Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the attached letter in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, Barney Frank was one of the brightest Members of Congress I have ever had the pleasure of serving with. He was smart, outrageous, colorful, and courageous. Most importantly, he was a good man. Barney passed away last month, and I would like to take a moment to recognize his lifetime of public service.

Born in Bayonne, NJ, Barney discovered his interest in government at the age of 10 watching Senate hearings on his father's television set. Barney said in his own words: most children were interested in becoming ``a cowboy, a boxer, or a puppeteer. I preferred the idea of sitting behind an impressive dais grilling colorful Mafiosi.'' To feed his passion, Barney volunteered for Adlai Stevenson's second Presidential campaign in 1956 while he was in high school, and the next year, he arrived at Harvard University to study public policy. Barney remained in Massachusetts for 56 years, rising in the ranks of government from executive assistant to the mayor of Boston to the Halls of Congress.

Anyone who met Barney knew that he was the last person you would want to argue with. His sharp tongue and acerbic retorts were legendary, and Barney was never afraid to use his talents to defend the causes that he believed in. Fortunately for our country, his cause was often that of the disenfranchised and powerless. Elected in 1980--the same year as President Ronald Reagan--Barney fought against the Reagan administration's attempts to cut government programs that helped working families, and he passionately defended the Legal Services Corporation, which was facing backlash for assisting the United Farm Workers. Barney's political acumen was as strong as his intelligence, and he achieved huge success for a new congressman.

Yet Barney's early years in the House are perhaps best remembered for his courageous decision to come out as gay at a time when LGBTQ+ people were still banned from serving in the Armed Forces or holding a security clearance. That decision took guts. No congressman had ever come out of the closet willingly before Barney, and many had warned him that doing so would jeopardize his ability to reach higher office. But Barney refused to take the easy way out, and in 1987, he became the first openly gay Member of Congress. Barney had already been a staunch advocate for gay rights long before he came out; he even introduced the first gay rights bill in Massachusetts history as a State representative in 1972, and he continued that fight long after he announced his sexuality. Barney worked to remove homophobic provisions from America's immigration laws, advocated for funding for AIDS and HIV research and treatment, and fought passionately against the discrimination of the LGBTQ+ community at every level of government. By the time Barney left Congress, gay people were able to openly serve in the military, sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional, and hate crimes based on an individual's sexuality were explicitly prohibited by law.

Behind Barney's brilliant wit and courage was also a statesman who was just as comfortable crafting bipartisan compromise as he was delivering a soundbite. Barney was indispensable in picking up the pieces of our economy in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. Not only did he work with the Bush administration to prevent the crisis from deepening, but he also joined forces with Senator Christopher Dodd to pass the Dodd-Frank Act, the largest reform to Wall Street and the American financial system in the post-war era. This bill created the Consumer

Financial Protection Bureau, an Agency tasked with defending American consumers from dishonest business practices; it regulated the securities and derivatives markets that brought our Nation to financial ruin; and it increased capital requirements for banks to avoid future defaults. While Barney wished that the rules enshrined in Dodd-Frank went further in protecting Americans, it still made a meaningful difference for millions of families.

Before leaving office, Barney had one more accomplishment he was determined to achieve. On July 7, 2012, Barney married his partner Jim Ready and became the first Member of Congress to be married to a same- sex partner. I am pleased to say that while they were the first, they are no longer the only partnership in this category. While more must be done to end discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community, it is worth recognizing Barney and Jim's contributions to equality in America. Loretta and I would like to offer Jim our deepest condolences for his loss.

Barney refused to allow the prejudice and bigotry of his time to define him. His courage and intelligence were an inspiration to many of his colleagues, and his legacy is still felt in Congress today. He will be missed.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Sentor from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

Madam President, I want to join in extending my heartfelt congratulations to my colleague and friend Senator Collins as she marks this incredible milestone--the first Senator in America's history to have cast 10,000 consecutive votes in the U.S. Senate.

It is an impressive demonstration of endurance and determination, and I salute you for it.

We came to the Senate the same day, and so I asked my staff to check how many votes I had cast. It turns out, somewhere along the way, I have been denied over 100 opportunities to vote that Senator Collins had. I call on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to look into this. I can't imagine what happened here.

But this much I am sure: This is a true record, and it is one that reflects her commitment to public service and, in my case, friendship. We have worked together in many different capacities.

I remember the days after 9/11 when your extraordinary leadership with Senator Lieberman, if I am not mistaken, led to the complete reform of the intelligence Agencies in our Nation. It was a dynamic legislative achievement, and I have talked to you about it many times.

Over the years, we have worked together on many issues. We invited one another to our home States for town meetings. I don't know what a nor'easter is, but I can tell you that it was the damnedest rainstorm I have ever been through when I went to Maine. I won't forget it.

But our friendship is sound, and my admiration for your achievement is one that is on the Record for all to witness.

Congratulations.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5806 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, this amendment addresses a group of people that we are all familiar with: the DACA recipients. We will all recall that the DACA recipients came to the United States as infants, toddlers, and children.

To qualify for DACA, they have to register every 2 years and pay a $600 fee, go through a complete criminal background check before they can be approved. If they violate the terms of the background check at any time, they are disqualified from DACA.

What they are looking for is a job, to legally work in the United States and not be deported and to pay taxes. They get no special benefits for being on DACA--no special government benefits.

This language basically says the DACA recipients will be protected from arrest and detention and removal. That is what the amendment does.

Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?

Mr. President, I would just say, remember, these DACA children who were brought here as children to the United States have gone through a criminal background check, paid their fees, and done everything they have been asked to do. To categorize them as dangerous to this country is to ignore the obvious.

Motion to Waive

Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act and all budget resolution discipline that applies, I move to waive all points of order for the purposes of the pending measure, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I withdraw my amendment.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

We heard it so many times: Rapists, murderers, terrorists, the criminally insane, child predators--we are going to unleash the forces of the United States to keep us safe from these threatening people and dangerous people.

No argument here. But I think you can find, on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans who agree those people should be the subject of law enforcement, and they shouldn't be allowed to live in our communities, period.

But what has actually happened with this war on immigration from the Trump White House? I have seen it firsthand in the city of Chicago, Aurora, and many other places in my State, where the ICE agents have arrived. America saw it firsthand in Minneapolis, when the ICE agents on the streets killed--murdered--two innocent people who were merely protesting, as they have a right to do under our Constitution.

So where are we today? Well, we are considering an appropriations bill, I assume today or at least this week, called reconciliation, which will appropriate more money for immigration enforcement than ever in our history.

And to give you an idea of perspective of whether it is proportionate to the threat that we face, consider this fact. The amount of money that will be appropriated for ICE agents--remember the people wearing masks in Minneapolis? The amount of money that the Republicans want to appropriate is larger than the appropriations for the U.S. Marine Corps--the U.S. Marine Corps--one of our best fighting units in the history of the United States. They want more money to go after illegal immigrants.

So the question, obviously, is how are they doing with the billions of dollars that are being spent on ICE and Border Patrol? How are they doing? It turns out that six out of the seven people who have been arrested by this immigration force had no criminal record whatsoever-- six out of seven.

You ought to listen to the story of one of these people and come to understand what I am talking about.

This is Juan Chavez Velasco. What does he do for a living? He is a medical laboratory scientist.

How long has he lived in the United States? Twenty-five years.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Juan was a frontline worker at the hospital in his hometown. He never missed a day of work.

Juan has a problem, though. He is undocumented. His parents brought him to the United States when he was 8 years old. They made the decision to come to this country. Juan was in the backseat of the car.

For more than a decade, his ability to live and work in this country has been protected by one thing: DACA. You see, Juan is a DACA holder.

What is the DACA Program? Let me give you a minute or two of background. Over 20 years ago, I introduced a bill called the DREAM Act. And the DREAM Act said, if you were brought to the United States by your parents as a child--an infant, a toddler, a child under the age of 18--they made the decision to come to this country. You came with them. You were part of the family. And they didn't file the right paperwork for you. You are undocumented in the United States. The DREAM Act said, if there was a violation of law, you shouldn't be held responsible at 8 years of age due to your family's decision to come to this country.

What have you done with your life since? Have you gone to school? Have you committed a crime? There are serious questions we should ask.

But if you pass those tests, if you pass a criminal background check--a criminal background check--if you pay $600 every 2 years, you can have what is known as DACA. DACA is protection for you to work in the United States legally and not be deported.

Juan is one of those people, a medical laboratory scientist, protected by DACA, and he has been for years. With DACA, Juan has been a contributing member for our country for years.

And then President Trump was elected to a second term. Everything changed.

In February, Juan was driving to deliver milk to a hospital to his infant daughter in the NICU, and he was stopped by ICE agents. You remember that you saw them on television. They wear the masks. They dress in camo. They carry guns around.

His wife Stephanie was on the phone with him as ICE agents questioned his immigration status, and they decided to detain him. He told them point-blank: I am a DACA holder. Every 2 years, I have to register and pay $600 and go through a criminal background check, as required by Executive order and law. I have done all those things. They ignored him.

What happened to Juan? He was retained in ICE detention for 3 months. When his son Damien visited him in detention, he sobbed at the sight of his father behind a glass barrier. He could not understand why the government took his dad away from him.

Juan was finally released last month, after his wife Stephanie bravely testified at a spotlight hearing that I convened. But he is not yet free. Juan still lives in fear that, any day, ICE agents could return and take him away from his family and deport him to Colombia.

Juan's story is heartbreaking, but it is only one of many stories from Dreamers who have been targeted by the Trump administration.

He is no danger. He is no criminal. He shows up, as the law requires, every 2 years, pays $600, and goes through a criminal background check and then goes to his job at a medical laboratory in his hometown.

Upon returning to office, the President has used every tool at his disposal to thwart the protections of DACA, which was created to give young people like Juan a chance to remain in the United States. Last year, ICE arrested 261 people just like Juan, deporting 86 of them, all of them DACA holders.

And even those who have not been detained have been facing unprecedented delays in renewing their DACA status. They have shown up, as they are supposed to, when they are supposed to, and they are told: We are not going to approve you.

Without renewal, these young people will lose their ability to work legally in the United States and will not be protected from deportation.

The administration's attack on immigrants goes far beyond DACA. With President Trump and his close friend and adviser Stephen Miller in the White House, no immigrant is safe from this administration.

Last month, the Trump administration announced it would force legal-- legal--immigrants to leave America and apply for a green card back in their country of origin, except in rare circumstances. That means immigrants who may have been here for years, who married a U.S. citizen, who have children who are citizens, would have to leave their families for God knows how long.

Rural communities, incidentally, have doctors and medical professionals that fit right into this category. They would lose the only doctor in town.

And with bans in effect preventing consular processing for green card applicants from 75 countries, there is no assurance that once having left the United States, they could ever return.

Of course, the implementation of this policy has been chaotic. After an outcry across the country, the Department of Homeland Security claimed to have rolled back their decision, saying applicants who ``benefit the national interest''--whatever that means--would not be affected.

But it remains to be seen how this administration will define ``national interest.''

Will spouses of U.S. citizens qualify? Will immigrants sponsored for a green card for their work as doctors and nurses be allowed to stay in this country? We honestly don't know the answer to that.

The terror and fear that this administration seeks to inspire in legal immigrants does not make our Nation great. It undermines the promise we made to these people. We said to them, under DACA, if you do the right thing, if you work with government Agencies, if you are honest and don't commit a crime, we will protect you. And now the Trump administration is reversing this.

These are individuals who have lived in America for years, graduated alongside our kids, married and had their own U.S. citizen children, and are contributing to our communities.

Why would we want them to leave? As the Senate prepares to consider the upcoming Republican budget bill, which would put another $70 billion into the President's mass deportation program, I urge my Republican colleagues to stand up and look at this honestly. I think we can agree on some basics. Let me say a few.

No. 1, we should never knowingly allow a dangerous person to come into this country.

No. 2, if someone is in this country, seeking legal status or permanent status, and has committed a dangerous crime, they are gone. Period.

No. 3, the United States cannot absorb every person in the world who wants to come into our country at this time. It has to be an orderly process.

If we agree on those three basic things, can we finally sit down and write immigration laws that make sense in the 21st century? I think we can. But we have got to take hatred and cruelty off the table. We have got to be honest and sincere.

Juan should have a future in this country. He is doing something good for this country now in this medical laboratory. He is obeying the law. He is showing up as he is supposed to. He is paying every 2 years his fee of $600, and he goes through a criminal background check.

He was brought here at the age of 8, for goodness' sake. Wouldn't you give him a chance to earn his way toward legal status in this country? I would, the DREAM Act would, and so would DACA.

As the Senate considers the appropriations before us for recordbreaking amounts of money, to the poor people like Juan, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Take a look at the reality of the situation. Stop depending on labels. These are real human beings who are doing their best to make this a better country.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Jeffrey M. Kuhlman to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

Mr. Kuhlman has only practiced law for 9 years, focusing primarily on the defense of government entities and employees.

In one case, Mr. Kuhlman represented five juvenile detention officers who held 17-year-old Cedric Lofton in a prone position for nearly 40 minutes. Cedric, a child in foster care who was experiencing a mental health crisis, went into cardiac arrest and died.

Mr. Kuhlman claimed that the wrongful death suit should be dismissed because Cedric's death was his fault, arguing: ``He only died because he was fighting and because he was in an air deficit.''

Mr. Kuhlman blamed a minor in the midst of a mental health crisis for his own death. I asked Mr. Kuhlman whether he regretted any arguments he made during this litigation. He responded with an unequivocal, ``No.''

Of Mr. Kuhlman's top 10 most significant cases, 4 involved representing law enforcement officers accused of using excessive force. In responses to written questions, he confirmed that he has never represented individuals harmed by law enforcement using excessive force.

During his hearing, I asked Mr. Kuhlman about his work representing the Marion County Commission, County Sheriff and a sheriff's deputy in a lawsuit after local law enforcement raided the offices of the Marion County Record and related properties in August 2023.

The incident received national news coverage and raised freedom of press concerns. The county paid the Record's publisher a $3 million settlement and provided a formal apology.

During his hearing, Mr. Kuhlman said that he worked on several cases he believed received unfair media coverage. In light of these statements and his prior work on the Marion County Record case, I asked Mr. Kuhlman in written questions to identify those cases and explain why he believed the coverage was unfair.

He declined to respond because he felt ``it would be improper to comment on news coverage from media outlets because . . . [there] may be instances where media outlets are involved in litigation in the District of Kansas.''

Apparently, it is appropriate for Mr. Kuhlman to claim that some of the cases he worked on received unfair media coverage during his hearing, but it is inappropriate for him to identify those cases and explain why he believed the coverage was unfair in written questions. I find this to be conveniently evasive.

For these reasons, I will oppose Mr. Kuhlman's nomination.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, do you remember when the ICE agents were in the city of Chicago? I can't forget it. Things were happening in the city I am honored to represent I had never seen before. We had these people who were kind of in uniform, but not really, wearing masks, carrying guns, and they were pursuing ``the worst of the worst.'' They were looking for rapists, murderers, terrorists, the criminally insane, child predators, on and on. And they certainly were looking for people who came into the United States and didn't have legal immigration status.

They frightened a community in a way that I had never seen before. People in parts of Chicago who had lived there peacefully, quietly, without any problem for years reached the point where they were afraid to go to the grocery store. They stopped going to church. They didn't know what was next for the ICE agents.

They patrolled the streets. They went after individuals. They arrested some. They detained others. There is one scene that is still in my memory. The scene was when they decided that there was someone living in a home who was an illegal person, they crashed down the front door and broke it down. They took this man out of the shower. They wrapped a towel, bathrobe around him, and took him off to be arrested. Turned out he was an American citizen. He had committed no crime. They were just wrong.

And people said: Wait a minute. You mean the ICE agents can crash down my front door? They didn't have a warrant from a court or anything to authorize it. They just did it. ``Can you do that in America,'' people were asking. It is a basic question. It is not clear, the answer, if you look at the conduct of this administration when it comes to the ICE operations.

There is one thing that is clear: this little book called ``The United States Constitution.''

Let me read you a section of it when it comes to your right as an American. Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons,

[homes], papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches

and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall

issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or

affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be

searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Bill of rights, fundamental to who we are as Americans. Something we take for granted. It is my home. You are not coming into my home unless you have got some judge that has approved it and you have gone through the right process. You can't decide, just because you are wearing a badge, to crash down my front door.

Well, we have an interesting debate going on this week in the U.S. Senate that goes right to the heart of that amendment, the Fourth Amendment. Later this week we are expected to consider legislation to reauthorize a rather obscure area of the law, section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA.

What is this FISA all about? It is all about 9/11. I have been around the Senate for a few years, and I can remember the tragedy of 9/11, the thousands of Americans who lost their lives and the fear we had as to what was next, our determination to keep our country safe.

I am proud to be a Democrat, but I will tell you I think President George W. Bush, a Republican, handled that tragedy in a superb way. He led our Nation in a time when we needed leadership. He made it clear to us and said words that I still recall, that this war on terrorism was not going to be a war against the religion of Islam. He said it was a peaceful religion. I remember that pronouncement he made because it was considered to be courageous, politically courageous, for him to say that the group that attacked us, their religion should not be held against them.

I am not going to dwell on that, although I do want to salute President George W. Bush again for his courage in leading us in that moment.

But we decided also that we weren't going to be attacked again. No. We are going to prepare ourselves. We are going to defend ourselves. We are going to create Agencies of our government that have the authority, the power, and the resources to keep us safe. Never again; no 9/11.

And so we created a brandnew structure of intelligence Agencies in America. I have been in Congress for a number of years, familiar with the old way we did things, served on the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was going to be a new day, a new organization, and we were going to do everything we can to make sure that 9/11 never happened again.

We created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and that basically said: We are going to listen to and hear and pay attention to our enemies. We are going to stop them before they hit us.

Most Americans would say: Good. That is why we elected you.

For years, Congress--although despite this--has avoided confronting a fundamental flaw at the heart of our surveillance authority. Under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the government collects communications of foreigners--foreigners--overseas without a warrant from any court.

But, in the process, the government, unfortunately, over the years collects millions of communications of innocent Americans--people they are not authorized to surveil.

Once collected, the government can search these communications without a warrant from any court. So here we have this question about the possession of your privacy as an American citizen being assaulted by your government, despite that Fourth Amendment.

Every American needs to understand that this law, which I referred to, allows the government to listen to your phone calls, read your private messages that have been collected under section 702. The government does all that without any court approval. They are not breaking down your front door; they are listening on your phone.

This is a fundamental flaw that I have worked to change for a long time. And over and over again, every administration--both political parties--said: Senator, don't lose any sleep. It is just a little problem. We will take care of it.

But the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on warrantless searches is not an optional decision by the government. That Fourth Amendment is a core safeguard of liberty guaranteed by our Constitution.

Every single Member of the Senate--Democrats, Republicans--raised their hand and took an oath. What was that oath all about? To uphold and defend this little book.

As detailed in a recent report by the nonpartisan Brennan Center, the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the National Security Agency have abused section 702 for years--years. These abuses, according to the FISA Court, have been ``persistent and widespread.'' The government itself has reported hundreds of thousands of unlawful searches using this authority.

In other words, 702 is directed toward foreigners, remember? They are using it against Americans. They are collecting information about people who are not even covered by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

As further detailed in the Brennan Center report, the government has used section 702 to spy unlawfully on many people. Whom have they spied on? Members of Congress, congressional staff, judges, journalists, protestors, political donors, even women on dating apps. Go figure. That is going to make us safer in America?

Past attempts at reform have not solved the problem, and I have been at this for many years.

As the Brennan Center explained, ``The current system of section 702 oversight relies almost entirely on the executive branch self-policing to prevent, detect, and report abuses.'' In other words, the fox is watching the chicken coop. That is a flawed system under any administration. Under this administration, it is especially alarming.

The FISA Court has already raised concerns about how this Trump administration is using the powers that I have described to you this afternoon. But the Trump administration is keeping the latest opinion of the court secret from the American people. I have seen it. I invite every Member of the Senate to go and see it. I am not going to betray anything that is secret or confidential, but I guarantee you that if you will take time out of your busy schedule to go down to what we call the SCIF to order up a copy of a document--I won't be any more specific--and take the time--it will take you a little time to read it, your opinion of the role of FISA and the rights of Americans will be impacted for sure.

We can't wait to fix 702. Now is the time to do it. Now is the time to say we can have both liberty and security. I credit my colleague from Oregon Ron Wyden, who came up with that phrase, and it says it all. Can we be safe in America and still be free? Is it possible? I think it is.

This issue is even more urgent because of the Trump administration's disregard for the rule of law. The question before Congress is whether we will grant warrantless surveillance authority to President Trump and MAGA loyalists like FBI Director Kash Patel and the new--announced today--Director of National Intelligence Bill Pulte for the rest of this administration.

I am not going to go into the suggestion of Mr. Pulte to head our intelligence Agencies. I will simply just say: totally unqualified.

The current administration has repeatedly targeted political opponents. We have seen it all across the board, including former Fed Chair Jerome Powell, former FBI Director James Comey, and New York attorney general Letitia James. It has attacked independent institutions like the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board. I know that because I had a hand in creating it. We said if there is going to be all of this surveillance going after enemies of the United States, let us make sure there is a Board of five people who will be watching these activities and reporting the excesses to Congress if changes need to be made.

What did the Trump administration do to the five-member Privacy and Civil Liberties Board I just described? They removed the three Democrats on the Board so it couldn't function.

The courts have a responsibility here as well. They fired career law enforcement officials and public servants at the FBI and the Department of Justice. They have cleaned shop. These people would have been responsible that a program like 702 be lawful and nonpartisan. They are gone, removed by this administration--so the watchdogs that we built into the system to make sure that no President, no administration, goes too far in the exercise of their responsibilities and duties.

Yes, we want a safe America, but, yes, we want it to be a lawful country too. We want it to abide by the Constitution, and those of us who swore an oath to uphold and defend it have the first responsibility.

In the hands of a government that has treated the Constitution as an afterthought, Congress should not place blind trust in the hands of an administration which clearly can use this surveillance power for political purposes.

It is not hard to imagine what this President and his handpicked FBI Director Kash Patel could do with unchecked surveillance powers.

Are my fears of Mr. Patel warranted? Read his words, his own book that he wrote about his view of government. And just for convenience, he provides not an index but a list of his political enemies--his political enemies. Now, this man is the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and has the power of the surveillance, which I have described to you. Trust him? It is not hard to imagine why this President chose him for political reasons.

What happens when the administration uses section 702 to spy on Americans, perhaps those who protested the murder of two innocent people in Minneapolis during the ICE raids? They used to spy on Black Lives Matters protestors. Is it hard to imagine that they would extend that to those who question the masked ICE agents' activity?

What happens if journalists have their texts and phone calls snooped on because they dare to report controversial news about this administration's misconduct?

Any Member of Congress who wants to ensure there are checks on this out-of-control administration should not vote to reauthorize the authority of 702 without meaningful guardrails. I want 702 to continue to be strong, to be legal, to be constitutional. We can make it such.

Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on the nomination of Kathleen Lane, President Trump's nominee to serve as a lifetime appointment and judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana.

There are more than 3,000 licensed attorneys in the State of Montana. You would believe that the White House in finding a Federal judge for a lifetime appointment would be able to find among those 3,000-plus licensed attorneys in Montana one with experience having served as a judge.

Instead, President Trump has selected Ms. Lane. Ms. Lane is not remotely qualified to serve as a district court judge in the Federal system. That is not my opinion; that is the official finding by the American Bar Association.

Ms. Lane is the first judicial nominee to receive a ``not qualified'' rating from the ABA during President Trump's second term. As the American Bar Association explained in finding this rating, it is ``based on issues with her experience, which is an important component of competence.''

The organization found that Ms. Lane had failed to gain ``substantial courtroom and trial experience in the less than nine years since she was admitted to the bar.''

As the ABA detailed:

Ms. Lane [has] never tried a case as lead counsel, whether

civil or criminal.

Moreover, as the ABA noted:

[I]t appears she has never conducted a direct examination

[in a courtroom], picked a jury, or offered an opening

statement or a closing argument.

Putting this lady on the bench for a lifetime appointment to the Federal court would be like selecting an umpire for tonight's Major League Baseball game who has never even worked a Little League game.

Ms. Lane's experience is disqualifying. Now my Republican colleagues may claim that the ABA, American Bar Association, is a partisan organization, but over the past year, the ABA has rated dozens of Trump nominees ``qualified'' or ``well qualified.'' Ms. Lane is the only one who has received a ``not qualified'' rating.

Not only has her legal career been extremely brief, but it has also been extremely partisan. Ms. Lane currently works at the Republican National Committee, which President Trump highlighted when he announced her nomination.

She certainly may not have courtroom experience, but she has got experience at the so-called MAGA think tank.

He claimed, the President claimed, that Ms. Lane ``played a critical role in stopping Voter Fraud . . . at the Republican National Committee.''

He believes that qualifies her for a lifetime appointment to the Federal court.

But before she went to work for the Republican National Committee, Ms. Lane repeatedly chose to litigate politically charged issues and worked to limit women's rights, voting rights, and the rights of LGBTQ Americans.

Ms. Lane is not the person for this job. She is too ideological, too inexperienced for the role to which she has been nominated.

I urge my colleagues to oppose her nomination.

Mr. President, on a separate topic, today is June 1, the arbitrary deadline President Trump imposed on the congressional Republicans to send their partisan funding bill to his desk for signature.

So why aren't the Republican colleagues headed to the White House today for a flashy bill signing ceremony to fund more abuses by the ICE Agency? I will tell you. Because 2 weeks ago, Senate Republicans left town after an internal revolt over the President's so-called Anti- Weaponization Fund.

Nearly $1.8 billion--$1.8 billion. That is even more than the ballroom--$1.8 billion for the slush fund for the President's cronies and allies.

Well, who would be eligible for any part of the $1.8 billion fund? People like Brandon Fellows. This may be a new name to you, but we are becoming more familiar with him.

He was pardoned by President Trump, a full and unconditional Presidential pardon, for being one of the January 6 insurrectionists who was convicted and sentenced on felony and misdemeanor charges for climbing an exterior wall of the Capitol, entering the building through a broken window.

Well, time has passed. Has he shown any remorse since he was convicted of that crime? No. He still believes President Trump's Big Lie about the 2020 election and the conspiracy theory that January 6-- which he is on video participating in--was a setup, entrapment.

I remember that day very well. I was seated here. Vice President Pence was presiding over the Senate. We were officially counting the ballots as to who

actually won the election in 2020. All of a sudden, a little after 2, those doors opened and policemen came in--I assumed they were policemen, they had on plain clothes--and went up to the Vice President on the podium, whispered in his ear, and pulled him off the podium quickly through that door. We sat here wondering what was going on. There was a big demonstration going on outside. Nobody knew what was happening. They were making noise, but that is not unusual in the Capitol.

At that point, a member of the Capitol Police, one of the officers who protected you in the Gallery and me today when we entered the building, came and stood before us and said: Stay where you are. Stay in your seats. This is going to be a safe room. This mob that came up from the White House is going to be stopped. Stay where you are.

So we all sat here not quite sure what to do next. Ten minutes later, the same policeman came up and said: New orders. Leave immediately. Evacuate through this door, and we will follow you.

So we headed out, all of the Senators off the floor and the staff as well, to an adjoining building.

What happened next? The mob then broke down the doors and came into the Capitol, came into the Senate Chamber and the House Chamber, rifled through our desks, aped for pictures in front of one another, and basically threatened people who were here that they had to leave. That is what actually happened.

Now, we know that happened because it was on a videotape. We saw it. America saw it. Every minute of it followed carefully. And yet we actually have people today who deny it ever happened.

If you are a student of history, you know that in the Soviet empire, they did that regularly. If history became inconvenient, they rewrote it, wrote another book, condemned people for saying the old way was the right way. That is what is happening here.

Well, this fellow Brandon Fellows was one of the people who broke into the Capitol through a broken window. He still believes that Trump won the 2020 election. He still believes that conspiracy theory about January 6, despite--it actually never happened is what he says, which he is on video participating in.

He likes to spend his free time dressing up as an ICE agent and encouraging others to do the same to terrorize immigrants. How much is Mr. Fellows seeking from the anti-weaponization $2 billion slush fund of the President? He thinks his inconvenience that he encountered is worth $30 million Federal tax dollars--$30 million.

And we can expect droves of other January 6 insurrectionists to also seek these cash rewards. Even those who continue to threaten our communities by committing more crimes, many of them of the January 6 mob that mobbed this Chamber, are back in jail for committing another crime after President Trump's pardon, ranging from conspiracy to murder, to child sex abuse, and exploitation.

Let me say it in a different way: While American families are struggling to afford gas for their cars, put food on their tables, pay their utility bills--thanks to Trump's tariffs and war of choice in Iran--the President wants to hand lofty payouts to his political buddies and the criminals who attacked our democracy at his request. It reeks of corruption.

I will also note, as part of the settlement, the IRS is permanently barred from auditing past tax returns of President Trump, his family, and related companies. Get that? Ever play Monopoly? Remember that get- out-of-jail card you had hung onto? President Trump wanted a get-out- of-jail card from the Federal Government, his government, that he would never be prosecuted for tax fraud--never. It included his family, his colleagues, his business buddies, and friends. That was part of this deal in creating this slush fund. Is this America? Is this a Monopoly game? And if it is, it is embarrassing--permanently barred from auditing past tax returns of Donald Trump, his family, and related companies. Taken altogether, this is deeply disturbing.

Senate Democrats will continue to fight this unprecedented and unacceptable $1.8 billion slush fund for January 6 insurrectionists and Trump loyalists and will work to halt the flow of taxpayer dollars to Trump's massive deportation campaign while standing ready to have a serious bipartisan negotiation about the need for reforms of Trump's immigration system.

If this partisan reconciliation bill ever sees the light of day, we will put Republicans on record by votes on this floor as to whether or not they accept this as a legitimate exercise of government function. Will Republican colleagues stand by the Constitution and the laws of our country, or will they join the President in this folly? I hope time will tell that they will join us in a bipartisan effort to stop the slush fund.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.

The yeas and the nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 44, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 131 Leg.]