Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters)

and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) are necessarily absent.

Madam President, this past Saturday, the President of the United States of America posted a shocking, grotesque message on social media. Accompanied by an AI-generated image of military helicopters flying over a burning Chicago skyline with explosions in the background, the President of the United States posted that he ``loves the smell of deportations in the morning.''

And he went on to say that Chicago is ``about to find out why it is called the Department of War.''

Let me remind you that this outrageous vision of an American city that I love under attack from Trump's Department of War comes from a man who aspires to be awarded the Noble Peace Prize.

President Trump attempted to walk back his comments yesterday. But let's be clear, the President of the United States essentially declared war on an American city, a city I am honored to

represent. He may think it is a joke. To me, it is no joke. It is an unprecedented and dangerous threat by a President against the American people.

What is the limit to his power, and where is the line to be drawn if a President is able to go to war against a city he also represents? I cannot imagine. But even if we put this aside for a moment, let's consider the justifications President Trump is using for his threat of a beefed-up immigration raid and deployment of the National Guard in the city of Chicago.

He claims these extraordinary steps are aimed at reducing crime and getting violent criminals off the streets.

Mr. President, you want to reduce crime in Chicago and across this country? Count me in. Let me give you a few ideas of things you can do as President of the United States which can make a serious difference.

No 1., when we take a look at the guns used in crime in the city of Chicago, guess what we find. A large percentage of them come from the neighboring State of Indiana, with lax laws when it comes to background checks on purchases of firearms.

If we get a little tougher and we have actual background checks, we are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

That is something you can do, Mr. President. You can show some leadership.

When it comes to fentanyl and narcotics, guess what we find. Seventy percent of the crime guns in Mexico are coming in there from the United States. Our gun dealers are selling guns to the cartels in Mexico, which are using them to gun down police and military in Mexico. What an outrage.

Why don't we do something about that, Mr. President? It might actually reduce crime.

Count me in on reducing crime, but deporting people who are innocent who have no criminal background whatsoever is not the answer.

We can all agree we should be working together to reduce violent crime, but in this case, we know it is just a front when it comes to the Trump administration.

I have learned in the years that I have been involved in politics that when it comes to issues, there is always a good reason and a real reason. So what is the real reason that Donald Trump wants to send National Guardsmen into the city of Chicago?

He is targeting Chicago for political theater. He finds objections to crime in communities that are governed by Democrats but not Republicans. He is attacking Democratic officials so he can distract from the failures of his own policies and scandals plaguing his own administration. He wants his pleas to forget the so-called Big Beautiful Bill--remember that one, Trump's budget bill? It is going to take healthcare protection away from 17 million Americans, and it is going make it difficult for rural hospitals in my State of Illinois to survive.

Why would any President want to take health insurance protection away from 17 million individuals? Why would they want to jeopardize the hospitals that are so critical for survival in rural America? Well, the reason is obvious.

The President has decided that he wants to take the revenue from cutting back on healthcare and provide for tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. Instead of listening to the communities and the families whom I represent, he is listening to the fat cats and providing tax breaks for billionaires.

What do you think it means in tax breaks for average people? Let's assume you are on the low end of income earning, $35,000 a year. How much is the Trump tax break for you? It turns out to be $3 a week--$3 a week.

What if you happen to be Elon Musk, a billionaire with unestablished limits of money that he has raised? We don't know how much it is worth. But how much is the tax break going to be worth, the Trump tax break, for Elon Musk? It is going to be worth $30,000 a week; $3 for the families struggling, $30,000 for Elon Musk.

For what? I don't know why.

When it comes to the subject of these raids, National Guard and other units of government, there has been a lot of speculation about what the President is actually going to do in his so-called Operation Midway Blitz.

So here on the Senate floor, let me set the record straight as to what I know, where it stands.

Earlier today, the administration announced what they are calling Operation Midway Blitz in Chicago to crack down on undocumented immigrants with criminal records. However, if their DC experience is any indication, we know most of the people that they will arrest have no criminal background. They are not rapists, terrorists, murderers, or criminally insane.

So this weekend I traveled to the Naval Station Great Lakes with Senator Tammy Duckworth and Representative Brad Schneider. There were reports that DHS intends to use the Navy base to assist in these raids. There were concerns that the Federal Government would operate a sort of deportation ``command center'' out of the base.

At a productive meeting with leadership on the base, we were ensured the base would not be used as a detention center for detainees.

Here is what happened as part of that Federal assistance request. The base will provide parking, office space, and the ability to store certain nonlethal munitions for the DHS through October 5. Most importantly, the servicemembers at Naval Station Great Lakes will not be aiding in these raids.

Naval Station Great Lakes is known to every Navy family. Every recruit to the Navy goes through training at the Great Lakes. Each Thursday, there is a celebration of the completion of their 9 weeks of training, and families come from all over the United States to celebrate their son or daughter who is becoming part of the greatest Navy in the world. That is what they do and do so well and have for decades.

Most importantly, the servicemembers of Naval Station Great Lakes will not see recruitment and training of these young sailors suffer any blow because of the Trump-crazed idea of invading the city of Chicago.

I have been honored to represent Great Lakes as the Senator from the State of Illinois and to provide it with the support and resources needed to train the recruits who walk through those doors.

My concern is to make sure that no exercise of political theater by the current President was an obstacle to the mission at this base. That appears to be the case, but I am going to continue to closely monitor the situation.

However, as part of our visit to the base, we asked to meet with the Department of Homeland Security, which is going to rent an office building for 30 days. We wanted to get firsthand from them what was going to happen in that operation; the expenditure of Federal funds for its purposes, which we were going to ask them to explain.

Do you know what the response was of the Trump Department of Homeland Security when we went to the actual naval base, to the office building which they have rented and are supposedly using as part of this invasion of Chicago? They closed the building. They locked it so we couldn't go inside and announced they were taking administrative leave and would be unavailable to even discuss with us what they are going to do.

Why are they running and hiding if they are proud of the President's policy? if they actually believe that they are there to fight crime? I think they know better. They know the politics of this situation. They locked the doors, and they refused to make anyone available to two Senators and a Congressman representing that area. They fled so we cannot conduct oversight of their secretive effort, which certainly begs the question: What are they trying to hide?

We now have a better understanding of exactly what they want to do. It is all politics.

In addition to our visit to Naval Station Great Lakes, I have been seeking answers to the potential military deployment because the people of Chicago and I do have a right to know. That is why I use all the tools at my disposal to get to the bottom of this despite roadblocks by the administration.

Last week, I sent a letter to Attorney General Bondi, Secretaries Noem and Hegseth, and FBI Director Patel requesting immediate information regarding the increased law enforcement and potential military presence in Chicago. I sent a letter to my colleague and friend on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Grassley, requesting an immediate hearing on

President Trump's threats to deploy the military to Chicago and other American cities.

If this President and this administration want to join in fighting crime on a cooperative, bipartisan basis, count me in, but political theater, visions of Chicago being blown up by a Department of War--I want no part of it.

As this situation unfolds, my office remains in constant contact and coordination with State and local officials, community leaders, and my colleagues in Congress. I will continue to provide updates to Illinois as we learn more.

These are scary times. The President is using fear to deflect and drive a wedge among us. Unfortunately, he seems to be succeeding to some extent, but the people of Chicago won't take kindly to a bully and a wannabe dictator.

On Saturday evening, thousands of marchers peacefully passed by Trump Tower and filled the streets of Chicago to make their voices heard. They were clear in their call: Mr. President, do not send the military here for political purposes.

I was happy to join in the parade in the Pilsen neighborhood of Chicago to celebrate Mexican Independence Day.

These are good people, good families, hard-working, churchgoing, doing their best in a tough economy to survive. They are not a threat to anyone's safety, and they are certainly not the cause of crime in Chicago.

At that celebration, there was an attendee by the name of Liliana. She felt it was important to come out on behalf of many who were scared to leave their homes. Standing out on the sidewalk, she said:

We're here. We're not going away. No matter what

generation, no matter what threat, no matter what President

is in office--we're not going away.

Thank you, Liliana.

She is right. In the face of threats and intimidation, our immigrant community in Chicago as a whole will stand firm and stand tall.

Let us join together as a nation to fight crime and to fight the gun epidemic that is part of violent crime, but arresting and deporting innocent families is not the way to fight crime.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today the Senate will vote to confirm Edward L. Artau to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

I will vote in opposition to Judge Artau's confirmation to a lifetime appointment on the Federal bench. There are several reasons why I cannot support his nomination. Based on Judge Artau's record, I do not believe that he will be a neutral arbiter on the Federal bench. In a case involving President Trump's lawsuit against the individual members of the Pulitzer Prize Board for defamation and conspiracy, Judge Artau went beyond ruling on the jurisdictional question at issue. In Judge Artau's concurring opinion, he took it upon himself to zealously make the President's case, opening and closing his opinion echoing the President's own words, ``FAKE NEWS.''

The partisan tone of Judge Artau's writing and his zealous advocacy of President Trump's case from the bench leaves the public with no question about his political preferences and raises concerns about his ability to be a neutral arbiter of the law. At a time when this administration's actions are being challenged in courtrooms across the country, it is critical to confirm judges who can assess the merits of each case without favor to any litigant. Judge Artau's concurring opinion makes clear that he would not be able to do this.

I am also troubled by the timing of his nomination and this highly partisan opinion. Judge Artau had been in contact with Senator Scott's office about his interest in filling a judicial vacancy in November 2024, a month before he was assigned to this case.

Despite actively seeking President Trump's nomination, Judge Artau claimed that he did not need to recuse himself or inform the parties in the litigation.

Two days after Judge Artau proved his allegiance to President Trump with his opinion, Judge Artau was advised his name would be recommended to the White House. Eight days after the opinion was issued, Judge Artau was contacted by the White House for an interview.

It is hard to believe that the hyperpartisan tone of Judge Artau's opinion and the timing of his nomination is just a coincidence.

I cannot support Judge Artau's nomination and urge my colleagues to reject this overt attempt to install another MAGA loyalist to the bench.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.

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

Mr. President, people of good will can see things differently, and I certainly respect my colleague from Wyoming. He is a friend and has been for many years. But I certainly disagree with his analysis of the big beautiful Trump budget bill.

The day before yesterday, I had a visit in my office here in Washington from the head of the largest dental insurance company in the United States. Some of us are fortunate to have dental insurance. We know that it doesn't cover the complete cost of dental care, but it is helpful, and many of us feel fortunate to be in that position.

As a result of the big beautiful Trump budget bill, which was just described by the Senator from Wyoming, 4 million Americans are going to lose their dental insurance because of that bill. Why? Because that bill, unfortunately, cut $900 billion--$900 billion--from Medicaid. It means that premiums under dental insurance are likely to go up over 90 percent, and 4 million Americans will lose their dental insurance.

Is that something that we bargained for? Was that part of the deal that is being described as successful in helping American families?

Meanwhile, up to 17 million Americans are going to lose their health insurance. Has the Presiding Officer ever been in a position where you had no health insurance and a serious medical problem in your family? I have. I will never forget it as long as I live. It is a terrible feeling to feel that you just can't ask for the very best medical care because you don't have health insurance.

Up to 17 million Americans will lose their health insurance because of the big beautiful Trump budget bill, which was passed exclusively with Republican votes. And as far as local hospitals, I invite my colleague from Wyoming to come listen to the leaders and administrators of rural hospitals in Illinois. They do not sing the same song that he just did on the floor. They are worried that many of them cannot survive these cuts in Medicaid.

Medicaid is a critical program not only for hospitals and clinics but also for nursing homes. I have nursing home organizers and executives who have contacted me and have said they don't know if they can keep their doors open.

If you have found a good, safe, trusted place for your mother, grandmother, or someone in your family and now run the risk of a facility being closed or the help that is necessary to keep your loved one in a nursing home disappears, you wonder to yourselves: What is next? Where are we going to send Mother or our grandmother or someone in our family? That is the reality of what we are facing with the cuts in the Big Beautiful Bill.

So why--why--would the Republicans, going into an election cycle, want to have 17 million Americans lose their health insurance; 4 million lose their dental insurance; rural hospitals, many of them, facing closure; clinics unable to stay open in rural areas and downstate areas; and to have nursing homes close as well? Why would they be for such a thing? Because they had an overriding determination to make sure that tax breaks were extended for the wealthiest people in America. That was what is behind all of it. Why did they want to cut $900 billion from Medicaid? So they could give it in tax breaks primarily to wealthy people.

Now, they dispute it when we say that they go primarily to wealthy people. Let me give you an example. A family making $35,000 a year, barely getting by, how much of a tax break do they get out of the big beautiful Trump budget bill? The equivalent of $3 a week--$3 a week. Now, wait a minute. How about those folks with big money, the Elon Musk category of individuals who are very wealthy? If the little guy gets $3 a week, how much do these folks get a week? Six thousand dollars a week in tax breaks for the wealthiest people in America--$6,000 a week. Does Elon Musk need that additional $6,000 a week? What is he going to do with it? How is his life going to be improved?

I will tell you this: For the people who are struggling paycheck to paycheck trying to pay the bills, this tax break means little or nothing to them. But for the wealthiest people in America, it means more money piled on at the expense of folks losing their health insurance.

That was the choice we were given. Yes, every Democrat voted against it. I was one of them. All the Republicans voted for it, and now they have to try to explain it.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch) is 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.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I rise today to explain where we are but with a positive note in my message.

Let me start by saying my friendship and respect for the Senator from Iowa should be a matter of record, and I think we share the same feelings for one another. We have had the distinction and honor of serving together for many years, and there are reform packages that have passed with our joint effort that I am very proud of as part of my legislative career.

This particular issue sounds like a boring housekeeping issue, but it is much more than that.

Every President has the right to nominate people to serve as U.S. attorneys across the United States. These U.S. attorneys represent that President's Department of Justice and make critical prosecutorial decisions to keep their people safe and to execute the laws of the land.

There are some 90 different U.S. attorneys. To say that it has become routine in the past is an understatement.

Under President Trump's first term in office, those 4 years, the Senate confirmed U.S. attorneys for President Trump in his first term-- all 85 by voice vote, unanimous consent--all 85 U.S. attorneys.

Then things changed. President Trump stepped aside and was defeated in the election and replaced by President Joseph Biden. Early in the Biden administration, several Republican Senators began an unprecedented campaign of obstruction.

In April 2021, the junior Senator from Arkansas announced that he would block nominees from any State represented by Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. I was chairman of the committee at the time, and it meant that some dozen Democrats could not have U.S. attorneys approved on the floor of the Senate because one Republican junior Senator said: I will block them all. I will block them all, he said.

That Senator finally lifted his hold in December of 2021, but in February of 2022, he again blocked all U.S. attorney nominees for months. Talk about obstruction--we were living with it.

In June of 2023, the junior Senator from the State of Ohio, a Republican, announced that he would place a blanket hold on ``all Department of Justice nominees,'' including U.S. attorneys, to ``grind [the Justice Department] to a halt''--he said that, ``grind the [Justice Department] to a halt''--under President Biden.

On eight separate occasions, I came to the floor in 2023 and 2024 asking for consent to confirm the pending nominees for U.S. attorney. Each time, my efforts were blocked by that junior Senator from Ohio and several Senators who are on the floor today. They stopped me. It was obstruction in the classic sense.

Due to this Republican obstruction, President Biden was only able to fill 68 of the 93 U.S. attorney positions with Senate-confirmed nominees. So that junior Senator from Ohio stopped the process--stopped the process.

I appreciate that Senator Grassley said today and said at the time that he did not agree with the strategy and that he would not try to defend it today, and he didn't, but we can't have one set of rules when we have a Republican President and another set of rules when there is a Democrat President.

We also now face the Trump administration making an end run around the Senate's advice and consent duty. In several blue States, the Trump administration has taken on an illegal and unprecedented approach to filling U.S. attorney vacancies with extreme and unqualified nominees while making no attempt to consult with Democratic Senators.

I said earlier in a Judiciary Committee meeting that although I disagreed with President Trump in his first term and second term, I was able to work with the White House and filled every vacancy in Illinois. We compromised. I accepted some nominees that would not have been my choice; they accepted some nominees from me that wouldn't have been their choice. It was the nature of political compromise, and it worked.

Any path forward cannot result in Republican Senators having their U.S. attorneys nominated and confirmed and Democratic Senators having outrageous picks installed in their States in legally dubious ways.

I look forward to working with the Senator from Iowa, who is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on a fair and bipartisan solution to a problem that was created by both parties but most recently by the Senate Republicans and has been made worse by the Trump administration.

I want to close in saying, before I object, I am not giving up the conversation--meaningful conversation--that is underway. I am hopeful we can find a bipartisan approach that serves the

needs of the Nation when it comes to justice but also respects the integrity of the U.S. Senate.

I object.

Mr. President, over the August recess, I traveled across Illinois and found out what folks were thinking. There was one answer I heard more than any other; it was a concern about the healthcare cuts contained in the so-called Big Beautiful Bill. You remember that was the Trump budget that passed the Senate here with a party-line vote.

Their concerns, I think, are justified. This bill will cut Medicaid by $1 trillion over the next 10 years. It will cause up to 17 million people to lose their healthcare.

I just learned this afternoon that premiums paid for dental insurance are likely to go up as much as 90 percent because of the big beautiful Trump budget bill--90 percent. It is likely that 4 million Americans will lose dental insurance on top of the health insurance losses I just mentioned.

This means millions of Americans will no longer be able to afford prescriptions, hospital visits, surgeries. It is going to take its toll on America's population, and it won't just be the uninsured who are affected. I have heard from hospitals across my State that these healthcare cuts will force them to close.

Republicans tried to use the August recess to convince Americans that these cuts are worth it because they will see big tax breaks and economic growth, but they are wrong. Working families making less than $35,000 a year will see a tax break of $150 a year--$3 a week. Most of the tax breaks will go to billionaires making much more money, like Elon Musk who could see tax breaks of more than $300,000--$6,000 in tax cuts a week. And $3 a week for working families at the low end; $6,000 a week for the richest people in Illinois and the Nation.

Republicans claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility. And over the next decade, this big beautiful Trump budget law will add a whopping $3.4 trillion to the national debt. This President is going to take the prize again. In his first term in office, in 4 years, he added more debt to the U.S. Treasury than any President in history. Now he is going to break his own record.

That means that while corporations and the ultrawealthy receive giveaways, working families will see higher inflation and prices due to this foolish trade war the President has initiated. Combined with healthcare cuts, working-class families are going to be the losers.

You know what I think? Instead of playing golf one day, the President should spend a day with real families in America. Most families now are preparing for the school year to start. Last month, students across Illinois returned to the classroom for the start of the school year. New school year comes with a new list of school supplies--backpacks, binders, notebooks, pens, pencils, tech, and more. For working families, especially those with several children, and for the teachers who go above and beyond by dipping into their own pockets to help the kids, that tab can add up quickly.

But thanks to Donald Trump's numerous trade wars, families and teachers are actually feeling the squeeze in households across America. That is because prices on school supplies have risen under Donald Trump by more than 12 percent, $73 million compared to last year.

Donald Trump campaigned on lowering costs on day one. Remember when he said that over and over again? And he promised his tariffs would somehow liberate American taxpayers. In reality, his misguided tariff wars left fear, uncertainty, and higher prices for American consumers.

You wonder how he comes up with these numbers for tariffs. It sounds like it is a free association every morning: Should it be 25? Maybe 50. Let's try 40. No, let's do 35.

This uncertainty is leading to chaos across the world. It is not just school supplies; costs are up across the board on nearly all everyday products. I will show you. I go to my local supermarket in Springfield to make sure that I am in touch with what real prices are for at least a number of food items. Fresh vegetables are up more than 16 percent since June. Coffee is up nearly 30 percent. A carton of eggs is more expensive than it was last year. That is not all. The cost to repair your car, heat or cool your home, pay for formula, diapers, clothes for your kids--all up thanks to this President's policies.

American businesses Trump claims to be helping cannot plan because of the chaotic tariffs and their jarring impact on supply chains.

President Trump's reckless tariffs--the highest rates in nearly a century--are projected to cost American families thousands of dollars. These tariffs are sales taxes that consumers across America have to pay. That is not liberation; that is a tax increase on every American family, and that is the President's plan.

But the impact of these tariffs stretches beyond prices. It is also hitting American manufacturing. The uncertainty of Trump's tariffs has frozen the job market, driving investment away from U.S. factories and workers. Under this administration, the United States is set to lose another $500 billion by 2029 in manufacturing investment. Remember, these tariffs were supposed to create new manufacturing. We are still waiting. That hurts longtime manufacturing powerhouses like the cities of Peoria, Decatur, and Rockford that I represent. They rely on good- paying manufacturing jobs to foster local business groups, support families, and drive innovation.

Now, some targeted tariffs in areas where there is unfair foreign competition can be warranted, but that is not what is happening. What we have is chaos. Everyone knows the sloppy approach by this administration is bad for the American people and yet another example of Executive overreach by the President, which is why the courts have ruled these tariffs are illegal. But instead of respecting the courts, President Trump has doubled down.

On a Truth Social post, he said:

Without Tariffs . . . our Country would be completely

destroyed, and our military power would be instantly

obliterated.

That quote is from the President. The problem is, these tariffs, as we have shown, are already destroying the economy.

On the issue of military readiness and foreign policy, imagine what happened this week. The leaders of China, Russia, India, and North Korea all decided to have a summit meeting in China to announce some new arrangement where they were going to work together. Donald Trump has brought our adversaries together in a way I never dreamed was possible.

Trump's tariffs are reshaping the global order in a dangerous and unprecedented way. Just last week, Vladimir Putin of Russia and President Xi of China--our biggest adversaries--were seen smiling with Prime Minister Modi during this trilateral meeting. President Trump's tariff policies pushed India away from us and toward our rivals. Tariffs were ``supposed'' to strengthen our hand; instead, they are weakening our position around the globe. These tariffs mean higher prices, less opportunity, and a weaker standing abroad.

It is time to put American families and workers first and reverse course on this failed policy.

I yield the floor.