Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I have been honored to serve in the U.S. Senate for a number of years, and I carry with that service a great number of memories. But there is one that is particularly personal that I will never forget. The year was 2021, and the day was January 6.

The Senate Chamber was filled with Members who were witnessing a meeting required by our Constitution, where the Vice President presided over the Senate where the Presiding Officer is sitting. We gathered here and counted the electoral votes to determine who was the President as a result of the 2020 election. It is a fairly routine undertaking, but there is some solemnity to it because the Constitution requires it.

And I can recall that episode because it was a hectic day. It was the same

day that President Trump, leaving the Office because he lost that election in 2020, had called a rally down at the end of the Mall. Thousands of people showed up, and they decided to march on the Capitol at the President's urging and invitation.

It is not unusual in this town or even in this building that protesters would gather to state their purpose, as they are entitled to in a democracy. But this was different. The group that was coming up here was not protesting or gathering for speeches. They had some other intent, and we weren't sure what it was.

I can recall it was a few minutes after 2 in the afternoon on that day. Vice President Pence was sitting where the Presiding Officer is, and in the midst of the proceedings, some group--I believe now that it was the Secret Service--came in and literally physically removed Vice President Pence from where the Presiding Officer is sitting, leaving the chair empty while we were in session. It was a startling moment: What is going on here?

In a few minutes, a representative of the Capitol Police stood at the podium where the Presiding Officer is sitting and made an announcement.

Now, for those that don't know the Capitol Police, they are our security force. They are the ones that keep us safe as we do the duties of our government, and they protect everyone in the building--tourists, staff, everyone. They literally risk their lives for us.

So one of them came and stood before us in uniform and said: There is a group approaching the Capitol, and we ask you all to stay in your seats. This is going to be a safe place here in the Senate Chamber. Others will join you along the walls, and don't worry about it. We are all going to be safe in this building.

It wasn't 10 minutes later that another Capitol policeman came before us and said: Plans have changed. Everyone evacuate the Chamber as quickly as possible.

We went outside and saw through the windows the demonstrators with their signs coming toward the Capitol. Some were beating at the windows, and some were approaching the Capitol from different directions. And we were spirited off to another office building on Capitol Hill where we were protected.

That is a day you will never forget--I will never forget. I have been coming into this building since I was a college student at Georgetown, years ago. This is a special place to me. It is not my office building. It is the U.S. Capitol Building. It carries with it not only a history but a significance as a symbol.

It means something to have a mob take over the Capitol, as happened that day, pushing Members of the House and Senate to hide in broom closets and to leave the building for their own personal safety. I never dreamed that would happen in the United States of America, but I lived it. It happened, and the American people know it happened because the videos are quite graphic. They tell the story of what was going on that day.

At the end of the day, many of us were in different places, watching as C-SPAN broadcast the rioters coming into this Chamber, spiriting, going through my desk--not just mine but many others--posing for pictures in the Presiding Officer's chair. It was a scene that was sad, tragic, infuriating.

I thought to myself, at the time: What if we had just heard a notice that at the Houses of Parliament--the House of Commons in Parliament-- in London, England, the door had been beaten down and a mob had overtaken the Members of Parliament?

You wouldn't believe it. That doesn't happen. This is a civilized country. England--it couldn't happen there.

Well, it didn't. It happened here. As a result of it, the Department of Justice took those people, those violent rioters, seriously and prosecuted almost 1,600 of them of wrongdoing--some of them very serious sentences, some just trespassing. But they were all taken seriously and treated appropriately. They answered under the law for their conduct that fatal day.

So what happened when this new President came to office?

He decided: That isn't what happened at all on January 6. These tourists, these demonstrators, were assaulted by the police.

He ignored the fact that 140 law enforcement officials were injured on that day protecting this building and the people in it. He ignored the fact that three or four people died shortly thereafter because of that experience. He decided that the people who needed our sympathy were the rioters and not the police. And so the President, in one of his first acts of office--President Trump--signed the pardon of some 1,600 individuals.

I have come to the floor to report to you what has happened since, in the few weeks that have passed since that mass pardon by President Trump.

I want to tell you the story, today, of several of the people who were involved in January 6 and pardoned by President Trump. Last week, body camera video was released depicting a traffic-related felony arrest during which a sheriff's deputy fatally shot former January 6 defendant Matthew Huttle--not the first to be shot by a policeman after he was pardoned by President Trump.

The video footage confirmed that there was a struggle during the incident, during which Huttle, a January 6 defendant, raised an object that the sheriff's deputy believed to be a firearm. At the beginning of the traffic stop, Huttle can be seen on video stating:

I just want to let you know that I am a January 6

defendant.

I stormed the Capitol. I'm waiting on my pardon.

Investigators later recovered a loaded 9mm handgun and ammunition in Huttle's vehicle. Huttle was among the 1,600 individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol riot pardoned by President Trump. Huttle had pleaded guilty to one count of entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds for his role in the insurrection. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison.

Peter Schwartz was sentenced to 14 years in prison on charges that included four counts of assaulting police officers during the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Schwartz was seen on body camera footage spraying officers with pepper spray and wielding a baton, and prosecutors allege he threw the first chair at officers, creating an opening that enabled hundreds of rioters to push back the police lines.

Prior to January 6, Schwartz had amassed criminal convictions in more than four different States for crimes including domestic violence, threatening his girlfriend, and assaulting security officers. One of Schwartz's former girlfriends, Shantelle Holeton, a 43-year-old factory worker who has voted for President Trump three times, she says, recently told CBS News that she fears for her safety now that Schwartz has been pardoned and released. Holeton reports that Schwartz persistently beat her during their months-long relationship until she called the police in July of 2019, alleging that Schwartz was threatening to kill her and her son.

In reacting to Schwartz's involvement in the insurrection, Holeton stated:

He found an opportunity to go and be violent. The man

thrives on violence. He thrives on people fearing him.

Another of Schwartz's girlfriends, Shelly Stallings, filed a police report in 2020 alleging that Schwartz bit her forehead and punched her in the head.

Schwartz was one of those who was pardoned by President Trump.

Jeremy Brown, one of the last January 6 defendants remaining behind bars since President Trump's blanket pardon, was released from the Federal correctional institution in Atlanta on Wednesday. Brown had not yet been released because prosecutors did not consider one of his two criminal cases to be related to January 6 and thus covered by the pardon.

However, the Justice Department has since reversed course. In April of 2023, Brown was convicted in Tampa, FL, of possessing a short-barrel rifle, a shotgun, and explosive grenades--explosive grenades--and willful retention of a national defense document, all resulting from a January 6-related law enforcement search of his residence in September of 2021. He was sentenced to 87 months in prison for those charges and released by the pardon of President Trump.

This is a horrible situation, and sadly, tragically, these are people who never should have been pardoned by the President. They attacked the police here in this building. They desecrated this Capitol. They were not the

victims. They victimized innocent people who were doing their jobs under the Constitution.

Mr. President, instead of improving lives or lowering prices for Americans, we are seeing policies in the Trump administration do exactly the opposite.

The President has spent his time trying to systemically dismantle the Federal Government, creating riffs with our closest allies and now imposing restrictive tariffs on our biggest trading partners. The tariffs that he has unleashed--25 percent on Canada and Mexico as well as an additional 10 percent on China--will hurt American consumers and supply chains and undermine American manufacturing.

Illinois is the fourth largest exporter in the Nation. In 2023, our exports to Canada totaled more than $21 billion--billion. These tariffs will hurt Illinois farmers, workers, and manufacturers, not to mention consumers. Additional tariffs on our three biggest trading partners will add to the economic strain that is already beginning to show under the new administration.

A survey of consumer sentiment published last month recorded this largest month of decline in 4 years due, in large part, to concerns about trade and tariffs. Tariffs are taxes. They are taxes the consumers of America will have to pay. These levels of concern have not been seen since the trade wars in President Trump's first term.

As Americans already struggle under the weight of high housing costs, these tariffs will make things worse. Much of the lumber used to build new homes in the United States comes from Canada, and more than 70 percent of the imports of two essential materials that homebuilders rely on, softwood lumber and gypsum, come from Canada and Mexico. With a 25-percent tariff on imported goods from those two countries, American homebuilders will need to pay more and so will the consumers.

While the President claims that foreign countries will pay for U.S. tariffs, that isn't the truth, and we know what the truth is: The burden of tariffs is carried by American companies and passed on to American consumers.

Indiscriminately slapping tariffs on the goods American consumers need means higher costs, higher costs on groceries, gas, cars, while inspiring retaliatory tariffs and even boycotts on American-made products, further hurting our economy.

I understand we are probably having a rollcall. I see a number of Members coming to the floor.

But President Trump's economic chaos isn't just happening overseas. You see, right now, Congress is in the midst of doing its most basic and essential job: Funding the government. But under the direction of President Trump, instead of coming to the negotiating table to pass a serious, full-year spending bill that serves the interests of everyday Americans, Congressional Republicans are bargaining away the well-being of working families to pay for tax breaks for billionaires.

And what is the most egregious example of this? Their plan to slash health coverage for millions of Americans who rely on Medicaid.

House Republicans have proposed $880 billion in cuts to the Medicaid program, and Senate Republicans have similarly put this health program in the crosshairs. Why? Not because they want to lower health care costs or improve our health care system, but because they want to use Medicaid cuts as a piggy-bank for tax breaks to billionaires.

The richest man in the world, Elon Musk, can dance around on stage with a chainsaw, cheering cuts to basic health care programs, but let me explain to you what that means for working families. Medicaid covers 30 million children--nearly half of all children in America--60 percent of seniors in nursing homes, and is the largest funder of addiction and mental health treatment.

In Illinois, 3.4 million people are enrolled in Medicaid, including 1.5 million children. Under Republican plans to slash Medicaid, 775,000 adults who gained health insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act could lose coverage almost overnight. And for other children, elderly, or disabled Illinoisans who depend on it, they may no longer be able to access lifesaving medical treatment.

Republicans are ignoring the obvious: Medicaid is a lifeline for children's hospitals and rural hospitals in their communities. In Illinois, 60 percent of our 102 counties are rural. Rural hospitals are the backbone of communities in central and southern Illinois. Rural hospitals anchor the local economy--they often are the largest employer in town. And they are a critical access point for health care. If you suffer a farm accident or face a complication with your birth, you cannot afford to drive hours to the nearest hospital.

That's why I have worked for years to improve access to health care in rural areas--working to strengthen rural hospitals and recruit more doctors, dentists, and nurses. But rural hospitals in Illinois and nationwide could be at risk of closure if Republicans put Medicaid on the chopping block. Already, half of rural hospitals in America operate in the red. And for many rural hospitals, Medicaid covers a large percentage of their patients and accounts for a large portion of the hospital's budget.

For HSHS St. Francis Hospital in Litchfield, IL, Medicaid pays for 53 percent of the hospitalizations. For OSF St. Clare Hospital in Princeton, IL, Medicaid pays for 45 percent of hospitalizations. It is 42 percent for SSM St. Mary's Hospital in Centralia, IL.

Do you see the picture? Cuts to Medicaid put rural hospitals in jeopardy. And if rural hospitals close because of Republican budget cuts, communities will suffer. Children seeking cancer treatment won't be able to access the local care they need. Pregnant women will have to drive further to deliver their babies. And your grandparent will have to wait months to get in to see that diabetes specialist.

If Republicans push forward with their cruel and unpopular funding plan, working families will lose and billionaires will win. It is simple and devastating math. If Americans cannot access health care because funding was slashed to fund tax cuts for the wealthy, if they cannot afford groceries because of an ill-conceived trade war, know that it is because President Trump is the billionaire's president.

I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin) 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.

Madam President, I want to thank my colleague from Hawaii. If he can spare 30 seconds, I would like to tell him a story.

Years ago, I went to India to the dusty villages--not the big cities--just to see what USAID was doing. I heard about it. I wanted to see it. The most graphic example I can remember from that experience was when they showed me a bag of some grain supplement, and on it was written ``USAID from the people of the United States of America.'' What they were doing with this was making a lunch for the children in the village. I don't think your kids or mine would have touched it. It looked like some odd rice crispy ball that was held together with water. They sat with little tin plates with this rice crispy ball on it from the USAID package to eat their lunch. But before they ate their lunch, they paused. I said, ``What is going on?'' The guide said to me: They are saying a prayer of thanks to this United States of America for giving them food to eat.

I thought to myself, for goodness' sake, it is 1 percent of our Federal budget--1 percent--that we spend in this manner to try to give kids around the world a chance to survive. There are many other things we do, but that basic example with those kids sitting in the dust of that village eating that rice crispy ball and thanking the United States of America for it touched my heart and still does to this day. Thanks for what you said. I appreciate it so much.

Madam President, I want to say a word about what we are going to vote on today, an issue that is going to come before us.

I might ask my colleagues if they could answer the following question: How many athletes, NCAA athletes, are there in the United States? I asked Mr. Baker, the former Governor of Massachusetts, that question. He said over 500,000--500,000. I said: Of all those athletes, what percentage are transgender?

Oh, fewer than 10.

I said: Fewer than 10 percent?

No, fewer than 10 total out of 500,000 are transgender.

Yet we are going to come to the floor with a proposal from Senator Tuberville to vote on this issue. He is going to attempt to bring to this floor a bill that targets trans youth.

This bill would revoke Federal funding from schools with athletic programs that allow trans girls to participate on sports teams for women or girls. The bill, which has no enforcement mechanism, could subject women and girls to physical inspection by an adult if someone from an opposing team accused them of being transgender.

Think about that for a second. Your daughter, someone in your family is going to play a sport, and someone on the other team challenges them: That is not a little girl; that is a transgender boy.

This bill we are about to vote on gives authority to someone to make a physical inspection of that little girl if someone from the opposing team accuses them of being transgender.

Does that sound a little extreme to you? Well, it sure does to me too. This infringes on the privacy of girls and women as a dangerous use of the powers of government to target children and their families.

Put yourself in the shoes of these families for just a moment. Imagine being the parent of a trans kid and telling your child they are not even allowed to play on the same sports team

as their friends at school because a politician said they couldn't.

Coincidentally, I had a hearing on this subject in 2023. A teenager named Harleigh Walker, a 16-year-old transgender girl from the State of Alabama, spoke with an unwavering voice in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee about what it was like to be one of the children affected by these anti-transgender laws. Harleigh Walker, from the home State of Alabama, had enacted a law threatening her ability to access the care she needs to be happy and healthy. Harley told the committee:

I want all of you to look at me, here and now, and hear my

words. I am a very happy 16-year-old. I have wonderful

friends who accept me . . . for who I am. I'm active in my

school's debate team and other extracurricular[s] . . . I'm

just trying to be a teenager in America. Same as any other

teen, but I keep having to jump through hoops that other

people my age don't have to . . . I'm here in front of this

Committee instead of enjoying summer vacation, just to try

and ensure my right to exist isn't taken away.

It is that personal. It is that important, and we are going to vote here to give someone unspecified the right to physically inspect a girl or a young woman if the other opposing team accuses them of being transgender. My goodness. Is this what we are all about here in the U.S. Senate?

Madam President, on a separate topic, tomorrow night, Members of Congress and their guests will gather on the floor of the House to hear the President on the status of our Nation. This annual address traces its roots back to the Founding Fathers, but I doubt they would recognize their beloved country today.

With President Trump and Elon Musk acting unrestrained, we are barreling down a dangerous path to a constitutional crisis. In the Judiciary Committee, which you serve on, we had three witnesses last week--nominees to serve in important positions in the Department of Justice. The question that was asked to them was very basic: Would you advise a public official in the United States of America to follow a court order? Just that simple, to follow a court order. They hemmed and they hawed and they said: Generally so; generally this.

The most lucid statement was made by a Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, who said the answer is, yes, you either follow a court order, or you resign your office; it is that basic.

But if you listened to those three witnesses, there is a serious question whether that would happen. It is a question whether there is any check or balance on the executive branch if they will not live by the findings of the court. That troubles me. It continues to trouble me. It is at the heart of our concern about the future of our Constitution.

Madam President, I am going to have a guest at the State of the Union tomorrow night, Dr. Elizabeth Sokol from Lurie Children's Hospital in Chicago. I know that hospital well. My daughter was treated there for years. I think it is one of the best on God's green Earth.

For more than a decade, Dr. Sokol has been a pediatric oncologist at Lurie Children's in Chicago. She treats young children with neuroblastoma, the leading cause of cancer death for children age 1 to 5. Dr. Sokol's work, which includes conducting clinical trials on neuroblastoma brain cancer research, is funded by the National Institutes of Health. The NIH is, quite simply, the premier medical research Agency in the world. It provides over $38 billion in research funding to all 50 States, including yours and mine, studying everything from pediatric cancer to dementia, Alzheimer's, ALS, diabetes care, heart disease. Breakthrough research supported by the NIH has made a difference.

You know all those ads you see on television about those drugs you can hardly pronounce their names or remember--people skipping through fields of flowers, feeling better because they take the drugs--99 percent of all the new drugs in the United States, all of them--99 percent started in research at the National Institutes of Health. If they are good and they are important, you can credit taxpayers for creating an Agency that does the research. That breakthrough research has made the difference in the lives of thousands of people. Yet this is one of the Agencies--the National Institutes of Health--that President Trump is dismantling through a series of abrupt and illegal, devastating funding cuts, gag orders, and mass firings.

As a result of President Trump's actions, Dr. Sokol's work on neuroblastoma in kids--brain cancer in kids--and the lives of the kids who depend on it is in serious danger. Rather than empty rhetoric, Dr. Sokol actually does the work to make America great in offering families hope. You don't think that these families think it is great if she can find something to cure their child? Donald Trump and Elon Musk are trying to stop her. That sounds like a rash political statement, but it is true.

At the same time, Dr. Sokol's hospital, Lurie Children's, is staring down massive cuts to Medicaid for the lifesaving treatment of critically ill children. Medicaid is the lifeline for Children's Hospital. If we go through with the planned budget we hear from the House, the cutbacks of 14.5 percent in Medicaid funding will dramatically hit American hospitals. Rural hospitals will close. Children's hospitals will close. Programs will be shut down. Medicaid is their lifeline. It covers nearly half the kids in this country. If you slash Medicaid funding from Lurie Children's in Chicago, Cincinnati Children's in Ohio, and the Children's Hospital in Pennsylvania, you are harming lifesaving treatment for kids with cancer and other serious conditions.

For as long as I can stand to speak, I will be standing and speaking in support of NIH funding and the work of people like Dr. Sokol. She will be my guest tomorrow night because I want my colleagues, when we sit down together for a light dinner before the Address, to meet this NIH researcher and hear from her firsthand what the cuts of Elon Musk and Donald Trump are doing to children's research in America. Surely, we are better than that.

I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch) 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, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.