Floor Statements

Madam President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Edward Kiel to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Born in Daegu, South Korea, Judge Kiel received both his B.S.E.E. and B.A. from Rutgers University, and his J.D. from Notre Dame Law School.

After clerking for Judge Michael R. Imbriani of the Superior Court of New Jersey in Somerset County, Judge Kiel worked at Jamieson, Moore, Peskin & Spicer as an associate, where he worked on a variety of matters, including insurance regulatory and commercial litigation cases.

He then went on to work at Beattie Padovano as an associate, where he handled various civil matters for a range of clients, from individuals to large corporations. Following his tenure at Beattie Padovano, Judge Kiel became a partner at Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard, where he litigated matters before the Federal and State courts of New Jersey.

In 2019, Judge Kiel was appointed to be U.S. magistrate judge on the same district to which he is nominated. Since his appointment to the bench, he has issued more than 1,000 orders, reports and recommendations, opinions, and memorandum orders--only two of which have been reversed by a reviewing district court judge.

The American Bar Association unanimously rated Judge Kiel ``well qualified'' to serve on the district court, and he has the strong support of Senators Menendez and Booker.

Judge Kiel's two decades of litigation experience combined with his distinguished career on the bench prove he is ready to handle the demands of the District of New Jersey from day one.

I thank my colleagues for supporting his nomination.

Madam President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Eumi K. Lee to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Judge Lee received her B.A. from Pomona College and her J.D., cum laude, from the Georgetown University Law Center. After law school, she clerked for Judge Jerome Turner on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, and she later clerked for Judge Warren J. Ferguson on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. During her time in private practice in San Francisco, Judge Lee worked on complex civil litigation, white-collar criminal defense, and appellate matters, and she tried approximately 21 cases to final decision.

She later served on the faculty of the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco, where she taught primarily within the clinical programs and wrote about criminal justice issues. In 2018, Judge Lee was appointed to the Superior Court of California in Alameda County by then-Governor Jerry Brown. She won election to a 6-year term in 2020. During her time on the bench, Judge Lee has handled a wide range of civil and criminal cases at both the trial and appellate levels, and she has presided over 70 trials since joining the bench.

The American Bar Association rated Judge Lee ``well qualified'' to serve on the Northern District of California. She has strong ties to the district, and she is strongly supported by both of her home State Senators, Mr. Padilla and Ms. Butler. Her litigation background, her academic career, and her invaluable experience as a State court judge will serve her well on the Federal bench.

Judge Lee was the final judicial nominee from California who had the honor of being introduced at her hearing by my late friend and colleague Senator Feinstein. When Senator Feinstein introduced Judge Lee, she noted Judge Lee's ``multitude of experience,'' and Senator Padilla praised Judge Lee's ``wealth of legal expertise.'' Those remarks highlight what Judge Lee will bring to the district court. I strongly support this nominee, and I urge my colleagues to join me.

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I rise again today to discuss an issue that I have been working on for more than 20 years: the ongoing uncertainty and plight facing America's Dreamers.

It was a little over 20 years ago when my office in Chicago got a telephone call. There was a girl graduating from high school in Chicago, and she had a problem. The good news was she was a musical prodigy; she played the piano, and she was extraordinary. The bad news was she was undocumented.

She had been brought to the United States at the age of 2. Her parents had brought her originally from Korea through Brazil to Chicago. Her father's goal in life was to become a minister of a church and preach the gospel, and she used to travel with him to these churches and pound away at the piano while he was practicing his sermons. Over the years, she enlisted in a program called the Merit music program and developed her piano skills to an extraordinary level.

All of her teachers said to her--Tereza Lee was her name--you have got to go to music school. Juilliard, Manhattan Conservatory--you qualify for all of them.

So she sat down to fill out the application and came to the space that said her nationality and citizenship. She didn't know what to put there, so one of her friends called our office, figuring Senator Durbin would know the answer. Well, we found the answer, and it was terrible. Because she was an undocumented person in the United States and had been here since the age of 2, her recourse under the law was and still is to leave the United States for 10 years and petition to come back in. She was 18 years old. Her prospect was ridiculous.

As a result of that casework, I decided to introduce a bill called the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act basically said, if you came to the United States under the age of 18, grew up in this country, and had no problems with the law, you should have a path to citizenship. It was that basic. Well, as one can guess, we tried to pass that bill many times. It has passed on the floor of the Senate a couple of times, but never have we been able to get both the Senate and the House together on this issue.

I continue to come to the floor to talk about it because there is a new wrinkle. It seems that one of my former Senate colleagues became President of the United States, Barack Obama. He had cosponsored the DREAM Act, and I appealed to him, along with Senator Richard Lugar, a Republican of Indiana, to create by Executive order some program that could protect these young people. He created DACA. DACA, at one point, had almost 800,000 young people in America protected from deportation as they renewed every 2 years their status with DACA so they could go to school; they could have a life; and maybe, someday, at some future time, actually become citizens of the United States.

I thought the best way to describe this issue to people--because it is still in controversy and still tied up in the courts as to whether DACA will have a future--was to share stories of the DACA recipients and who they are. I do that again today. This is the 141st DACA recipient Dreamer about whom I have told the story here on the floor of the Senate.

This young man's name is Edon Molla. He came to the United States with his family when he was 2 years old, fleeing the war in Kosovo. He excelled in the United States. He was the salutatorian of his high school class; and he helped to lead his high school basketball team to three undefeated seasons, three State titles, and two national championships.

His story goes on from there. He was selected for the all-State team and played Division I basketball at St. Francis College in Brooklyn, NY. In addition to his basketball career, Edon excelled in the classroom and graduated from college with honors.

After college, multiple teams approached him about playing professional basketball in Europe. Unfortunately, he was forced to decline all of these offers because of his immigration status, but he didn't let it discourage him. He switched paths and started to pursue a new career in the music industry. With DACA, Edon has become a renowned professional musician. He has worked with successful artists like Roberta Flack, released an album, and performed at a music festival headlined by major international stars.

In addition to his successful music and basketball careers, Edon has made time to give back to his community. He has led a basketball clinic for children with cancer, taught music lessons to kids with special needs, and performed at multiple charity concerts. Edon is now starting a master's in business administration at Cornell University. He plans to pursue his master's degree as he continues his musical career.

DACA has allowed Edon to pursue his dreams for the time being, but DACA was also intended to be a temporary solution. Since President Obama established the program, Republicans have waged a relentless campaign--many of them--to overturn DACA and deport these Dreamers back to the countries they may not even remember. Now this program is hanging by a thread in the courts, and DACA recipients like Edon are being forced to live in fear and uncertainty every single day.

Last September, a Federal judge in Texas declared the DACA Program illegal. Though the decision left in place protections for current DACA recipients--and there are almost 600,000 of them--while an appeal is pending, they live in constant fear that the next court decision will upend their lives.

Court decisions have also prevented any new Dreamers from registering for the program. This means that, without congressional action--if we do nothing, if we continue to do nothing--hundreds of thousands of Dreamers who are ready to serve in their communities across the country may never have that opportunity.

Studies have estimated that, if DACA were to end, we would lose 1,000 U.S. jobs every day for the next 2 years. Business owners in my State often tell me that they need more workers. So the question I ask my colleagues today and ask America: Can we afford to lose 1,000 jobs a day from young people who grow up here, went to school here, stood up in the classroom every morning and pledged allegiance to that flag, believing it was their flag and their future? I think not.

When he was President, Donald Trump tried to end the DACA Program. The first time I ever met Donald Trump was the day he was inaugurated as President. There was a luncheon, and I was invited to it. I went up to him, face-to-face in conversation personally, and I said: I want to tell you something. My priority is to cover these Dreamers, these DACA recipients, and give them a chance in America.

He leaned over and said: Don't worry. We are going to take care of those kids.

Well, he took care of them for sure. He tried to end the program altogether, with no protection for these young people. And, as a candidate, he has threatened to round up and deport undocumented immigrants, like this young man whom I just described.

We can no longer stand idly by while extremist judges and politicians toy with the future of these young people who have never known life in this country formally as legal citizens. We in Congress should protect Dreamers like Edon right now. I urge my colleagues to reach out to Dreamers in their States to learn more about these talented young people.

I have given these speeches on the floor. As I said, this is the 141st young person I have described. I have yet to have a disappointment where they came back and said: Oh, Senator, that young man, that young woman you just described got on the other side of the law and did something terrible.

It has never happened. These young people are good people. They deserve as much chance as our children to become part of this Nation's future.

They are business owners, teachers, parents, athletes, scientists, nurses, healthcare workers, musicians, and so much more. Would America be better if they were gone? I think not. It is clear that they are an important part of our future and an important part of our American life.

It is time to get to work and pass the Dream Act once and for all. It is the right thing to do, and it is long overdue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Nicole Berner to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

After receiving her B.A., M.P.P., and J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, Ms. Berner clerked for the Hon. Betty Binns Fletcher on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Hon. Thelton E. Henderson on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

After several years in private practice, Ms. Berner served as a staff attorney at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, litigating cases to protect and expand access to reproductive healthcare.

Since 2006, she has worked at the Service Employees International

Union--SEIU--currently serving as general counsel. At the SEIU, she has worked on a range of matters, including cases arising under labor and employment laws and regulations, as well as advising on legal claims involving criminal law, voting rights, Federal preemption, antitrust, bankruptcy, and immigration.

Ms. Berner has the strong support from her home State Senators, Mr. Cardin and Mr. Van Hollen. In addition, she received a ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association.

Ms. Berner will be the first openly LGBTQ+ person to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and will bring professional diversity as a lawyer with expertise in representing employees and labor organizations. Ms. Berner's breadth and depth of experience demonstrates that she is eminently qualified to serve on the bench.

I urge my colleagues to support Ms. Berner's nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the death of Laken Riley was a horrible crime--horrible crime--and a heartbreaking loss. This 22-year-old American nursing student at Augusta University in Georgia, I am certain, would have made America a better place with her life and contribution to our country. But, instead, she was taken from us on February 22, 2024.

A suspect has been arrested and may, ultimately, be tried for this crime. That is as it should be. That is how we follow the law in the United States.

But when you look at the request before us, it gives me pause. We can all agree that noncitizens who are convicted of violent crimes should be detained and removed from the United States. Sadly, the measure before us does nothing to address this issue.

Under current law in the United States of America, noncitizens who enter the country illegally, violate the terms of their status, or have their visas revoked can be detained by officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement--better known as ICE--as they should be. Current law also requires the detention of individuals with serious criminal convictions and those who have committed murder, rape, or any--any-- crime of violence or theft offense with a term of imprisonment of at least 1 year, as they should be.

The law also gives ICE the discretion to detain or release a noncitizen in any case where a noncitizen has been charged with a crime, as they should be. To make this decision, ICE must assess the individual circumstances of the case and ensure the Agency's limited resources are used effectively to focus on protecting our national security and public safety, as they should be.

Remember, the vast majority of Republicans, including the sponsors of this measure, recently blocked a national security supplemental bill that would have given ICE more funding to detain undocumented immigrants who might pose a threat to our country.

The sweeping approach in the bill before us would eliminate the Agency's discretion to prioritize the most dangerous individuals and require ICE to treat those arrested for shoplifting the same as those convicted of violent crimes. Let me repeat that--require ICE to treat those arrested for shoplifting the same as those convicted of violent crimes. This would overwhelm ICE's capacity and facilities and make our Nation less, not more, safe.

For example, this proposal before us would require ICE to detain every immigrant who is arrested for shoplifting, even if the charges are ultimately dropped and don't lead to a conviction. Remember, this bill does not require a charge or a conviction. Tell me, does it make sense to treat a noncitizen arrested for shoplifting the same as someone convicted of murder? I think we all know the answer to that question.

This bill goes into another area which hasn't been discussed much-- which is hard to imagine--but this bill would grant State attorneys general the standing to sue Federal immigration authorities if a State disagrees with immigration enforcement decisions made by the Federal Government. I think, on its face, it is unconstitutional.

For example, this bill would give a State attorney general the standing to challenge the use of parole authority--for example, like Uniting for Ukraine, which allowed Ukrainians to flee Putin's war to come to the United States--if a State can prove it had an impact of $100 for the Federal Government to make that decision.

Laken Riley's murder was a tragedy. We must do everything we can to prevent crimes like this from happening. But this legislation would make our system less safe.

The reality is that most immigrants in the United States are law- abiding individuals who are seeking a better life in this country. Many studies have shown that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than U.S. citizens.

Mr. President, you know personally from your own experience in Congress that it has been more than 30 years

since we have seriously considered an immigration reform bill. We had a chance, didn't we, just a few weeks ago? There was a bipartisan group-- and the White House was part of it--that wanted to sit down and change the immigration and border security laws of the United States.

The Republican effort in this regard was led by James Lankford, a conservative, respected Republican from Oklahoma, and on our side, Senators Murphy and Sinema, who negotiated for weeks, week after week, to come up with a proposal. The notion was to finally address the border security of the United States in a comprehensive, bipartisan, realistic way. It was controversial. There were some parts of it that I didn't care for at all. But I thought this was a good-faith, bipartisan effort.

We were assured that because the Republican Senators had chosen Senator Lankford as their negotiator, that it at least would entertain some support on the Republican side. We called the measure on the floor, and it failed because the Republicans would not join the Democrats in engaging in this bipartisan effort.

The issues raised this morning by Senator Budd could have been resolved, perhaps, if we would have had that kind of bipartisan negotiation, but it didn't happen.

I had my concerns about the deal, but it certainly should have moved forward.

When it came to a vote, the vast majority of Republicans opposed it at the request of former President Donald Trump, who urged a ``no'' vote, who wanted the measure to stop and not be considered and moved forward and said:

Go ahead and blame me for it.

Well, I am blaming you for it, and I am blaming those who stepped away from this bipartisan opportunity.

Donald Trump has made clear that he does not want a solution to our challenges at the border; he wants an issue for the November election. So we stepped away from it--the only realistic chance to have a bipartisan solution.

I urge my colleagues to reject Donald Trump's advice. Let's get back to the table. Let's consider the issues raised by the Senator this morning and other issues that are important and make a bipartisan decision to move forward to solve this problem.

I object.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

Madam President, in just a few weeks, an important but controversial surveillance authority, known as section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, will expire. This extraordinary authority was initially presented to Congress as a temporary emergency counterterrorism tool more than 15 years ago. As is often the case with temporary emergency authorities, section 702 is now used for a wide range of foreign intelligence purposes, from countering Russia to stopping the flow of fentanyl into the United States.

Just last month, the Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed that data collected using section 702 allowed the Agency to foil several attacks in recent years, including attacks that would have crippled U.S. critical infrastructure and even threaten the lives of our U.S. servicemembers. And the authority has helped the U.S. uncover atrocities committed by Russia during its ongoing assault on Ukraine.

I have had demonstrations of the 702 authority, and there is no doubt in my mind that it is a valuable tool for collecting foreign intelligence. But this authority raises serious constitutional concerns, as it allows access not just to communications by those who are foreigners but also to the vast databases of Americans' communications without the customary search warrant required by the U.S. Constitution.

This powerful tool--this effective tool on foreign surveillance--has been used, in my mind, improperly to spy on American protesters, from Black Lives Matter to MAGA loyalists.

The FBI has imposed new limits on the authority of FBI agents to search the communications of Americans. But even after implementing these reforms, the FBI still conducted over 200,000 warrantless searches of Americans in just 1 year--more than 500 searches of Americans per day.

Democrats and Republicans alike are rightly concerned. Our Founders understood the danger of unchecked government surveillance and had the wisdom and foresight to enshrine protections for American citizens in the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to our

Constitution protects Americans from unreasonable search and seizure, particularly those without a warrant based upon probable cause that had been approved by a judge.

I have long raised concerns about section 702's lack of sufficient safeguards to protect these rights, and I have consistently voted against the extension of section 702 without changes. However, I have also said that I would support section 702 if it includes sufficient safeguards to protect Americans from warrantless surveillance.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has primary jurisdiction over FISA, I have evaluated proposed reforms and carefully considered the administration's views. I have also heard from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Existing legislative proposals of the House and Senate go too far for some and not far enough for others.

That is why, today, I am introducing what I hope will be a compromise bill that tries to bridge this divide to protect both our security and our Constitution and guaranteed freedoms.

The Security and Freedom Enhancement Act, or SAFE Act, would enhance our national security by reauthorizing section 702 for 4 more years, while also protecting Americans from warrantless surveillance.

The SAFE Act would require the government to demonstrate to a court that it has probable cause before reading or listening to the private communications of Americans that have been swept up by section 702. Basically, in just a few words to describe the process, if one of our intelligence or law enforcement Agencies suspects that a foreigner is engaged in conduct that is threatening the security of the United States, they call up the records of that foreigner, and if it turns out that foreigner has communicated with an American citizen, the question is, What do you do next? Can you, in any way, monitor that conversation or come up with an investigation of the documents of that American with or without a warrant? That is the fundamental question we are facing here. So the search starts in the right direction, to a foreign source, and ends up dealing with an American--an American, obviously, who has constitutional rights.

The SAFE Act would require the government to demonstrate to a court that it has probable cause, before reading or listening to the private communications of Americans who have been swept up in section 702. However, this requirement will not prevent government agents from searching 702 databases to determine if foreign targets are communicating with Americans, nor will it prevent agents from accessing the communications of those foreign agents.

But if the government wants to review the contents--the contents--of Americans' communication, it would first be required to demonstrate to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that it has probable cause to do that.

This would not be overly burdensome because a warrant would only be required in cases where the government actually reviews the content of American communications. They estimate that the incidents of American content are 1.58 percent of all 702 searches of Americans.

The SAFE Act also would not require a warrant in cases involving exigent circumstances or cyber security attacks to ensure that there will not be any delay that jeopardizes our national security.

This approach is based on recommendations by the independent Private and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which we created after 9/11 to ensure that our counterterrorism policies do not violate the constitutional rights of the American people.

The persistent and widespread violation of existing limits on section 702 underscore the importance of court approval, which we will propose.

Better compliance measures within the executive branch are helpful, but they are no substitute for checks and balances by the judicial branch, as the Founders intended.

The SAFE Act, which I am introducing, is a sensible, moderate compromise between more robust reform proposals that address a wide range of surveillance concerns and bills that reauthorize section 702 without adequately addressing these concerns.

I know that compromise does not come easy when it comes to this policy, but a reasonable middle ground that protects our national security and the rights of the American people is possible. The SAFE Act is my offer in compromise to achieve that goal.

With the April 19 sunset of section 702 fast approaching, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this compromise for the good of the American people.

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

Madam President, in just a few weeks, an important but controversial surveillance authority, known as section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, will expire. This extraordinary authority was initially presented to Congress as a temporary emergency counterterrorism tool more than 15 years ago. As is often the case with temporary emergency authorities, section 702 is now used for a wide range of foreign intelligence purposes, from countering Russia to stopping the flow of fentanyl into the United States.

Just last month, the Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed that data collected using section 702 allowed the Agency to foil several attacks in recent years, including attacks that would have crippled U.S. critical infrastructure and even threaten the lives of our U.S. servicemembers. And the authority has helped the U.S. uncover atrocities committed by Russia during its ongoing assault on Ukraine.

I have had demonstrations of the 702 authority, and there is no doubt in my mind that it is a valuable tool for collecting foreign intelligence. But this authority raises serious constitutional concerns, as it allows access not just to communications by those who are foreigners but also to the vast databases of Americans' communications without the customary search warrant required by the U.S. Constitution.

This powerful tool--this effective tool on foreign surveillance--has been used, in my mind, improperly to spy on American protesters, from Black Lives Matter to MAGA loyalists.

The FBI has imposed new limits on the authority of FBI agents to search the communications of Americans. But even after implementing these reforms, the FBI still conducted over 200,000 warrantless searches of Americans in just 1 year--more than 500 searches of Americans per day.

Democrats and Republicans alike are rightly concerned. Our Founders understood the danger of unchecked government surveillance and had the wisdom and foresight to enshrine protections for American citizens in the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to our

Constitution protects Americans from unreasonable search and seizure, particularly those without a warrant based upon probable cause that had been approved by a judge.

I have long raised concerns about section 702's lack of sufficient safeguards to protect these rights, and I have consistently voted against the extension of section 702 without changes. However, I have also said that I would support section 702 if it includes sufficient safeguards to protect Americans from warrantless surveillance.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has primary jurisdiction over FISA, I have evaluated proposed reforms and carefully considered the administration's views. I have also heard from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Existing legislative proposals of the House and Senate go too far for some and not far enough for others.

That is why, today, I am introducing what I hope will be a compromise bill that tries to bridge this divide to protect both our security and our Constitution and guaranteed freedoms.

The Security and Freedom Enhancement Act, or SAFE Act, would enhance our national security by reauthorizing section 702 for 4 more years, while also protecting Americans from warrantless surveillance.

The SAFE Act would require the government to demonstrate to a court that it has probable cause before reading or listening to the private communications of Americans that have been swept up by section 702. Basically, in just a few words to describe the process, if one of our intelligence or law enforcement Agencies suspects that a foreigner is engaged in conduct that is threatening the security of the United States, they call up the records of that foreigner, and if it turns out that foreigner has communicated with an American citizen, the question is, What do you do next? Can you, in any way, monitor that conversation or come up with an investigation of the documents of that American with or without a warrant? That is the fundamental question we are facing here. So the search starts in the right direction, to a foreign source, and ends up dealing with an American--an American, obviously, who has constitutional rights.

The SAFE Act would require the government to demonstrate to a court that it has probable cause, before reading or listening to the private communications of Americans who have been swept up in section 702. However, this requirement will not prevent government agents from searching 702 databases to determine if foreign targets are communicating with Americans, nor will it prevent agents from accessing the communications of those foreign agents.

But if the government wants to review the contents--the contents--of Americans' communication, it would first be required to demonstrate to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that it has probable cause to do that.

This would not be overly burdensome because a warrant would only be required in cases where the government actually reviews the content of American communications. They estimate that the incidents of American content are 1.58 percent of all 702 searches of Americans.

The SAFE Act also would not require a warrant in cases involving exigent circumstances or cyber security attacks to ensure that there will not be any delay that jeopardizes our national security.

This approach is based on recommendations by the independent Private and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which we created after 9/11 to ensure that our counterterrorism policies do not violate the constitutional rights of the American people.

The persistent and widespread violation of existing limits on section 702 underscore the importance of court approval, which we will propose.

Better compliance measures within the executive branch are helpful, but they are no substitute for checks and balances by the judicial branch, as the Founders intended.

The SAFE Act, which I am introducing, is a sensible, moderate compromise between more robust reform proposals that address a wide range of surveillance concerns and bills that reauthorize section 702 without adequately addressing these concerns.

I know that compromise does not come easy when it comes to this policy, but a reasonable middle ground that protects our national security and the rights of the American people is possible. The SAFE Act is my offer in compromise to achieve that goal.

With the April 19 sunset of section 702 fast approaching, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this compromise for the good of the American people.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following law clerks of the Senate Judiciary Committee be granted floor privileges until March 21, 2024: Casey Adams, Hannah Auten, Anna Pollard, and Patrick Reyes.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Jasmine Hyejung Yoon to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia.

Ms. Yoon received her B.A. with distinction from the University of Virginia and her J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law. After beginning her legal career in private practice with Cromwell & Moring LLP, she clerked for Judge James C. Cacheris of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. She then served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia from 2010 to 2016, serving in both the Richmond and Alexandria Divisions. As an AUSA, she investigated and prosecuted over 80 financial crimes, including those involving public corruption, bribery, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

After spending a few years as associate director of annual giving for the University of Virginia Law School Foundation, Ms. Yoon became the associate university counsel in the University of Virginia Office of the University Counsel. In this role, she worked with the Virginia Attorney General's Office and the university to provide legal advice to the board of visitors and university leadership on matters ranging from risk and liability management, to campus security and safety. In 2021, she took over as interim university counsel and led the team of attorneys in the office of university counsel.

Since 2022, Ms. Yoon has been the vice president for corporate integrity, ethics, and investigations at Capital One Financial Corporation, where she handles all internal investigations, ethics programs, and anti-corruption programs.

The American Bar Association unanimously rated Ms. Yoon ``well qualified'' to serve on the Federal bench, and she has the strong support of both of her home State Senators, Mr. Warner and Mr. Kaine. Her breadth of experience and knowledge of the Western District of Virginia make her well-positioned to serve on the bench with distinction.

I strongly support this nominee, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for her confirmation.