Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Visible Identification Standards for Immigration-Based Law Enforcement (VISIBLE) Act of 2025, which I am proud to lead alongside Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey.

This legislation would require immigration enforcement officers-- including Department of Homeland Security (DHS) personnel, Federal agents detailed to immigration operations, and deputized State or local officers--to wear clearly visible identification during public-facing civil immigration enforcement actions. The identification must include the officer's Agency name or initials and either their name or badge number, displayed in a way that remains legible and unobscured by tactical gear or clothing.

The bill prohibits nonmedical face coverings, such as masks or balaclavas, that obscure an officer's face or impair the visibility of required identifying information, except when necessary for environmental hazards or covert operations. It also directs DHS to establish disciplinary procedures for violations, requires annual compliance reporting to Congress, and empowers the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties to investigate public complaints and recommend corrective action.

In recent years, civil immigration enforcement operations have increasingly featured officers wearing unmarked tactical gear and concealing clothing, with no visible indication of their Agency affiliation or personal identity. These tactics have sown confusion, fear, and mistrust, especially in immigrant communities already subjected to heightened scrutiny. In some cases, members of the public could not even confirm whether they were interacting with legitimate government officials.

This lack of transparency is not only dangerous for the public but also for law enforcement. When officers are indistinguishable from impersonators, the risk of escalation in high-stress encounters increases. By requiring visible identification, the VISIBLE Act helps promote professionalism, improve accountability, and reduce the risk of mistaken identity or misuse of Federal authority.

The bill's approach is narrow and balanced. It does not interfere with covert operations, criminal enforcement actions, or necessary officer protections. Instead, it simply ensures that during public- facing civil immigration enforcement actions, officers can be identified. This is a commonsense safeguard--similar to policies that local police and other Federal Agencies already implement themselves-- and one that will help rebuild public trust in Federal immigration operations.

I am grateful to Senator Booker for his partnership on this legislation, and for his continued leadership on issues of fairness and accountability in our immigration and criminal justice systems. At a time when immigration enforcement practices are under intense

national scrutiny, we must ensure that our policies reflect not only authority, but integrity. The VISIBLE Act helps meet that standard.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Visible Identification Standards for Immigration-Based Law Enforcement (VISIBLE) Act of 2025, which I am proud to lead alongside Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey.

This legislation would require immigration enforcement officers-- including Department of Homeland Security (DHS) personnel, Federal agents detailed to immigration operations, and deputized State or local officers--to wear clearly visible identification during public-facing civil immigration enforcement actions. The identification must include the officer's Agency name or initials and either their name or badge number, displayed in a way that remains legible and unobscured by tactical gear or clothing.

The bill prohibits nonmedical face coverings, such as masks or balaclavas, that obscure an officer's face or impair the visibility of required identifying information, except when necessary for environmental hazards or covert operations. It also directs DHS to establish disciplinary procedures for violations, requires annual compliance reporting to Congress, and empowers the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties to investigate public complaints and recommend corrective action.

In recent years, civil immigration enforcement operations have increasingly featured officers wearing unmarked tactical gear and concealing clothing, with no visible indication of their Agency affiliation or personal identity. These tactics have sown confusion, fear, and mistrust, especially in immigrant communities already subjected to heightened scrutiny. In some cases, members of the public could not even confirm whether they were interacting with legitimate government officials.

This lack of transparency is not only dangerous for the public but also for law enforcement. When officers are indistinguishable from impersonators, the risk of escalation in high-stress encounters increases. By requiring visible identification, the VISIBLE Act helps promote professionalism, improve accountability, and reduce the risk of mistaken identity or misuse of Federal authority.

The bill's approach is narrow and balanced. It does not interfere with covert operations, criminal enforcement actions, or necessary officer protections. Instead, it simply ensures that during public- facing civil immigration enforcement actions, officers can be identified. This is a commonsense safeguard--similar to policies that local police and other Federal Agencies already implement themselves-- and one that will help rebuild public trust in Federal immigration operations.

I am grateful to Senator Booker for his partnership on this legislation, and for his continued leadership on issues of fairness and accountability in our immigration and criminal justice systems. At a time when immigration enforcement practices are under intense

national scrutiny, we must ensure that our policies reflect not only authority, but integrity. The VISIBLE Act helps meet that standard.

Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.

I ask that further reading of the motion be dispensed with.

Colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I know that you take great pleasure in criticizing the Federal deficit under Democratic administrations. But the numbers don't lie. The biggest driver of the ballooning national debt has been Republican tax cuts for the wealthy and large corporations.

Despite the parliamentary gymnastics that are being played here, our Republican colleagues know that this bill is adding an additional $3.5 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years. Why else would they have included a piece of the bill to raise the debt limit by $5 trillion if this bill saved money, as they claim?

So if Republicans really do want to balance the budget or reduce the deficit, let's start by guaranteeing that this measure is at least deficit neutral. That is exactly what this amendment would do.

I ask for your ``aye'' vote, and I reserve my time.

How much time do I have left?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I too rise in opposition to the reconciliation bill before us, but before I get to my objections over the substance of this historic attack on working and middle-class families, I want to speak for a minute as the ranking member of the Rules Committee, and I need to address how Republicans are abusing the process to get here.

They are breaking the Senate rules to hide the true cost of the bill. For the second time in just 6 weeks, the Republican majority is going nuclear on the Senate rules. And they are doing it with the same purpose: to avoid the 60-vote threshold of the filibuster in order to pass a very unpopular agenda.

Now, I know oftentimes, we are advised against getting into ``process'' because most people may not care about process or understand process. But in this particular case, it serves to underscore the significance of the damage that this bill represents, the procedural lengths to which the Republican majority is going to try to get this done.

And I do have to say it is a little surprising, because it was just in May that Leader Thune said--Leader Thune unequivocally said:

While Republicans are in charge, the legislative filibuster

will remain in place.

If you go back to January, he was asked about this because folks kind of had a sense that this might be coming. He said then about overruling the Senate Parliamentarian:

That is totally akin to killing the filibuster. We can't go

there. People need to understand that.

But now Republicans are trying to do exactly that, to hide behind the technical language of Senate procedure to harm working families.

And like I said, it is not the first time. Just last month, Republicans voted to override the very plain language of the Congressional Review Act, and they voted to overrule the Parliamentarian to repeal California's Clean Air Act standards with a simple majority vote.

Fast forward to today, they are running the same play, this time with trillion-dollar consequences, not just air quality and public health consequences.

See, colleagues and folks watching at home, budget reconciliation is the most powerful, expedited procedure statute on the books. You can do a lot with a simple majority and avoid the filibuster, but you have to do it by the rules of reconciliation.

But today, the Republican majority wants to extend trillions of dollars of tax cuts for President Trump's billionaire friends and extend those tax cuts permanently. That is not just terrible, terrible policy, it is against the Senate rules. The Congressional Budget Act says clearly that reconciliation bills cannot increase the debt beyond 10 years.

Now, it doesn't take a Nobel Prize-winning economist to know that a permanent trillion-dollar tax cut would do exactly that. And so once again, following the same playbook they did last month, the majority is going to twist the rules to try to find a way.

They are, again, ignoring the guidance from the Parliamentarian's office that doesn't fit their agenda. And they are setting yet another new precedent for this body not only to continue to overrule the Parliamentarian, but to ignore adding trillions of dollars of costs under the ``current policy baseline.''

As we did during the Clean Air Act debate last month, I and my Democratic colleagues will once again remind our Republican colleagues that sooner or later, Democrats will be back in the majority. By then, the American people will have felt the pain of this bill, but we will make sure that they understand just how hard you tried to work to hide it from them.

Democrats will not let the American people forget what Senate Republicans do this week.

Now, on to the substance of budget reconciliation. How many times have we heard the Trump administration these past few months say they are focused on fraud? Waste? Abuse?

Now, these are the buzz words that they turn to when trying to bat away questions or when Americans are trying to get clarity on whether the lifesaving services that they depend on are about to get cut.

But in reality, what we are seeing happen this week is one of the biggest acts of fraud in American history playing out right before our very eyes with the bill under debate today. And it is past midnight, so we are in Monday, so I can still say today. Donald Trump and his billionaire allies are literally stealing--stealing--from working families in order to reduce the amount of taxes they would have to pay, literally robbing from the poor to give to the rich.

For anyone really wondering whether they would actually do that, we know they will because they have done it before. In 2017, during the first Trump Presidency, Republicans seemed fine saying they could afford hundreds of billions of dollars in permanent tax cuts for large corporations. I remember the arguments back then. ``This is going to grow the economy,'' they said. ``In time, it will reduce the debt,'' they said. That didn't happen.

So today, now, they are arguing that we can't afford programs that keep kids from going hungry? We can't afford the programs that keep lights on in emergency rooms? It is outrageous.

In 2025, so many working families are struggling--struggling to keep up with the rising costs from Trump's chaotic tariff wars, with prices going up for groceries and other everyday goods. Many are working long hours and still struggling to make ends meet or to afford care for their loved ones.

I get it. I have been there. Colleagues, as I have shared with you before, I am the proud son of working-class parents who came to the United States from Mexico in the 1960s. I will remind you that for 40 years, my father worked as a short-order cook and my mom cleaned houses. On those modest salaries, they raised my sister, my brother, and I in the proud working-class community of Pacoima, CA. And I remember what it was like to live paycheck to paycheck. I know how unnerving it can be, for example, when the car broke down, and you listened and witnessed your parents' debate because, on the one hand, maybe they couldn't afford the cost of repairing the car right away, but they also realized that they couldn't afford to not fix the car because they had to get to work.

I know that there are so many Americans in communities like the one I grew up in that aren't looking for handouts. That is not what we are arguing or debating in this bill. Americans just want a fair chance to work hard and provide for their families. There is pride and dignity in working hard and providing for families. That is part of the American dream. People just want a fair playing field. In a country with as much promise and profit as the United States of America, that shouldn't be too much to ask for.

But not only would the Republican budget reconciliation bill be one big handout for the wealthiest Americans, it would actually make life harder for working families in order to pay for it. That is wrong, and it is cruel.

At its very core, just like Trump did in 2017 with the help of Republicans in Congress, this bill is fundamentally about one thing and one thing only: cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans and big corporations. How else do you explain the fact that the top 0.1 percent will see a tax cut of more than $250,000 a year, while millions of American households will actually see a reduction in their annual income or take-home pay? That is because to pay for the massive handouts to the wealthy, Republicans are gutting healthcare and cutting services that so many working families depend on, and they are twisting themselves into knots in order to cut around $1 trillion in healthcare--cuts that would leave 16 million Americans without health insurance. We are talking about seniors.

We are talking about children, Americans with disabilities, hard- working families who don't deserve to be kicked off their health insurance just so billionaires can pay less in taxes.

These devastating cuts, by the way, will also close rural hospitals around the country, including in California, where so many are already struggling just to keep the doors open.

And for folks listening to the debate thinking that ``well, if I am not on Medicaid, then this may not apply to me; this isn't going to hurt me,'' let me remind you that if your local hospital that relies on Medicaid dollars is forced to cut services or cut staff or even close its doors as a result, then, yes, you, too, will be hurt.

But the bill doesn't stop there. In this bill, Republicans cut SNAP, nutrition assistance, that critical lifeline that so many count on to literally feed their families. How much more cruel can you get?

But wait, there is more. Republicans are also rolling back the historic progress we have made investing in our transition to a clean energy economy, targeting the millions of clean energy jobs that are fueling innovation and helping us stay ahead of China. The cuts to clean energy that Republicans are making in this bill will lead to higher energy costs, higher electricity bills for so many families.

I am reminded that this last November, so many voters went to the polls and voted, hoping for lower prices. They were desperate and looking for relief, and that is what motivated their votes. But this bill does the opposite.

So I have to wonder, for my Republican colleagues who are supporting this measure, who was it that you are fighting for? Did any of you really come to Congress to take food away from the hungry? to take care away from sick children? What are you proposing be done here?

Now, I have seen Republicans go back and forth on this bill for months now, I am sure trying to decide just how much they can try to get away with, and I have heard some of the arguments that they plan to make to justify voting for this bill. Some of them will argue that we need this bill because we need to reduce the deficit. Talk about misleading. This bill adds trillions--yes, trillions--of dollars to our Nation's debt. So even when they try to twist the numbers and come up with the funny math, it doesn't even result in deficit reduction. And do you know how you can tell? Because the Republicans included a $5 trillion increase to the debt limit in this bill. If the bill and the cuts included in the bill indeed reduced the deficit, as they claim it does, they wouldn't have needed to raise the debt limit in the process.

So let's be clear. Republicans who are voting for this bill know full well it will hurt so many of their constituents. That is why behind closed doors you have Republicans handing out flyers that show just how devastating Medicaid cuts will be in States represented by Republicans. Or we hear them discussing the burden SNAP cuts will have on State and local governments. But because the leader of their party wants to sign this bill to celebrate the Fourth of July this year, many of them will vote yes.

But I will ask again: Who is this bill in service of? Who are you standing up for? Who are you fighting for?

I will tell you who I am fighting for. I am fighting for people like Jesus Acosta from San Diego, a home care provider who in 2016 became his mother's full-time care provider when she was tragically hit by a car and became disabled. Jesus can't hold a full-time job and carry all the responsibilities of looking after his mother, so for both Jesus and his mother, Medicaid has been a lifeline. I am fighting for him.

I am fighting for people like Tina Ewing-Wilson in the Inland Empire, who remembers what it was like the last time her Medicaid benefits were cut. Tina struggles with seizures and developmental disabilities and requires care 24/7. But when the great recession hit and Medicaid cuts followed, Tina knew she could only afford her care by offering free room and board to caregivers--caregivers who went out to abuse drugs and alcohol and took advantage of her financially. Tina is terrified of that possibly happening again if these Republican cuts to Medicaid impact her. I am fighting for her.

I am fighting for the families I met at Rady Children's Hospital, where over half of all patients are covered by Medicaid.

I am fighting for the nurses and the caregivers who fear for their patients. They care for their patients, but they are fearing for their patients because of these proposals.

I am fighting for every parent across the country who is working their tail off to put food on the table for their children but every now and then may need a helping hand.

If you see these Americans, if you have constituents with similar experiences in Your States and still think they should have less of our help, not more, then I guess we came to Congress for different reasons.

If you have seen so many corporations' profits soaring and the wealth inequality in our country growing and think that billionaires need more tax relief, then I guess we came to Congress for different reasons.

If, this week, you will vote to rip these critical lifelines away from millions of Americans because you somehow think it is the right political calculation, then surely we came to Congress for different reasons.

Colleagues, it is crystal clear. I urge you to vote no on this bill and stand with me, stand with us, stand up for working families. That is what I plan to do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Clean Hands Firearm Procurement Act.

This legislation addresses a critical need to ensure that Federal resources do not inadvertently support gun dealers whose business practices may contribute to the proliferation of firearms used in criminal activities.

The Clean Hands Firearm Procurement Act would withhold federal contracts from Federal Firearm Licensees (FFLs) who have been listed in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives' (ATF) Demand 2 Program twice in the preceding 3 calendar years. The Demand 2 Program targets gun dealers who have sold 25 or more firearms within a year that are subsequently traced to crimes within 3 years of their sale.

Under this act, dealers identified under the Demand 2 Program will be prohibited from entering into Federal contracts for a period of 3 years following their last appearance on the list. However, the Attorney General would have the discretion to waive this prohibition for the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security if it is deemed necessary to protect national security.

Over the past two decades, the ATF's Demand 2 Program has been instrumental in identifying gun dealers whose sales practices may be contributing to the diversion of firearms to criminal activities. While the vast majority of FFLs operate responsibly, a small fraction--about 2 percent--of these dealers have been shown to be a significant source of crime guns.

Between 2021 and 2023, only approximately 1,500 of the Nation's 75,000+ FFLs were subject to the Demand 2 Program. This small group of dealers has a disproportionate impact on gun violence in our communities. It is deeply troubling that some of these dealers have continued to receive lucrative Federal contracts despite their track record.

The Clean Hands Firearm Procurement Act aims to incentivize better business practices among gun dealers by ensuring that those with a history of contributing to gun violence through irresponsible sales are not rewarded with Federal contracts. This bill is a critical step towards reducing gun violence and ensuring that Federal procurement practices do not inadvertently support the diversion of firearms to criminal activities.

Americans deserve to feel safe in their communities, and our government has a responsibility to ensure that its resources are used to promote public safety, not undermine it. By passing this legislation, we can take meaningful action to address the gun violence epidemic that continues to plague our Nation.

Public safety is paramount, and this bill represents an important measure to strengthen our efforts in combating the illegal use of firearms. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Clean Hands Firearm Procurement Act as swiftly as possible.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Clean Hands Firearm Procurement Act.

This legislation addresses a critical need to ensure that Federal resources do not inadvertently support gun dealers whose business practices may contribute to the proliferation of firearms used in criminal activities.

The Clean Hands Firearm Procurement Act would withhold federal contracts from Federal Firearm Licensees (FFLs) who have been listed in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives' (ATF) Demand 2 Program twice in the preceding 3 calendar years. The Demand 2 Program targets gun dealers who have sold 25 or more firearms within a year that are subsequently traced to crimes within 3 years of their sale.

Under this act, dealers identified under the Demand 2 Program will be prohibited from entering into Federal contracts for a period of 3 years following their last appearance on the list. However, the Attorney General would have the discretion to waive this prohibition for the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security if it is deemed necessary to protect national security.

Over the past two decades, the ATF's Demand 2 Program has been instrumental in identifying gun dealers whose sales practices may be contributing to the diversion of firearms to criminal activities. While the vast majority of FFLs operate responsibly, a small fraction--about 2 percent--of these dealers have been shown to be a significant source of crime guns.

Between 2021 and 2023, only approximately 1,500 of the Nation's 75,000+ FFLs were subject to the Demand 2 Program. This small group of dealers has a disproportionate impact on gun violence in our communities. It is deeply troubling that some of these dealers have continued to receive lucrative Federal contracts despite their track record.

The Clean Hands Firearm Procurement Act aims to incentivize better business practices among gun dealers by ensuring that those with a history of contributing to gun violence through irresponsible sales are not rewarded with Federal contracts. This bill is a critical step towards reducing gun violence and ensuring that Federal procurement practices do not inadvertently support the diversion of firearms to criminal activities.

Americans deserve to feel safe in their communities, and our government has a responsibility to ensure that its resources are used to promote public safety, not undermine it. By passing this legislation, we can take meaningful action to address the gun violence epidemic that continues to plague our Nation.

Public safety is paramount, and this bill represents an important measure to strengthen our efforts in combating the illegal use of firearms. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Clean Hands Firearm Procurement Act as swiftly as possible.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Stopping the Fraudulent Sale of Firearms Act, a vital piece of legislation designed to close dangerous loopholes in online firearm sales.

The Stopping the Fraudulent Sale of Firearms Act would make it a Federal crime to fraudulently advertise or sell firearms ammunition online, including by circumventing technology companies' terms of service.

Gun violence remains one of the most urgent crises facing our Nation, claiming more than 46,000 lives in 2023 alone, the third-highest number of gun-related deaths ever recorded. To reduce gun violence in our communities, it is critical that existing gun safety measures are fully enforced.

Background checks, red flag laws, and other safeguards are designed to keep firearms out of the wrong hands, but online marketplaces have created new avenues to bypass these protections.

Individuals who would fail a routine background check--such as those with felony convictions, domestic violence restraining orders, or a history of severe mental illness--can easily obtain firearms online, even in States with strong gun laws. This loophole undermines the very protections meant to keep our communities safe.

Technology companies have taken steps to curb illegal gun sales on their platforms, but sellers continue to exploit gaps in enforcement. Some platforms have banned firearm sales outright, yet sellers circumvent these restrictions by disguising listings.

On Facebook Marketplace, for example, guns are often advertised as ``stickers'' featuring firearm brand logos, while the actual weapons are

sold off the record. These deceptive tactics allow firearms to be purchased without background checks, fueling illegal gun trafficking and putting lives at risk.

Fraudulent firearm listings undermine essential safeguards contribute to gun trafficking, and increase the risk of violent crime. Around 80 percent of firearms used in criminal activity are obtained from sellers who do not conduct background checks, including fraudulent online dealers. From 2017 to 2021, unlicensed sellers were responsible for more than half of all trafficked firearms, amounting to over 68,000 guns.

The Stopping the Fraudulent Sale of Firearms Act would directly address this growing threat. By prohibiting fraudulent transactions and holding deceptive sellers accountable, this bill would reinforce background check requirements and help prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands.

Public safety is a shared responsibility, and this bill represents an important step forward in our collective efforts to reduce gun violence and protect our communities. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and working to pass the Stopping the Fraudulent Sale of Firearms Act without delay.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Stopping the Fraudulent Sale of Firearms Act, a vital piece of legislation designed to close dangerous loopholes in online firearm sales.

The Stopping the Fraudulent Sale of Firearms Act would make it a Federal crime to fraudulently advertise or sell firearms ammunition online, including by circumventing technology companies' terms of service.

Gun violence remains one of the most urgent crises facing our Nation, claiming more than 46,000 lives in 2023 alone, the third-highest number of gun-related deaths ever recorded. To reduce gun violence in our communities, it is critical that existing gun safety measures are fully enforced.

Background checks, red flag laws, and other safeguards are designed to keep firearms out of the wrong hands, but online marketplaces have created new avenues to bypass these protections.

Individuals who would fail a routine background check--such as those with felony convictions, domestic violence restraining orders, or a history of severe mental illness--can easily obtain firearms online, even in States with strong gun laws. This loophole undermines the very protections meant to keep our communities safe.

Technology companies have taken steps to curb illegal gun sales on their platforms, but sellers continue to exploit gaps in enforcement. Some platforms have banned firearm sales outright, yet sellers circumvent these restrictions by disguising listings.

On Facebook Marketplace, for example, guns are often advertised as ``stickers'' featuring firearm brand logos, while the actual weapons are

sold off the record. These deceptive tactics allow firearms to be purchased without background checks, fueling illegal gun trafficking and putting lives at risk.

Fraudulent firearm listings undermine essential safeguards contribute to gun trafficking, and increase the risk of violent crime. Around 80 percent of firearms used in criminal activity are obtained from sellers who do not conduct background checks, including fraudulent online dealers. From 2017 to 2021, unlicensed sellers were responsible for more than half of all trafficked firearms, amounting to over 68,000 guns.

The Stopping the Fraudulent Sale of Firearms Act would directly address this growing threat. By prohibiting fraudulent transactions and holding deceptive sellers accountable, this bill would reinforce background check requirements and help prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands.

Public safety is a shared responsibility, and this bill represents an important step forward in our collective efforts to reduce gun violence and protect our communities. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and working to pass the Stopping the Fraudulent Sale of Firearms Act without delay.

Mr. President, it is important to me for this body to know that over the last 2 weeks in Los Angeles, my hometown, we are seeing masked Federal agents in tactical gear ordered into our communities. We have seen the disturbing pattern of increasingly extreme and cruel immigration enforcement operations targeting nonviolent people at places of worship, at schools, in courthouses--all to meet an arbitrary quota. Now we are seeing President Trump federalize National Guard troops and deploy them without the Governor's consent. Active-Duty marines are now being deployed, escalating tensions in our city. It is important to note--all this without coordination with State and local law enforcement.

Despite repeated requests for the justification for these extreme actions and after months and months of little to no response from the administration on their aggressive and theatrical immigration raids, the Trump administration has done everything in their power but to provide transparency to the American people about their mission in Los Angeles. So last week, I chose to go home to try to get answers from the administration as they are literally militarizing our city. I want to share what I learned and I want to share what I heard because it should shock the conscience of our country.

One of the first items on my schedule last Thursday was a meeting and a briefing with General Guillot, the 4-star general in charge of U.S. Northern Command. Many of you know him. The briefing was scheduled at the Federal building in West Los Angeles where they are overseeing these military operations.

Now, colleagues, when the U.S. military is deployed domestically, when our troops are deployed against the wishes of the Governor for the first time since 1965, against the wishes of the local mayor, and even against the wishes of local law enforcement--both the police chief and the sheriff--we are in uncharted territory.

So in my efforts to do my duty to conduct congressional oversight and to try to get answers from the Department of Defense that State and local officials were not receiving, I went to the Federal building in West Los Angeles. I was met at the entrance--at the entrance--by a National Guardsman and an FBI agent, who escorted me through security screening and up to a conference room for my scheduled briefing.

While waiting for my scheduled briefing with General Guillot, I learned that Homeland Security Secretary Noem was holding a press conference literally just down the hall, and that press conference was causing my briefing to be delayed. The thought occurred to me that, well, maybe I could attend this press conference and listen in--just listen--in the hopes of hearing Secretary Noem provide some new information that could help us make sense of what was happening.

I didn't just get up and go; I asked and was escorted by the National Guardsman and the FBI agent into the press conference. They opened the door for me. They accompanied me into the press briefing room, and they stood next to me as I stood there for a while, listening.

At one point, the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security said that the purpose of Federal law enforcement and the purpose of the U.S. military was to ``liberate'' Los Angeles from our Governor and our mayor, to somehow liberate us from the very people that we democratically elected to lead our city and our State.

Colleagues, let that fundamentally un-American mission statement sink in. That is not a mission focused on public safety, and that simply is not and cannot be the mission of Federal law enforcement and the U.S. military.

To my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, are we truly prepared to live in a country where the President can deploy the Armed Forces to decide which duly-elected Governors and mayors should be allowed to lead their constituents? Is that really the precedent that we are OK with setting?

As Secretary Noem herself said last year when she was Governor of South Dakota--at the time, she said:

If Joe Biden federalizes the National Guard, that would be

a direct attack on states' rights.

That was Governor Noem, now-Secretary Noem.

Throughout this country's history, we have had conflict, we have had tumult, but we have never had a tyrant as a Commander in Chief. That is not by coincidence; it is because the American people have always been willing to speak up and exercise their First Amendment right to protest, especially when our fundamental rights have been threatened.

As the proud son of immigrants from Mexico, it is that same right that I came to revere when marching through the streets with my family and my friends in 1994 in Los Angeles, protesting against the vile anti-immigrant rhetoric that was growing in California at that time. It was that year that a Republican Governor was up for reelection and was down in the polls, and he turned to scapegoating immigrants to try to improve his political standing and his reelection chances. That fight is what inspired me to leave an engineering career behind and dedicate myself to trying to influence our government and our politics.

So I have seen this before. California has seen this before. So last week, when I heard something so blatantly un-American from the Secretary of Homeland Security, a Cabinet official, of course I was compelled, both as a Senator and as an American, to speak up. But before I could even get out my question, I was physically and aggressively forced out of the room, even as I repeatedly announced that I was a U.S. Senator and I had a question for the Secretary and even as the National Guardsman and the FBI agent who served as my escorts and brought me into that press briefing room stood by silently, knowing full well who I was.

You have seen the video. I was pushed and pulled, struggled to maintain my balance. I was forced to the ground--first on my knees and then flat on my chest. And as I was handcuffed and marched down a hallway, repeatedly asking ``Why am I being detained?'' not once did they tell me why.

I pray you never have a moment like this, but I will tell you, in that moment, a lot of questions came to my mind.

First of all, where are they taking me? Because I know I am not just being escorted out of the building. Am I being arrested here? And what will a city already on edge from being militarized think when they see their U.S. Senator being handcuffed just for trying to ask a question?

And what will my wife think? What will our boys think?

And I also remember asking myself, If this aggressive escalation is the result of someone speaking up against the abuses and overreach of the Trump administration, was it really worth it?

But, colleagues, how many Americans in our Nation's history have marched, have protested, have shed blood, even lost their lives to protect our rights? How many Americans have served in wars overseas to protect our freedoms here at home? And how many Americans in the year 2025 see a vindictive President on a tour of retribution, unrestrained by the majority of this separate and coequal branch of government and wonder if it is worth it to stand up or to speak out?

If a U.S. Senator becomes too afraid to speak up, how can we expect any other American to do the same?

Colleagues, you know me. I can't think of a person who would describe me as a flamethrower. I try to be respectful. I try to be considerate to every Member of this body, regardless of our political differences.

And so I do want to take a moment to thank all of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, who have reached out to share your messages of support--whether they were public messages or many in private. Trust me, they mean the world to me, and I know they mean the world to my family.

But if you watched what unfolded last week and thought what happened is just about one politician and one press conference, you are missing the point. If that is what the administration is willing to do to a U.S. Senator for having the audacity to simply ask a question, imagine what they will do to

any American who dares to speak up. If what you saw happen can happen when the cameras are on, imagine not only what can happen but what is happening in so many places where there are no cameras.

Colleagues, this isn't about me. In fact, it is not just about immigrant communities or even just the State of California. It is about every single American who values their constitutional rights. It is about anyone who has ever exercised their First Amendment rights or anyone who has ever disagreed with a President or anyone who simply values our democracy and wants to keep it.

Now, the President will tell you that this is just about undocumented immigrants, about law and order, and about targeting dangerous, violent criminals. If it was just about targeting dangerous and violent criminals, there would be no disagreement. There would be no debate. But we know differently. We don't think; we know differently.

Public data released by the administration shows that the majority of immigrants currently in ICE custody have no prior criminal conviction, and new reporting shows that less than 10 percent of immigrants taken into ICE custody since October have serious criminal convictions--less than 10 percent.

But a couple weeks ago, it seemed that Donald Trump was at the lowest point of his presidency so far. He was drowning in a week of terrible headlines. The American people were finally waking up to the realities of the budget reconciliation bill that will cut healthcare, nutrition assistance, and good-paying clean energy jobs, while reducing the tax burden on billionaires. He was losing his tariff wars as the costs for everyday goods were continuing to rise. His promises to end Russia's invasion of Ukraine were falling flat, and he had been handed loss after loss in Federal court. He even had a very public breakup with Elon Musk.

And I mention this only because we know what happens when the headlines turn on Donald Trump. When Donald Trump is having a bad week, he turns to the same tired playbook he always has: When in doubt, scapegoat immigrants, and manufacture a crisis to distract the media from what is going on.

That is the reason ICE raids ramped up in California. And when Californians took to the streets to peacefully protest, he bypassed the Governor and federalized the National Guard. And even with their presence over a couple of days as things began to settle, he escalated even further by sending in the Marines.

He wants the spectacle, not just to distract, but to justify his undemocratic crackdowns and his authoritarian power grabs.

That is the reason why, even though the vast majority of protests have remained peaceful--what a weekend. That notwithstanding, the President, the Vice President, and their allies have continued to call all the protesters out there insurrectionists. Yes, this is the same man who provoked an actual insurrection at our Capitol on January 6; the same man who incited a violent mob, carrying confederate flags against Congress; the same man who then pardoned the convicted felons who assaulted our brave Capitol police officers.

Donald Trump is continuing to test the boundaries of his power, and he has surrounded himself with yes-men and underqualified attack dogs, from the DHS Secretary to the FBI Director to the Secretary of Defense, who will rubberstamp every anti-democratic step he takes.

This administration's officials and maybe not all, but many Republicans in Congress, may choose not to do their job, but they cannot stop me from doing mine. And I refuse to let immigrants be political pawns on his path towards fascism.

Again, if you really think this is just about immigrants and immigration, it is time to wake up. What is happening is not just a threat to California, it is a threat to everyone in every State. If Donald Trump can bypass the Governor and activate the National Guard to put down protests on immigrant rights, he can do it to suppress your rights too.

If he can deploy the Marines to Los Angeles without justification, he can deploy them to your State too.

And if he can ignore due process, strip away First Amendment rights, and disappear people to foreign prisons without their day in court, he can do it to you too.

Because California is just the test case for the rest of the country. Last week, for many, it was a warning shot. But I pray that it also serves as a wake-up call.

We have now seen--since Thursday, we have now seen Trump threaten to do the same in other cities run by elected Democrats. He is saying the quiet part out loud.

It doesn't matter if you are a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent. We all have a responsibility to speak up and to push back before it is too late.

So I do encourage people to keep peacefully protesting. There is nothing more patriotic than to peacefully protest for your rights. Because no one is going to liberate Los Angeles but Angelenos. No one will redeem America but Americans. No one is coming to save us but us.

And we know that the cameras are not on in every corner of the country. But if this administration is this afraid of just one Senator with a question, colleagues, imagine what the voices of tens of millions of Americans peacefully protesting can do.

I thank you all for being here to hear me. I thank you, Mr. President.

(Applause.)

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

Mr. President, I rise today to reiterate my objection to Donald Trump's EPA nominations and Republicans' unprecedented attacks not only on California's climate leadership but on the rules and procedures of this body. But before I do that, I want first to address what has unfolded in my hometown of Los Angeles over the last several days.

Now, in my opinion, it is not a coincidence, after one of the most embarrassing weeks, to be sure, of the Trump Presidency and as the public has continued to learn the truth about the budget reconciliation bill that would cut healthcare for so many working families across the country in order to pay for further tax breaks for the most wealthy in America--I am sure he didn't appreciate us shining a light on that--and as we continue to see the impact of his failed tariff wars and the increasing costs on those same working families and, of course, the attention that his breakup with Elon Musk got--it was not a good week for the President.

So, just as he has done so many times before, when things are going bad, when all else fails, what does he do? Classic Trump playbook: He turns to scapegoating immigrants. And he decided that this was the time to launch indiscriminate ICE raids throughout the Los Angeles region, clearly not just targeting criminals but so many others--ICE raids in workplaces--in an attempt to manufacture a crisis.

Colleagues, for the first time since 1965, the President federalized the National Guard without the Governor's approval, without the request of the Governor, in order to create chaos, in order to escalate tensions in the region and to create a pretext for more extreme actions in the future.

So let's be clear. What you are all seeing on the news about the Los Angeles region right now is a crisis that Donald Trump has created, and he is doing it to distract from his failed agenda.

To those back in California who are watching, I have a couple of messages. No. 1, please peacefully protest. You have a right to peacefully protest. No. 2, let's not give the President what he wants. There are two things he wants. He either wants us to be quiet and go away and let him continue to overreach and abuse his power--we will not stand for that. We have First Amendment rights. So let's peacefully protest.

Second, for those who think this is an opportunity to exploit and to turn violent, to vandalize, that is exactly what Donald Trump wants-- any excuse, large or small, to continue to escalate his use of force. Let's not give him that.

To the rest of the country, I urge you to see this for what it is, because when the headline turns on Donald Trump, Donald Trump turns on the American

people. And the truth is, California is no stranger to Trump's playbook. We have seen it before--which brings me back to the point I have today about the EPA nomination.

Mr. President, colleagues, time and time again, we have seen one of the most frequently called plays out of the Trump playbook. When everything else is going wrong, shift the narrative, scapegoat immigrants, blame immigrants for whatever your failure is at the moment.

Well, today, between his failing trade wars that are raising the cost of living on working families across the country to his losses in Federal court and delays in the Congress on the efforts to give billionaires even bigger tax breaks, and even the embarrassing breakup recently with his former BBFF--billionaire best friend forever--Elon Musk, it is safe to say that Donald Trump is grasping for anything he can do to change the narrative, to distract us from the damage that his political agenda has going on.

The smart thing would be to actually change course, rectify things, do things in the interest of our Nation and our economy. But what has he chosen to do instead? To double down. In order to distract the country from his failures and his efforts to ``flood the zone,'' Donald Trump is expanding his deportation agenda far beyond the focus and targeting of violent and dangerous criminals that he claimed would be the strategy.

He is so desperate to show quick results that he is even throwing due process rights out the window for so many; the due process rights, by the way, that I know most of you, if not all of you, should agree are paramount, foundational to our democracy.

As you continue to see this week, Trump is launching indiscriminate ICE raids in the Los Angeles region followed by a chaotic escalation federalizing California's National Guard and even mobilizing the Marines.

It is personal for me, not just because Los Angeles is home--I was born and raised in Los Angeles--but as a proud son of immigrants. I know the true story of the vast majority of immigrants and immigrant families in Los Angeles, throughout California, and throughout the country.

But instead of honoring those contributions--there is no disagreement with the prioritization and targeting of violent criminals--but the vast majority of folks, their contributions deserve to be honored. Instead, Donald Trump is manufacturing a crisis to, once again, not just distract us but divide us. Just as he has always done, he is using immigrants to do it.

I can't help but speak up and remind us, immigrants are not political pawns for his agenda, just as servicemembers--women and men--are not political pawns for his agenda.

So, yes, as we should be celebrating the 13th anniversary of DACA this week, hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients and Dreamers are actually now worried that they are at risk--at further risk--that they could be next as President Trump struggles to find enough violent criminals to detain and deport to meet a campaign promise. Since he can't get his numbers there, he will look elsewhere.

I want to take this moment to make very clear: Dreamers are our neighbors. Dreamers are our loved ones. These are young people who are Americans in every sense of the word except for one important piece of paperwork, including over 160,000 DACA recipients in the State of California, alone.

Yet because of Congressional Republicans' refusal to act, Dreamers live, at a minimum, in a constant state of uncertainty but oftentimes in a constant state of fear. They deserve better.

They deserve permanent protections. This isn't just a moral issue, as righteous and compelling as those moral arguments should be. Colleagues, if that doesn't get you, you should be moved by the economic issues that this represents because if, through the President or through Republicans' actions in Congress, you were to take away work authorization for hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients, that is reducing our workforce at a time when we are trying to grow the workforce and grow the economy. If DACA were to come to an end, it could strip our workforce of over 400,000 workers and cost our country nearly $650 billion.

Yes, they, too, are productive. I am talking about Dreamers who work as teachers, as caregivers, as nurses and doctors, as construction workers, as food service workers, and so many other key industries for our economy. And they are hard-working community members who pay taxes just like the rest of us and just want a chance to work hard and raise a family in the country that they love.

They deserve peace of mind, the peace of mind to know that they are safe here at home. And that is why I am proud to support the Dream Act, a bill to provide permanent protections for Dreamers who contribute so much to our country. It is the least that we can do for Dreamers who have spent decades contributing to the Nation.

And for my Republican colleagues who may be caught up in the heat of the moment and trapped in this anti-immigrant rhetoric in our current political climate on the right, I will say this: Dreamers make our communities better; Dreamers make our economy stronger; and Dreamers make our Nation stronger.

The Dream Act is a commonsense bill that has enjoyed bipartisan support. So I urge you to join me in supporting the Dream Act now and in giving these young people the certainty and the protections that they deserve and strengthen our Nation in the process.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the POST GRAD Act of 2025, which I introduced today.

For too long, the cost of higher education has remained a barrier for students pursuing advanced degrees that are necessary in our economy, including psychology, social work, and teaching, where shortages of qualified professionals that meet the needs of their communities persist. The POST GRAD Act would relieve some of the financial burden of financing a graduate degree by reinstating subsidized Federal student loans for graduate students, which was common practice in the United States from 1994 until 2012.

Unlike undergraduate students, graduate students have only been able to obtain Federal direct unsubsidized loans that accrue interest even while they are still in graduate school for the past decade. This can add thousands of additional dollars over the life of the loan.

Furthermore, the majority of those who take out graduate Federal student loans are disproportionately women, people of color, and people from low- to middle-income backgrounds. This bill presents an opportunity to lower the cost of graduate school and reduce barriers to access that support a 21st-century workforce.

I want to thank Representative Judy Chu for introducing this bill with me. I hope our colleagues will join us in taking a step towards making an advanced degree more attainable for Americans.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the POST GRAD Act of 2025, which I introduced today.

For too long, the cost of higher education has remained a barrier for students pursuing advanced degrees that are necessary in our economy, including psychology, social work, and teaching, where shortages of qualified professionals that meet the needs of their communities persist. The POST GRAD Act would relieve some of the financial burden of financing a graduate degree by reinstating subsidized Federal student loans for graduate students, which was common practice in the United States from 1994 until 2012.

Unlike undergraduate students, graduate students have only been able to obtain Federal direct unsubsidized loans that accrue interest even while they are still in graduate school for the past decade. This can add thousands of additional dollars over the life of the loan.

Furthermore, the majority of those who take out graduate Federal student loans are disproportionately women, people of color, and people from low- to middle-income backgrounds. This bill presents an opportunity to lower the cost of graduate school and reduce barriers to access that support a 21st-century workforce.

I want to thank Representative Judy Chu for introducing this bill with me. I hope our colleagues will join us in taking a step towards making an advanced degree more attainable for Americans.

Mr. President, on May 19, 2025, I provided a statement for the Record of my intent to object to the Senate proceeding to any of the four nominations currently pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA.

Today, I am reaffirming those four objections and stating my intent to object to the Senate proceeding to three additional EPA nominations, if and when they are added to the Senate's Executive Calendar.

I do not raise these objections lightly. I recognize the importance of Federal Agencies having qualified leadership, regardless of which party is in charge. In several cases, I have voted in favor of reporting the current administration's nominees out of committee and to confirm them on the Senate floor, notwithstanding the political and policy differences that we may have. But the Senate's constitutional role to advise and consent regarding executive branch nominations is an important check on Agency leadership's abuse and overreach and raising these objections regarding EPA nominations is my duty on behalf of people of the State of California.

I am objecting to expedited consideration of EPA nominees in response to the Trump Administration EPA's abuse of the Congressional Review Act--CRA--by submitting three waivers issued to the State of California to Congress and claiming they are ``rules'' under the CRA despite the Government Accountability Office's clear determination they are not.

In May, I stated that I would continue these objections unless the Trump administration's EPA withdrew the waivers it knowingly and falsely submitted as rules or the majority leader committed to not overturning the Senate Parliamentarian's determination that these waivers are not rules entitled to expedited consideration in the Senate under the CRA.

Unfortunately, the Trump administration and the Republican majority plowed ahead with an unprecedented power grab at the expense of the health of millions of children and families in California and many other States. They took advantage of EPA's abuse of the CRA to throw out the rulebook, first overriding the procedural limits in the text of the CRA itself and then by overturning the Parliamentarian's decision, all in their quest to take away California's authority under the Clean Air Act.

This is unacceptable. California has done nearly all it can do to reduce emissions from stationary sources of air pollution within its jurisdiction. Given our unique air quality challenges and the worsening impacts of climate change, it is essential for our State to reduce pollution from mobile sources such as cars and trucks if the Federal Government will not do so itself. That is why Congress has provided this waiver authority to our State for decades, and it has been used over 100 times. But now, as a result of the Trump EPA and Senate Republicans' abuse of the CRA, the people of California will be forced to breathe more toxic air pollution and suffer increasingly devastating impacts of climate change.

To hold the Agency's leadership accountable for their actions, I am reaffirming my objection to proceeding to the four nominations pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar and expanding it to include additional nominations.

As of June 2, there are three additional Trump administration EPA nominations in the committee process, four Senate-confirmed positions for which the President has not yet made a nomination, and the inspector general position, for which the President has yet to make a nomination.

I want to make clear to my colleagues that I intend to object to the Senate proceeding to all nominations for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, except for the vacancy for the EPA Inspector General, unless acceptable accommodations are reached for the State of California's to protect the health of its people.