Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

Mr. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. 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.

Mr. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it has been my honor and one of the highlights of my Senate career to watch the restoration of democracy in the Baltic States: Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. I have said on the floor many times with real pride, my mother was born in Lithuania, and she was an immigrant to this country at the age of 2. And she never made it back to her home country where she was born, but I did, even to the town where she was baptized and raised before she came to the United States. It has been quite a journey. In 1978 or 1979, I visited what was then the Soviet Socialist Republic of Lithuania. I am still struck by the images which were so common there: the gray Soviet approach to things both physical and otherwise and the belief that these poor people were under the subjugation of Moscow at a time when they deserved independence. And then to have served in the House of Representatives and, again, in the Senate and to watch the evolution of Lithuania as well as Latvia and Estonia as democratic countries and the amazing development where they became part of NATO and part of the European Union and became Western-viewing nations and equal partners with other countries in Europe when it came to security and democracy--it is remarkable. And yet I am not naive, I know these are smaller countries, and they will be easily overwhelmed by Russia if that were the Russian ambition. So I have tried over the years to maintain the strong relationship between the Baltic States and NATO and also the strong relationship with the United States and these three Baltic nations. One of the things I worked on for a number of years is known as the Baltic Security Initiative. It is an investment by the United States of several million dollars in the training of troops in the Baltic States so that they are prepared if they are brought into enemy conflict. It is a modest investment. They have shown their good faith on their side by maintaining strong support from NATO and contributions to it. But the Baltic Security Initiative is an incentive for them to continue along those lines. As I have said, I am not naive about this situation. Being part of NATO means that our alliance will stand by them if they are ever invaded by another country. I hope that never happens, but if it does, it means that NATO is there. They cannot go it alone, but they have certainly shown they are prepared to do their part to demonstrate their commitment to democracy and the values the United States shares. We are now considering the National Defense Authorization bill. It is an important piece of legislation, which we, every year, take seriously and pass, and I hope we do this time as well. I have offered amendments that would strengthen our alliances in my bipartisan amendment to authorize the Baltic Security Initiative. Since I created the program by including it in the fiscal year 2021 appropriations bill, this initiative has provided millions of dollars in dedicated security assistance to Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. These important NATO allies are on the frontlines against Russian aggression. They have a long history of experiencing Russian tyranny, and I firmly believe they have also been targets of Putin if they were not members of NATO. They are some of the top NATO members in terms of military expenditures and percentage of GDP, something President Trump has rightfully urged. I have visited bases in Lithuania where American and other NATO allies are working closely to deter Russian aggression. Yet, despite the clear success of this program, we recently learned that the Trump administration announced last week that it intends to suspend the European security programs, including the Baltic Security Initiative. That would be music to the ears of Vladimir Putin, and it sends a dangerous signal as Putin continues to attack Ukraine despite assurances from President Trump that he wanted to end the war on Ukraine on his first day in office. As I mentioned, I am the son of a Lithuanian immigrant. My mother's family knew she could depend on the United States and all it stood for when they gave up their home in Lithuania and came to this country. We should not allow the President to unilaterally threaten our alliance that has been carefully threaded over decades and decades. I am grateful to the senior Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley, for joining me on the amendment which I am going to offer on the Baltic Security Initiative. I urge my colleagues to join us. I am reaching out to colleagues on both sides of the aisle and asking them to stand with me for the Baltics to make it clear to Putin this is not going to be easy picking for him in the future. They are part of the NATO alliance and a worthy part as well. We should continue our support, and I hope the Baltic Security Initiative is an indication of that. I urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in this bipartisan effort to support Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote on the nomination of Maria Lanahan to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. I will oppose her nomination. As the principal deputy solicitor general in the Missouri Attorney General's Office, Ms. Lanahan has been at the forefront of litigating cases on politically charged issues, including restricting access to reproductive rights. For example, she served as counsel of record for Missouri in an effort to restrict access to mifepristone, one of two drugs used for medication abortions, despite the fact that decades of peer-reviewed research has found mifepristone to be safe. Ms. Lanahan argued in briefs that abortion medication are ``dangerous drugs,'' and she claimed in responses to written questions that she was unaware of more than 60 studies supporting the FDA's approval expanding the use of mifepristone. It is notable that she argued that Missouri has standing to bring this case because access to abortion medication is ``depressing expected birth rates for teenaged mothers in Plaintiff States.'' She also claimed that Missouri would be injured because a loss of potential population would lead to ``diminishment of political representation'' and ``loss of federal funds.'' Ms. Lanahan also served as counsel of record to Missouri in its challenge to the CHNV Parole Program, which grants a pathway for parole in the United States from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. In the Missouri Attorney General's Office, she has demonstrated hostility to humanitarian parole, a critical component of our country's commitment to aiding people who are in the midst of a humanitarian crisis. I urge my colleagues to oppose Ms. Lanahan's nomination.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. 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.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. 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.

Mr. DURBIN

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