bill that would keep the government open and permanently extend these tax credits. We can do both. And we should do both. I ask my Republican colleagues to join us in these efforts. In doing so, I am reminded of something my former boss, the late Senator Paul Douglas, said after the creation of Medicare and Medicaid. He said, ``We will indulge in no comments about those who came at the 11th hour to the support of the measure . . . All can share in the thrill of victory. We merely ask that we all work together to make this measure a success.''

I hope my colleagues will heed his words and protect the tax credits that so many Americans rely on to afford their healthcare.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last week, the world witnessed an unprovoked violation of NATO airspace by Russia. Nearly 20 Russian drones entered Polish airspace, some traveling up to 300 miles in the country. For nearly 6 hours, NATO aircraft sought out and destroyed these Russian intruders.

Then this weekend, fighter jets intercepted another Russian drone that entered NATO airspace--in this case, Romania.

The EU's chief diplomat Kaja Kallas promptly said of the recent incident: ``The violation of Romanian airspace by Russian drones is another unacceptable breach of an EU member's state sovereignty. This continued reckless escalation threatens regional security.''

I couldn't agree more. With such brazen testing of NATO defenses, one would expect our leader, the President of the United States, to make a similar condemnation and reaffirm the alliance's formidable defensive capabilities.

But the response from President Trump has been silence or bizarre musings saying maybe it was just a mistake by Russia. After months of Russian President Putin ignoring Trump's deadlines for negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, he is once again letting Putin embarrass him on a global stage.

Can anyone here imagine Ronald Reagan being played over and over again by the Russians like this? How about John McCain? How about the Republican Party before Trump, which has sat quietly month after month afraid to speak the truth about Vladimir Putin?

Is there anyone in this Chamber who would argue with a straight face that a Democratic President repeatedly kowtowing to Russian aggression wouldn't be met with howls of criticism?

So let me say this once again to President Trump: I don't fault you for trying to negotiate an end to this horrific war in Ukraine, but it has been clear for some time to everyone that Mr. Putin is not serious about your overtures.

In fact, he has repeatedly responded with embarrassingly clear replies. What did he do when we told him we wanted peace in Ukraine? He increased bombing. He violated NATO airspace. He teamed up with other global despots in acts of sabotage and mayhem all across Europe.

I urge President Trump to finally see Putin for the person he is and what he is doing to America's reputation and the President's own personal legacy. And we in Congress should finally move this week to pass the Russian sanctions bill, which I understand has 85 cosponsors. It is long overdue. Let's do it.

Mr. President, there are life experiences which you carry for the rest of your life because they are so meaningful and change the course of your life.

I will never forget what it was like to be the father of our new baby when she had a serious medical condition and I had no health insurance. I never felt more helpless than I did at that moment. It is a terrible feeling I wouldn't wish on anybody. That experience comes to mind when I think about healthcare. I thought about it when we passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010 and again when we expanded the ACA premier tax credit in 2021 and 2022, making insurance more affordable for tens of millions of Americans. We set a record.

There were more Americans covered by health insurance as a result of those actions than ever in our history. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues are preparing to subject millions of Americans to the stress-filled sleepless nights as part of heading up a family when you have no health insurance.

At the end of this year, the ACA's enhanced premium tax credits will expire. If they are not renewed, insurance premiums will spike across the country for the people least likely to be able to pay, and millions and millions of Americans will lose their healthcare.

These tax credits subsidize the price of healthcare for lower and middle-income families, ensuring that premiums for marketplace health plans never exceed 8.5 percent of the families' income. This cap on premiums makes healthcare affordable for millions of Americans. Some only have to pay as little as $10 a month for coverage; others pay almost nothing.

Since the creation of these enhanced tax credits, the number of Americans enrolled in ACA plans has almost doubled, from 11.4 million in 2020 to 24.3 million in 2024. These credits are especially important for people living in small towns, as they often have few options and higher insurance premiums. The expiration of these tax credits as part of the so-called Big Beautiful Bill will devastate families of limited means and threaten the existence of hospitals all across the country, including in my State of Illinois. The people who run these hospitals in small towns, which are absolutely critical for healthcare, for the local economy, are bracing for the Medicaid cuts that are coming, again as part of the Republican Big Beautiful Bill.

If Republicans allow these tax credits to expire, insurance premiums are going to skyrocket by more than 75 percent for most marketplace plans. In Illinois, a family of four making $126,000 can see their annual premiums increase by $7,500. A couple making $82,000 can see more than a $17,000 increase. These price increases can be too much to bear for many families who are already dealing with some of the impacts of the tariff policies.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 4 million people will become uninsured because of the ACA credit expiration. That is 4 million people who won't know if they will be able to afford a hospital bill if their child has an injury; 4 million people who might have to forego a doctor's visit because they can't afford it. Millions of people might be forced to put off a dentist visit because they lost their healthcare.

The expiration of these health insurance subsidies will be devastating for families across America in red States and blue States alike, and it will deal yet another blow to the American public who were promised by this President that he will bring down their cost of living.

I had two of my constituents contact me about this issue, Kristin from Rochester, IL, just outside Springfield said:

As a previously very healthy person recently diagnosed with

a long-term degenerative disease, health care is at the top

of my mind.

Without health insurance, one of my multiple medications

would cost $7500. I will likely be on that or something

similar for the rest of my life.

I'm a freelance writer--

She writes--

so I depend on the ACA marketplace for insurance. Without

those subsidies, I would be unable to cover the cost of my

care.

And Zachary from Highland, IL, in Madison County near St. Louis writes:

Please do everything you can to protect the Affordable Care

Act. It has been a lifesaver for my family.

We have four children and starting our own business is not

easy when factoring in healthcare costs.

It would ruin us if we lost the benefits from the

[Affordable Care Act]. It would ruin us economically and

physically if we lost these big beautiful benefits from the

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

Mr. President, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is in crisis. Tomorrow will be the first time the Director, Kash Patel, will come before the Senate Judiciary Committee as Director to be questioned about his management of the Bureau.

In just the first weeks of this administration, we witnessed the unprecedented and forced removal of dozens of senior FBI officials-- decorated career professionals who spent their lives protecting this country from terrorism, espionage, and cyber attacks. These patriots swore an oath to defend the Constitution and served Republican and Democratic Presidents alike.

They were shown the door for one reason: political retribution. Don't take my word for it. Just last week, former Acting FBI Director Brian Driscoll filed a Federal lawsuit accusing Director Patel and other Trump officials of orchestrating the politically motivated purge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Those who are familiar with the history of this Agency know that we went to great lengths to depoliticize the ranks of the FBI, the Director having a 10-year term, which meant that he or she would outlast any single President.

Time and again, we have set standards for the FBI that were above and beyond those across the ranks of government. There was a time when an FBI agent had to either have a law degree or a degree in accounting to qualify to be an FBI agent. It was a professional operation. There were questions raised about J. Edgar Hoover and other in the past, but basically the FBI has enjoyed the reputation of being one of the best law enforcement Agencies in the world.

According to Driscoll, though, Mr. Patel said:

The FBI tried to put the President in jail, and he hasn't

forgotten it.

It makes sense. And no one up and down the chain of command has been spared from his retribution at every level of government. All six of the FBI's Executive Assistant Directors--gone under the Trump administration. At least 18 special agents in Chicago of major field offices--gone. As many as 5,000 nonpartisan career public servants-- gone.

This brain drain at the FBI took place under Patel. It represents thousands of years of institutional knowledge wiped away in the blink of an eye. And when the FBI Director is so clearly ill-prepared to lead when under pressure, this deliberate razing of law enforcement expertise from his organization is even more shocking and dangerous for national security.

Brian Driscoll dedicated his professional life to serving his country. For nearly two decades, he held some of the Bureau's most demanding and sensitive assignments--serving on a SWAT team, leading the elite Hostage Rescue Team, and serving as Tactical Section Chief for the Critical Incident Response Group. For his bravery under fire during tactical operations, Mr. Driscoll was awarded both the FBI Medal of Valor and the Shield of Bravery--among the highest honors the Bureau can bestow.

Mr. Driscoll was forced out after he resisted Patel and the White House's demand that he produce a list of thousands of FBI personnel who worked on investigations related to the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Keep the record straight in your mind. On January 6, an insurrectionist mob crashed into this building and drove Congress away at time when we were actually counting the ballots for the electoral college to determine the next President.

President Trump had rallied these demonstrators down on the Mall, and they marched up here, crashed through the windows, beat up on our police, and actually came into this Senate Chamber, aping themselves around here, sitting in the chair of the Presiding Officer. It was a sad and embarrassing day in the history of the United States.

I will just draw an analogy. If we heard that a mob crashed through the doors of Parliament in the House of Commons in London, what would we think? My goodness. What has happened to that great country?

Well, it happened here. I was an eyewitness to it, as were hundreds of others--driving out the Senators and the Vice President of the United States, Vice President Pence, from that chair that the Presiding Officer is sitting in.

That was the reality. Over 140 Capitol and DC police were injured in the process. Several gave their lives as result of it.

It was a serious moment. It was an embarrassing moment in our history. And now there is an effort to whitewash it. The first stop was with the FBI.

When the FBI prosecuted these mobsters who crashed into this building and sent some of them to jail, there was a steady beat from Mr. Patel and others that it was unfair. He even went so far as to organize those who had been arrested and prosecuted successfully or pled guilty into a choir. Yes, that is right--a singing group. He had them making some kind of musical selection from time to time, trying to diminish the seriousness of the charges against them.

So what happened when Mr. Patel--totally unqualified--became head of the FBI? He went out looking for FBI agents who investigated those mobsters and those insurrectionists. That is what was behind Mr. Driscoll's decision not to cooperate with him--so that those agents who were simply doing their duty and handing out successful prosecutions would not be penalized.

Mr. Driscoll's removal deprived the FBI of a leader whose expertise, courage, and judgment were forged over

decades on the frontlines defending America's security.

After leaving a promising career in finance, Mehtab Syed dedicated nearly 20 years to the FBI, rising from counterterrorism assignments and overseas postings in Islamabad and Amman to senior leadership in cyber and counterintelligence. She was a special agent in charge of the Salt Lake City field office and now should be leading the investigation of the horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk, but she was forced out this summer because, in the words of someone at the Bureau, she was ``not a good fit.'' She was a woman of color. They don't fare well in the Trump administration.

We don't even know exactly what impact her steady and experienced leadership could have had on this investigation. But we lost a talented and dedicated person whose talents were applied for the safety of our country. We do know that the person who pushed her out--Director Patel--who will be testifying tomorrow, quickly took to social media and falsely announced that the suspect was in custody--remember that?-- only to be forced to walk back those claims shortly thereafter.

At least 18 special agents in charge at the FBI--the top leaders in the field--have been forced into retirement or reassigned to diminished roles.

This hollowing out of the FBI creates a danger to the security of this country. These are not midlevel bureaucrats; these men and women oversee hundreds of agents and manage some of the most sensitive and complex investigations in the country. Many of these special agents in charge have spent their careers in counterintelligence and cyber operations, defending this country against hostile foreign powers, espionage, and cyber attacks.

Many devoted decades to civil rights enforcement, public corruption, and violent crime investigations, ensuring that State and local law enforcement across the country were working closely with seasoned Federal law enforcement leaders they can trust. Still others rose from frontline criminal work to lead major field offices. Their backgrounds range from forensic science to counterintelligence--skills not easily replaced and desperately needed.

Director Patel's foolhardy decision to force out these leaders within the FBI has hollowed out this important Agency. It has cost the Bureau decades of institutional knowledge and diminished its capacity to respond to the greatest threats facing our Nation.

Tomorrow at the hearing, I will go into detail about some of the Bureaus and Agencies within the FBI that have been diminished and hollowed out. Instead, many of the professionals of that Agency have been transported to the President's mass deportation crusade.

These dedicated professionals and so many more were fired, forced out, or reassigned to diminished roles because they had the courage to do their jobs, whether that meant investigating the January 6 riot, preventing domestic terrorism, pursuing corruption, or upholding the rule of law.

The FBI Agents Association has warned that the Patel-Trump purge of the FBI will ``severely weaken the Bureau's ability to protect the country from national security and criminal threats and ultimately risk setting up the Bureau for failure.''

At a moment when foreign adversaries are shredding our cyber defenses, when terrorist organizations remain determined to strike, when violent crime continues to threaten our communities, we are losing the very people best equipped to respond.

The American people deserve an FBI that is focused on keeping them safe and protecting our Constitution. Instead, what they are getting is an FBI that prioritizes political retribution and the Director's social media clout.

Tomorrow, I will press Director Patel on his decisions to weaken the FBI, which was designed to protect our American families, by forcing out its most experienced public servants at the expense of our national security and public safety.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Hickenlooper), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Hickenlooper), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

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

I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Hassan) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Hassan) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Hassan) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Hassan), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters), are necessarily absent.

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

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

Mr. President, late last week, it was reported that the Pentagon was contemplating ending critical military assistance to European partners, including the Baltic States. The program known as the Baltic Security Initiative. That is a program which I helped to create years ago to strengthen military cooperation with the Baltic States: Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.

NATO allies themselves with a long memory of Russian tyranny are still very much in Vladimir Putin's crosshairs. The Baltic States are some of the most vibrant, dedicated members of NATO, spending well above proposed funding targets for defense. The dangerous idea to cut this assistance came just as another deadline from President Trump for Russia to end its war in Ukraine came and went without any consequence.

In fact, Vladimir Putin responded like he always does after President Trump sets a deadline and lavishes him with a red carpet treatment in Alaska. He brazenly increased deadly attacks on Ukraine. That is right. While we were trying to get Vladimir Putin and the Russians to finally agree to a cease-fire and end of hostilities in Ukraine, he did exactly the opposite. That is what happened over the weekend, during which Russia launched one of the biggest assaults on Ukraine in the entire war and then did it again this week. During these attacks on Ukraine, Russian drones entered into NATO airspace, specifically into Poland.

Do we take that seriously in Chicago? You bet we do, because Chicago is second only to Warsaw in the percentage of Polish residents living there, people of Polish descent. Polish President Tusk said there were 19 Russian drones in the most recent incursion. Imagine if these were manned airplanes rather than drones, 19 bombers, fighters crossing into NATO territory, several of which were shot down, including with the help of allied Dutch F-35 fighters.

Now this isn't the first time Russian drones attacked a NATO territory. There was a drone crash reported in Poland a few weeks ago as well. And Russia has been behind a campaign of sabotage, assassination, and mayhem across NATO, targeting weapon supplies, infrastructure, and dissidents.

So let me say clearly to President Trump: With Putin thumbing his nose at us, violating NATO airspace, and testing American resolve, this is not the time to back away from our frontline allies. It is certainly not the time to halt bipartisan congressional support to the Baltic States. We should not be fooled. Vladimir Putin is not our friend. The Baltic States and Poland have proven that they are.

Vladimir Putin responds only to strength, and right now, he and other autocrats around the world are bonding together. They sense America is getting weak, and we here in Congress should not be fooled either. We should ensure the Baltic Security Initiative is included in the defense authorization bill and pass the Graham-Blumenthal legislation to tighten sanctions on Russia.

Strengthening Transparency and Obligations to Protect Children

Suffering from Abuse and Mistreatment Act of 2025

Mr. President, on a totally different topic, protecting our children is one of the most important duties of public service. When families send their kids

to school or let them play outside or allow them to go online, they should be confident that the kids are safe. But today, too many parents have a sinking feeling every time their kid logs on to a phone, tablet, or video game console.

They know that the internet has become a dangerous opportunity for predators looking to exploit the young and vulnerable. This is not a problem of the future; it is the crisis now. And Congress must act now.

In 2014, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children known as NCMEC, received approximately 1.1 million CyberTips about child sexual abuse material known as CSAM. That was in 2014, 1.1 million received tips.

By 2023, less than 10 years later, the number of CyberTips had exploded from 1.1 million to 36.2 million. Over 36 million reports in a single year. Each one of these reports represents a child being harmed, exploited, or degraded. It is sickening and shows the sheer magnitude of the crisis.

As I have learned more about the horrors of online child sexual exploitation, I have made it my mission in the Senate Judiciary Committee to do something about it. I will never forget the heartbreaking testimony of witnesses, parents who came and told the story of what happened to their sons and daughters as a result of exploitation on the internet.

I want to thank Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, for being the Republican lead on this bill, and my colleagues in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrats and Republicans alike, who voted unanimously to advance the bill out of committee earlier this year.

Let me pause for a moment and make sure you caught that word-- unanimously. Every Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrat and Republican alike, voted for this legislation to move forward. Senator Hawley, who was in the minority at the time, voted for it; now he is in the majority, he is the lead sponsor of my bill, which is entirely appropriate, and it is a bipartisan effort.

We heard the frustration of my colleague from Hawaii about the lack of bipartisanship in the Senate. This is a notable exception. I want to recognize the extraordinary survivors and advocates who fought to make this legislation possible. Your heartbreaking stories, your testimony have made the difference.

The STOP CSAM Act takes a comprehensive approach to stemming the tide of online child exploitation. Most significantly, it establishes accountability by piercing the broad immunity granted to Big Tech by something known as section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The average American would flunk this quiz if you asked them what section 230 is. The advocates that come to us to support the STOP CSAM Act know exactly what it is--it lets social media off the hook for their wrongdoing.

For too long, courts have read section 230 so broadly that it has allowed companies hosting, promoting, even profiting from CSAM to be shielded from any responsibility or accountability.

That is right. They can do the wrong thing and never pay a price because of section 230. The Stop CSAM Act changes it. It opens the courthouse doors to survivors and families. I can think of no other single thing that we can do which would be more effective.

If these social media platforms can ignore parents and ignore the exploited young people and go about their business, they will have a second thought on the subject if they face the possibility of going to court. It would allow victims to sue tech platforms and app stores that promote or aid or abet online child sexual exploitation or that host, store, or make CSAM available. It puts teeth in the law.

In addition to accountability, Stop CSAM forces transparency on Big Tech. For years, Big Tech has operated in secrecy, telling parents, policymakers, and even their own users: Just trust us. But, as whistleblowers and lawsuits have shown, that trust is misplaced.

The Stop CSAM Act requires the largest technology companies to submit annual reports describing their efforts to combat child sexual exploitation on their platforms. Is that too much to ask? I don't think so.

We have all seen the headlines. Meta's own internal research showed harm to children on Instagram and in virtual reality spaces. AI and platforms like ChatGPT, Character.AI, and OpenAI are facing lawsuits for failing to prevent harmful, even deadly, conversations with minors.

This is a serious matter. The new school year is starting. In some States, in many school districts, they have drawn the line and told the kids: You don't bring your phones to school. You are going to be students here, and you are going to talk to one another instead of texting. You are going to look at the teacher and the board and what is before you as opposed to your phone night in and night out.

The Stop CSAM act also includes critical protections for survivors of child sexual exploitation. The bill bolsters privacy protections for certain child victims and witnesses in Federal court and gives judges the tools to enforce those protections.

Altogether, these reforms hold tech companies accountable, bring transparency to their practices, strengthen law enforcement tools, and put survivors and their families at the center of our bipartisan response.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has worked together on this matter unanimously, Democrats and Republicans, to advance meaningful child safety legislation. As I said earlier, the Stop CSAM Act passed unanimously out of committee. That unanimity is no accident; it reflects a shared understanding that when it comes to protecting our kids, partisanship has no place.

We have shown that Democrats and Republicans can work together to write, strengthen, and advance legislation that takes on Big Tech and prioritizes children's safety.

To my colleagues who have not yet signed on to the bill: Welcome aboard. We need you. Join us. Become a sponsor of the Stop CSAM Act.

There are advocates from all over the United States who are on Capitol Hill today knocking on the doors of Senate offices and asking colleagues to take a moment to consider cosponsoring this bill. I salute them. That is what democracy is all about, and that is what protecting our kids is all about.

The Judiciary Committee has done its job. The families in our States are watching. Survivors are waiting. Advocates are working day and night to protect kids at home and worldwide. It is time for the Senate to act.

During the course of my career in the House and the Senate, I have taken on some issues that have dealt with the security and safety of children. Years and years ago, I took on tobacco usage by kids. When I took on that particular crusade, about 25 percent of the kids in grade school across America were using tobacco products--cigarettes and chewing tobacco and that sort of thing--25 percent. Today, that figure is below 5 percent.

It is a lot of hard work and a lot of people stepping forward and saying: You can do what you want when it comes to adults, but for God's sake, protect our kids. Isn't that what this is all about, too-- protecting our kids from the most insidious, destructive, and threatening element when it comes to their future and safety?

I encourage my colleagues, join us in this bipartisan effort. This is something we all should agree on.

I yield the floor.

I want to thank the member of the Rules Committee for organizing this floor block of speeches. He has been a valued partner of mine on the Senate Judiciary Committee for several years and has taken on his ranking member position in the Rules Committee seriously.

Leader Thune has set in motion a rules change that will fundamentally undermine the ability of the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty of advice and consent.

I hope my Republican friends--I use that term specifically--I hope my friends will pause for a moment and think of a way we might solve this problem and do it in bipartisan fashion.

Before the recess, Senate Democrats worked in good faith with Senate Republicans to negotiate a package of nominations to break the deadlock and move these nominations through the Chamber in an expedited, professional, bipartisan fashion. At the very last minute, however, President Trump blew up the negotiations. Rather than stand up to him, Senate Republicans are now willing to give away the Senate's authority when it comes to advice and consent.

Senate Republicans claim they are violating Senate rules just for this set of nominees. But I am afraid this is going to open the door to rushing through more extreme nominations whose only qualifications seem to be loyalty to the Chief.

Look no further than President Trump's nominees who have been considered by the Judiciary Committee. After President Trump fired his first FBI Director, he nominated Kash Patel. As a private citizen, Mr. Patel directed the purge of honorable career public servants at the FBI and then lied about it under oath at his confirmation hearing.

Mr. Patel auditioned for the FBI job by trying to whitewash January 6, calling the rioters who stormed the Capitol harassing and beating on the local police ``political prisoners.'' The head of the FBI, Mr. Patel, produced a choir of singers, including those who were prosecuted for wrongdoing on that day and some who violently assaulted police officers. This was considered to be cute, I guess, by some of Mr. Patel's followers. But the very same men and women who would beat on the police, Capitol Police and DC police who were protecting this building, were somehow supposed to be entertaining as a choir--only in the eyes of someone like Mr. Patel.

I warned my colleagues that confirming Mr. Patel would risk our national security and public safety. The head of the FBI used to be as apolitical a position as possible for a long tenure to take it out of politics. Mr. Patel has dived headfirst into politics where we stand today. Instead, my colleagues gave a green light to use the FBI's vast surveillance and investigative party to go after President Trump's critics. That is exactly what happened.

Is this the kind of nomination that should be debated on the floor of the U.S. Senate? I don't doubt for a moment that it should. It is a powerful position and will be misused.

What about Aaron Reitz, nominated to be Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy? In his confirmation hearing, I asked Mr. Reitz a very simple question: Can an elected official defy a Federal court order? Mr. Reitz refused to commit that an elected official must follow a court order.

He also holds extreme views, including that the Supreme Court opinion upholding marriage equality was a ``low point'' in the history of the Supreme Court and that ``'birthright citizenship' is not a thing'' despite what the Constitution says explicitly.

Senate Republicans dutifully confirmed Mr. Reitz with no questions asked, but he resigned after 3 months on the job to run for attorney general of Texas.

Senate Republicans also confirmed Jeanine Pirro as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. Ms. Pirro is a talented person. She has been an elected official, and she has done many interesting things, but she is another nominee who auditioned for the role in the administration by declaring her blind loyalty to the President on TV for over a decade.

Ms. Pirro's repeated lies to millions of viewers on FOX about the 2020 election forced FOX News to pay nearly $800 million to settle defamation claims brought by Dominion Voting Systems.

Like Mr. Patel, Ms. Pirro has claimed that January 6 rioters were ``hostages''--people who assaulted the Capitol, broke down the doors, defecated in the hallways, beat up the Capitol Police and the DC police, and ransacked our desks here on the floor of the Senate. In the eyes of Ms. Pirro, these people were hostages, and she argued that the prosecutors handling these cases themselves should be criminally prosecuted.

Like Mr. Reitz, Ms. Pirro reads the Constitution through a MAGA lens, wrongfully arguing that the administration can deport immigrants without due process.

I have been in this Chamber for a number of years. It has been my honor and responsibility to vote on many nominees as part of the advice and consent section of the Constitution.

Let me give you some facts about filling vacancies. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, we filled the vacancies--before I was chairman of the committee, we filled the vacancies for U.S. attorneys. In President Donald Trump's first term, all 93 spots were filled without a single record vote. All were done by unanimous consent--all of them.

Then what happened under the Biden administration? Unfortunately, it is something that we are still living with today, and we are seeing it manifest in this procedural action.

There was a decision made by one Senator, Senator Vance of Ohio, now our Vice President, to stop the nominations on the floor for Biden's U.S. attorneys by voice vote. He stood up and objected. He said--and quite plainly said--I want to do this to grind the Department of Justice to a halt--to grind the Department of Justice to a halt. He didn't deny that.

I came to the floor on many occasions, pleading with him to stop his effort to stop these nominations. In fact, I came to the floor on eight different occasions, asking Senator Vance and then Republican Senators: Could you give us the same courtesy under President Biden we gave you under President Trump? And the answer was: No. We are stopping any appointments of U.S. attorneys by the Biden administration at 63.

So another 30 U.S. attorneys were not determined on the floor. It was stopped. The process was stopped.

I said at the time that this was going to come back to affect this Chamber under the next President, whoever it might be, pleading with Senator Vance. He wouldn't change his position on this.

So we find ourselves where we are today--at a standoff when it comes to U.S. attorneys and other nominees because of this history.

There is a way out of this mess. There is a bipartisan solution to this. I plead with Senator Lankford of Oklahoma, who is involved in this, and with the other Republican Senators to take advantage of that opportunity to solve this problem when it comes to nominations in a bipartisan way. It is the best thing you can do not just for the Republican Party but for the Democratic Party and for both parties that serve in the U.S. Senate.

We have the right and a responsibility to ask hard questions of people who are accepting major responsibility in the Federal Government. There should never be an automatic approval. Questions should be asked, and they will be. If the questioning process is professionally done and honorably handled, we can use that to determine those rare cases where we need to have more time and an actual specific vote on a nominee. But to lump these nominees together into groups of 30, 40, and 50 and say to the Members of the Senate ``Take it or leave it'' is a dereliction of duty and an abdication of our constitutional responsibility.

There is a way to do this that is going to help this Chamber, and there is a way to do it which will be destructive. What has been proposed by the Republicans is destructive, but it can be improved, and I want to work with them in a good-faith effort to do just that.

So I thank my friend from California, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, for bringing this together and addressing an issue which goes to the heart of our responsibility in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

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

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