fact, have been encountered by our border patrol, in all over 10 million illegal aliens across the border under this secretary's watch. the collapse of our southern border and the devastating consequences it has created for our nation is the greatest national security risk we face as a nation. the house of representatives took the extraordinary step of impeaching a government official for his role in this. and, yet, senate democrats want to completely ignore all of this. they don't want you to hear about it. they want to sweep it under the rug in an election year. the secretary's alleged violations of law warrant a trial before the senate. it warrants basic diligence in examining the evidence and every senator should go on record regarding the charges. i've cosponsored resolutions by several colleagues establishing people procedures in line with

other people trials, we are open to details on the process, but there must be a process. this is an important point. the current debate is not even whether or not secretary mayorkas is guilty as charged but whether we should even examine the question or whether instead as the senate majority leader reportedly plans to do, we should just hide the evidence from the american people and avoid discussing this administration's failures at all costs. why? because this is an election year. if the majority leader wished to honor the greatest deliberative body, i urge him not to take this unprecedented step of blocking consideration of the impeachment articles against secretary mayorkas. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. ricketts: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the following interns from my office be granted floor privileges until april 11, 2024 -- reese clark, nathan muhlenberg,

jack smith. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. ricketts: thank you, madam president. the fundamental purpose of our federal government is to protect americans, to keep americans safe. what we have seen happen in our southern border has put americans at risk. it's a national security crisis, a drug trafficking crisis, child trafficking, sex trafficking. it's putting americans at risk. and the people responsible for this open border policy are joe biden and the secretary of the department of homeland security, alejandro mayorkas. since the biden administration has been in power, we have seen

a flood of drugs coming across our border. the cartels are making billions. fentanyl and other illegal drugs are the leading killer of young americans in this country. if you are the age between 18 and 45, the most likely cause of your death is drug overdose, and the majority of that is fentanyl, 70,000 young people a year dying because of fentanyl. when i was governor, we saw the amount of drugs coming into my state under joe biden go up drama dramatically. we saw twice as much of methamp methamphetamine, three times as much fentanyl, ten times as much coc cocaine. we've seen the number of people on the terrorist watch list skyrocket as well.

under the trump administration, a total of 11 people on the fbi terrorist watch list were caught trying to cross the border during four years of president trump. in the last fiscal year, 169 people on the fbi terrorist watch list were caught trying to cross the border illegally. in all, since the biden administration has been in place, 9.2 million people have tried to get into this country illegally or succeeded in getting in illegally. and secretary mayorkas has willfully refused to support our immigration laws at the direction of this administration. he is culpable in what is going on at our southern border. if you ask americans who do you think is responsible, 57% say

there has been a willful unenforcement of our laws, our laws are not being enforced. that includes 61% of independents and a third of democrats. and if you wonder who is responsible for this, you need to look no further than a memorandum, a guideline issued in 2021 from secretary mayorkas. according to news accounts, secretary mayorkas issued a memorandum to immigration and customs enforcement officials saying, and i quote, the fact an individual is removable, a removable noncitizen, therefore should not alone be the basis of an enforcement action against them. think about that. what he is saying is just because somebody broke the law doesn't mean you have to enforce the law against them.

in fact, that you shouldn't enforce the law against them. that's not what the law is about. this is absolutely stunning. when you're in the private s sector, and somebody is not doing their job, you hold them accountable. we need to hold accountable the people that have opened our southern border. 57% believe that there has been a willful disregard. not only do those people in our country believe that, but the u.s. house of representatives has passed an impeachment res hugs -- resolution condemning secretary mayorkas for, and i'm going to quote here again, willful and systematic refusal to comply with current u.s. immigration laws, end quote, and for, quote, breach of public

trust, end quote. impeachment is serious, and these allegations are serious. we, the u.s. senate, need to treat them with that level of serio seriousness. we have seen an open border policy from this administration. secretary mayorkas is responsible for carrying out the policy. it is now our duty, as a u.s. senate, to have the trial to determine guilt or innocence. this is a constitutional responsibility. however, it appears that our leader and the democrats are determined to table this, to set it aside, in a manner that is

unprecedented. it has never happened that the u.s. senate has refused to take up the charges. folks, we don't need to be breaking more norms in the u.s. senate. we are abdicating our constitutional responsibility if we do not hold this trial. the people responsible need to be held accountable. we need to hear the evidence. so why don't the democrats want to hold this trial? well, perhaps because they are afraid of the american public hearing again how bad the situation at the southern border is. the 9.2 million people coming in here. or perhaps they don't want to know how this administration and secretary mayorkas is abusing the parole function. parole is a function that allows the executive branch to bring in

for foreigners. it's supposed to be done, according to the immigration and naturalization act, on a case-by-case basis. only in instances of extreme humanitarian need, or in the best interests of the country. under the obama and trump administration it happened about 5600 times a year. 5,600 times a year. last year alone, this biden administration paroled into the country 1.2 million people. we're doing whole classes of people. it a clear abuse of power. this administration is also abusing the asylum system. and secretary mayorkas has overseen the department of homeland security with both this new dollcy in -- policy in parole and what's going on in

asylum. think about this, say you're somebody who comes across that border and you are granted parole to get into this country, like jose aybara, the venezuelan accused of killing laken riley, and you get into this country -- what's the first thing you're doing? contacting folks back home to tell them what happened to you. this creates more incentive for people to come here illegally. it's part of why we have this problem. we need to explore topics like this. or perhaps the democrats know how bad this is and don't want to defend the catastrophe going on at the southern border. they don't want to have to defend this administration's policy, what secretary mayorkas has been doing with regard to parole. maybe they think it's bad too and don't want to have to defend it. but whatever the reason, if our leader does not have a trial, it

will be the first time this has happened. it will be unprecedented. and we will be breaking again another norm for the u.s. senate. impeachment is serious. these charges are serious. the american people deserve an answer. we need to have a trial. i call on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to insist upon a trial, uphold our constitutional authority. let's have a trial so that we can hear and determine the guilt and innocence. that's what the american people deserve. madam president, i yield back.

mr. lankford: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: next week we're scheduled to begin a trial of the secretary of homeland security. doesn't begin a conversation about homeland security in our country. that conversation started years ago now. the american people are incredibly frustrated with what they're seeing on the southern border, and they keep saying it over and over again. remarkably so in a nation where inflation continues to be stubbornly high, where it's harder and harder to afford a carton of eggs, gasoline, all the basics of life, in all the areas you would think the economy would be the number one issue in the nation, actually national security and border security ends up being number one, regardless of what state you live in. this is no long airborder state issue -- no longer a border

state issue. americans feel this is a problem. well, they should. in the past three years, more people illegally crossed our southern border than the previous 12 years combined, and it's not close, the number. we're approaching eight million people that have illegally crossed our southern border just in the last three years. cities feel it. americans feel it. scoot districts feel it. communities feel it. homeless shelters feel it. it continues to spiral into our country. this is not some accident of migration, as the administration tries to say offense and over again, that there's global migration happening everywhere. this was a series of executive orders done in 2021 that were intentionally designed to change what's happening at our southern border, and they certainly have. decisions were made in 2021 by the biden administration to be able to shift multiple things, starting with loosening

enforcement. day one of the biden administration, stop any construction of the wall and announce it publicly that we're no locker doing wall construction -- no longer doing wall construction, not even repair. step two, dramatically loosen the actual enforcement so fewer people would be deported when they came, so if you cross the border illegally, it's much greater likelihood that once you get across you will not be deported. third, they change the remain in mexico policy. that simple policy to say yes, you can request asylum, but you can't just be released in the country. they shifted immediately and shichitoed it from re -- shifted it from remain at the border, or mexico, rather than being in detention you could be released anywhere in the country on your own recognizance and to go anywhere you want. that dramatically increased the number of people crossing. they also shifted where the state department is no longer nego negotiating deals in central america, guatemala, honduras and

el salvador, to stop migrants moving through that direction, they have withdrown those agreements, and the state -- withdrawn those agreements, and the state department stopped putting agreements on recalcitrant countries that would not take their countries back. these were intentional actions. what i don't think the administration intended was how this has spiraled out of control. they sowed to the wind. the nation is reaping the whirlwind out of it. almost eight million people have illegally crossed our border. nowity no longer -- now it's no long-range people from the western hemisphere. literally, it's people from all over the world. pick up any tracking at any point to track what's happening, you will find thousands of people crossing from china, russia, pakistan, west africa, from all over asia. when i talk to people at the border, and i do talk often to them, one of the first things i ask is what are the trends? what are you seeing?

for the past year and a half they tell me a greater number of nonresponsiblish speakers -- non-spanish speakers, males in their 20's from all over the world. just in the past year, we picked up individuals that are alsha bab terrorist connections, all kinds of different connections to different terrorist organizations, and we have been able to pick up some, but some have gotten through or been released. this is an issue i continue to bring up, that this administration is not managing. in the past year, there were over 70,000 individuals identified in what was defined as a special interest alien. they crossed our border and were designated as a special interest alien and released on their own

recognizance into the country. a special interest alien, this is their definition, a non-u.s. person who is based on the analysis of travel patterns, potentially poses a national security threat to the united states or its interests. 70,000 of those in the past year have crossed the border and have been released into the united states. this is no longer a simple migration issue. this is a national security issue. and it's one this administration is not -- has not only invited but they've now chosen to not even take seriously. this body knows full well. i believe there are some things that can only be done by acts of this body. changing the definition of asylum, increasing the number of detention beds. there's multiple issues that we need to do, and we should take responsibility for. but this body should not sit and

say nothing can be done when the white house has authorities they're not using. we should do our job. the white house should do their job. and currently that's not happening. and the threat continues to increase. so next week we start an impeachment trial which has never happened in the history of the department of homeland security, to be able to have an impeachment of the secretary. that starts. but can i say to you, even if the secretary is removed, the white house has still created this policy. the obama administration had multiple leaders in that role, but they had one policy. the trump administration had multiple leaders in that role. they had one policy. this white house has a policy of maintaining an open border. and until this white house

changes that policy and actually uses the authority that they already have, none of this is going to change. so my challenge is to us, we should do our job and work on the issues we should do, but this white house needs to step up because right now they're just hoping that none of those 70,000 people they defined as a national security risk actually does an act of terrorism or crime in the country. i don't want to just hope that someone we've defined as a national security risk doesn't actually carry it out. i think we need to actually enforce the law. i think we need to discourage illegal immigration. and i think we need to actually have a secure border. and i don't believe i'm alone in that in this body or in our great country. with that i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: madam president, homeland security secretary mayorkas and globalist democrats have been derelict in their duty to secure the border under president joe biden. i repeat derelict in their duty. our border is the least secure it has been in the history of our country. in fact, it's almost nonexistent. at least nine million illegal immigrants have entered our country since the beginning of this administration. our border patrol agents are over overwhelmed and receive such little support from the biden administration to enforce our laws that they have been forced to release millions of illegal immigrants into the u.s. and those who are released on parole are given work permits. tell me this.

how does handing out work permits discourage illegal immigration? it doesn't. how do these actions secure the border? it doesn't. we might as well start mailing out every criminal, drug trafficker, and terrorist an open invitation to invade our country. i have spoken numerous times on the floor to highlight stories of americans dying at the hands of illegal aliens. 12-year-old travis wolf of missouri, 22-year-old laken riley of georgia. washington state trooper chris georgiaed. the tragic deaths are a direct result of secretary mayorkas in action. how many more americans have to die before the globalist

democrat party takes meaningful action to secure the border? this madness must end. americans deserve to be safe from the drug traffickers, terrorists, and murderers who are flooding into our country. the number of people crossing into the u.s. are on the terrorist watch list. it's unprecedented. fentanyl flows freely across our borders and is killing more and more americans every day. law enforcement officers in alabama tell me time and time again their officers must wear heavy equipment and carry far con -- narcon spray to protect them from friendle that is pouring into our communities. three years ago they never heard of the word fentanyl says our police chief in the city of montgomery.

the cartels are trafficking professionals. they are managing the human drug trafficking at our border. this is a billion dollar industry that the biden administration is turning its back on and allowing. secretary mayorkas has completely, completely, 110% refused to do his job. he swore an oath, swore an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states from all enemies, foreign and domestic. can any one of us seriously say that secretary mayorkas has upheld his oath of office? progressive democrats want to try to table the articles of impeachment and sweep biden's blood bath under the carpet. many have already voted to save mayorkas' job. globalist direct democrats are lying to themselves and

asking -- are risking the lives of american citizens. senator schumer and the progressive democrats can't say they want to fix our border while voting to save secretary mayorkas' job. despite the critical need to secure our borders and discourage illegal immigration, secretary mayorkas travels the world discussing national security with our strategic partners while his own country is being invaded. it's embarrassing. last month secretary may are a comes was in guatemala discussing migration flows from south america to the u.s. have these folks done anything to stop the border invasion from their countries? they have done absolutely nothing. in february mayorkas traveled to austria to speak with chinese officials about counternarcotic

efforts. did he discuss with them the flood of chinese illegal immigrants coming to the u.s. through the southwest border? 22,000 chinese nationals had been arrested by border patrol agents at the southwest border since october and released into our country. most of these individuals are single adult males of military age. yet the media tries to act like these -- all these people crossing the border are nice people, nice women and children. some of them are. but most are not. this invasion is more than a border crisis. it's a national security crisis. and yet i seriously doubt secretary mayorkas even brought that up in his meeting with the chinese officials. a few months ago. in february secretary mayorkas was in germany for the munich security conference. the munich security conference is the largest international

security meeting in the world. secretary mayorkas was there giving speeches on strengthening global security and partnerships. americans are dying, dying from our dangerous open borders, and he's talking about other borders across the world. the secretary is responsible for securing -- it's collecting passports while lecturing other countries on their national security. our allies, they must be laughing at us. the secretary's priorities should be here securing our borders, not somebody else's, protecting our citizens, not somebody else's. president biden has made the u.s. a joke on the world stage, an absolute joke. we need to get our house in order. we're in trouble. so far there has been only talk as a border as far as security that has been concern for the

last three years. now is the time for every senator to go on the record. if you are at all concerned about the drugs and criminals flooding into our country and moving to your state, you will vote for a full and fair trial. this is not a gray area. secretary mayorkas says intention -- has intentionally, intentionally failed to do his job. it is time that the senate takes action. the families of laken riley, travis wolf, trooper gadd and countless others deserve, they deserve a fair trial. i will be voting to hold secretary mayorkas accountable, and i ask my colleagues to do the same. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thanks, madam president. first i would like to congratulate and commend the comments from the previous

speaker, the senator from alabama, who makes important points that are important for the history as well as the future of this country. and i rise today to speak as he did about the impeachment of the secretary of the department of homeland security, secretary mayorkas. and i bring with me today to the floor "the federalist papers" written by alexander hamilton, james madison, and john jay, and refer to federalist 65. and as i sit here and stand and look at the pages in here and the pages in the book and the pages in the front of the senate chamber, i would recommend to them that they read "the federalist." i recommend the same to my intern who is here on the floor today and the students who are in the gallery. there is a lot to learn about the country, lot to learn about our history, the heritage, the reason that we have the nation that we have today. federalist 65 talks about impeachment. this is about the abuse and violation of public trust.

hamilton goes on to say that impeachment is an important power to remedy, quote, injuries done immediately to the society itself. this is the case we are here to talk about today and why i bring the book along. because the charges against secretary mayorkas are serious, they're substantive, the facts in support of them are compelling. they deserve careful consideration by this body. secretary mayorkas must be held accountable. his duty as secretary is to protect the homeland. it's not what's happened. instead he refuses to secure the border. the house charges that secretary mayorkas has willfully and systematically refused, they say, to enforce border security laws. secretary mayorkas wants to open

our borders so the entire world from beijing to belize can come in. he has turned a secure border into a welcome center. remember, madam president, in september of 2021, the secretary issued a shocking priorities memorandum. our country has been shaken as a result of that memorandum and it has not been forgotsen. the memo severely limited who ice was allowed to arrest. that's immigration, custom -- immigration customs enforcement. he also revived the catch and release program and has abused parole laws. in fact, the secretary bragged on msnbc that he had, quote -- secretary mayorkas -- quote, rescinded so many trump administration policies, it would take so much time to list them. for people who prefer a secure border for our nation and care about our nation's security,

this is an admission of willingness to ignore the law of the land. it also provided an open invitation for illegal immigrants or as the biden administration calls them, newcomers. after three years of open borders, the number of illegal crossings is up to at least 9.2 million people into this country illegally. crimes are up. drug overdose deaths across america are up. what about the number of deportations or criminal illegal immigrants? well, they're not being sent back. deportations are down. arrests are down. illegal immigrants are not being detained. they're not being deported. that's a decision that's coming out of this administration and the secretary of homeland security.

americans like laken riley and hruby garcia, they've been brutally murdered. america is less safe. secretary mayorkas claims he's come to oto -- secretary mayorkas claims -- he's come to the senate and claimed that the border is secure. people laugh knowing how untrue it is. it is a lie to the senate. a lie to the house. such a serious matter, though, it's hard to laugh. meanwhile our country is losing control of our borders to the cartels and to the criminals. every fair-minded person knows that these are serious charges. and the senate must hold a full and fair trial. it is our constitutional duty. the house has done its job. yet senate democrats, each and every one of them it are refusing to do theirs. it seems this week that the senate democratic leader is

scheming to bury these charges without a full and fair trial. the constitution demands there be one. the senate majority leader's actions would turn the senate from the world's greatest deliberative body into the world's quickest dismissal body. the senate majority leader is not here on the floor today. seems to be afraid of allowing the case against the lawless actions of the secretary of homeland security to even be presented to the american people. his plan to bypass the trial breaks the rules, breaks the standards and breaks the traditions of this body. let us set the record straight. the senate has always done its constitutional duty. we know the history. the house has sent impeachment articles to the senate 21 times in the history of this country, and the senate has never dismissed those articles without the official first resigning. 17 of those cases went to trial

right here in the senate and ended in a decision of either guilty or not guilty. three of the cases were dismissed during the trial. the reason why is that the official resigned or they were expelled before a verdict was reached. one of them never went to trail because the official resigned before the trial began. the democratic leader doesn't seem to care about any of this. not at all. he wants to ignore the charges against mayorkas without a trial at all. this would be disastrous, madam president, for the senate and for our nation. so within the next week, the senate democrats must make a choice. will they provide the transparency that the american people demand, the accountability that the american citizens deserve, or will the democrats, each and every one of them, vet to bury -- vote to

bury these serious charges before the senate is allowed to hear a single piece of evidence? the senate democrats have now established a history of coddling criminals, people who have come to this country illegally. all hundred senators have a solemn responsibility to work to keep our nation safe and secure. without a full and fair trial, there will be no accountability. republicans want the senate to do what it has always done -- allow the house to present its case, allow the senate to hold a full trial, and let the american people hear the truth. holding a full and fair trial is a matter of transparency and accountability. avoiding a trial would be an act of partisanship at the expense of public trust. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

mr. manchin: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: madam president, i have -- i didn't expect to speak on secretary mayorkas, but i want to say a few words until i yield to the content of my speech. i respectfully disagree with my colleagues on the republican side of the aisle and the politics that's being played. i was governor of the state of west virginia, and i made an awful lot of appointments in what we call will and pleasure. it was my responsibility, if it went wrong or did not fulfill their duties, it was my responsibility. if they had criminal charges brought against them, either civil or criminal, then the courts would take them. they have a right to remove them. i would have been respectfully obligated to remove. and if not, they had a right to impeach. we're not there. everyone seems to be upset that

secretary york yorks, which i know to be -- that secretary mayorkas, which i know to be a g good man, was doing a good job. i.t. the boss. that's where it is. i think it's been a disaster. the first two or three years now have been a disaster. and i have asked, i have begged the president to change, secure our border. it has to be secured. it is the most dangerous thing weigh face. and when i said that, i said, declare a national emergency. well, the mis-stakes the president has made basically was try to be corrected when he supported the piece of legislation we have before us about two or three weeks ago that was negotiated -- a lead negotiator, one of the most honorable people we have in the senate is senator lankford. and i think it was a tremendous piece of legislation. it would give us more security on the border, it would have stopped the illegal flow. but it was still politicized and

it didn't happen. and i think ali mayorkas is being blamed nor that, too. let's just vote on securing the vote'd border. once and for all secure the border. let's take care of our responsibilities around the world and at home. that's what we should be doing. but everything is politicized to the point now we can't get beyond who's fault it is rather than, hey, we're americans. if i am a democrat, you are a republican, vice versa is you're not my enemy. you are my colleagues who i might have differences with. we can work it out. no one wants to find the sensible middle anymore. it is a bad word, you know, compromise. you never hear it anymore. but to blame secretary mayorkas for you thinking he didn't do the job of what he said the violation. constitution is ridiculous. it is basically something that i can't wait to vote against and get it out as soon as it comes here. why did they wait until next week? we could have voted on it today

or tomorrow. they wanted to let it fester a little bit? doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. with that being said is i would hope we would come to our senses and get to it the real problems in america. help people with high pricing. i'm going to do all i can to help the people of west virginia. this is not the way to get our job done, to waste time on something that's so senseless and recognizeless. shall -- and reckless. i am rising in support of my resolution that would overturn the federal highway administration greenhouse gas reduction rule. we all have a responsibility to the climb. we all are here to do it better. but to be practically about what -- but to be practical about p what we're doing. if it is not feasible, it is not reasonable to go down in path. the rule sis another example of the administration trying to implement bills they wanted but they didn't pass.

we're saying stay within the confines of the laws we pass. 2 burdens states with enforcing standards for travel on highways. it makes absolutely no effort to consider the unique needs of rural states like west virginia s let me explain to you what me and my colleague, senator economy tow, where we live, the most beautiful state we consider in the country, with the most beautiful, hard is working people in the country. we all feel that way or we wouldn't be here representing our states. my friend from north dakota, senator cramer, feels the same about north dakota. i agree with everybody. we're defending it. i i am very rural. the bottom line is, we don't have high density of emissions. we don't have that. to make this into common sense, what we're trying to do is say, you must reduce, reduce, reduce. the only way we can get to where

they want us to is to quit driving. don't go to work. stay home. it doesn't make any sense at all. for them to go down this and put one-size-fits-all makes no sense. it does not only undermine the very purpose of our highway system, it just isn't feasible in rural areas. -- with our other transportation options. -- without other transportation options. if it is not feasible, it is not reasonable. even if the rule were reasonable many, it wouldn't matter because the administration does not have the authority to do this. that's what we have -- they do not have the authority -- transportation, dot, does not have the authority dod what we're trying to do. when we were writing the law, we debated whether to give them that authority. that was part of the negotiations we were going how. democrats and republicans sitting through, should they have that authority? and guess what? unanimously we decided against it. it wasn't in their jurisdiction.

so nothing in any law in congress -- any law that congress passed allows them to burden states with these measures. i say that because i think the president is getting ill-advised with his climate advisors taking him down the primrose path and it is making a lot of people uncomfortable thinking government is telling me how i'm going to be transported, what vehicle i can buy and they are avenue -- and they're trying to bribe me with $7,500. it's crazy. just absolutely crazy. i've always believed in market-driven products. if you give me a good product in a market where i can make a free decision and decide whether i can afford it or not, whether it enhances my life and it is something that i desire, i'll make the decision u -- decision. don't force me with limiting my options. that's all. when you can do something better and something that gets better quality of opportunities in my life, that'll make the

difference, and i can tell you the american public, the american consumer, and i say this for all women in my family, they were born with a certain gene. they know how to shop. they know how to compare. at the know how to -- they know how to make a good deal. they have more sense than men havement. so with that, a i can tell you let the market do its job ask. -- do its job. i introduced the resolution of disapproval because we know this power grab is economically unfeasible and unlawful. it would be devastating for the rural communities in west virginia, north dakota, and across all of america. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle too join me in supporting this resolution and i yield back my time u d. time 67b8g9 thank you, madam president. mrs. capito: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mrs. capito: i ask unanimous consent that the following senators be able to speak prior

to the scheduled roll call vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. capito: myself for up to five minutes, senator carper for up to ten minutes, and senator cramer for up to seven minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. capito: thank you very much. madam president, i come here and join my fellow colleague from west virginia and from north dakota to offer my strong support of the resolution offed by senator cramer of north dakota. senator manchin has covered a lot of this. but i want to recover it. the federal highway administration issued a final rule that we are challenging today without the necessary legal authority from congress. the rule will force our state departments of transportation and metropolitan planning organizations to develop and set their own declining greenhouse gas emission targets. state dot's and mpo's are also

basketball to be required to meet their -- are also going to be required to moat their own targets. if they fail to meet their own targets or make significant progress toward them, they're required to develop new plans to ensure that they do meet their targets. so senator manchin described how difficult a sparsely populated and basically rural area such as west virginia is going to be very difficult to make measurable difference in our greenhouse gas emissions from our transportation sector because we are in -- you know, we're in pretty good shape as it is now. the expected outcome is that it will force state dot's and mpo's to use their highway funding for ineffective emissions reduction projects rather than on projects that will improve the safety and efficiency of roads and bridges. this restriction on the ability of state dot's to pick the projects that address their

communities' unique transportation needs is unacceptable. and it runs counter to our agreement for the bipartisan infrastructure investment and jobs act. when we were negotiating that legislation in our committee, we speakly considered -- we specifically considered giving the highway administration the authority. but we ultimately rejected that idea. we make the law. we rejected putting this into our established law for very good reasons. my colleagues and i have also warned fhwa multiple times that it really lacks the authority for this rule. in october 2020 in response to the publication of the proposed rule, senator cramer and i along 256 of our colleagues sent a letter to fhwa saying they did

not have authority to propose the rule. we reminded the administrator of that lack of authority at an oversight hearing last june. despite our clear communication with fhwa and the fact that this rule violates the carefully negotiated bipartisan agreement in the iija, congress must once again address the biden administration's regulatory overreach. i would also note that it's not just congress that has challenged the fhwa's authority to issue a greenhouse gas rule. in two separate legal actions, one in texas and the other in kentucky, a total of 22 states with support from adversely impacted industries successfully challenged this greenhouse gas rule. while the states prevailed over fhwa in federal court, i also believe congress has a duty to

make clear when a federal agency has clearly, clearly exceeded its authority. therefore, to ensure there is no ambiguity whatsoever regarding fhwa's authority, i urge my colleagues to support senator cramer's resolution, and i thank you, and i yield the floor to my friend from, i think delaware. senator carper. mr. carper: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: thank you. i thank the senator from west virginia, my native state, for

yielding to me. we have three senators in the u.s. senate from west virginia today. we're all speaking on this proposal by senator cramer. madam president, i rise today in opposition to h.j. res. 61, a congressional review act resolution that would overturn federal highway administration's greenhouse gas performance rule. this rule is critical to helping the united states meet our climate goals. i want to start off by laying out the scale of the challenges we face in addressing climate change and the climate crisis. all of us know by know that we are confronted almost daily by signs that our planet is literally on fire. and as the days and weeks pass, the urgency to act only grows stronger. according to the national oceanic and atmospheric

administration, the united states just experienced the warmest winter on record. not one of the warmest winters on record. the warmest winter on record. last year, 2023, was the world's warmest year on record. not one of the warmest years on record, but the. it's not a mere coincidence but a body of evidence that shows our planet continues to grow warmer and warmer. extreme weather is affecting communities across our nation, from hurricanes to drought to flooding made worse by rising sea levels. last year the environment and public works committee had the privilege to lead along with senator capito from west virginia held a hearing where we heard about the extreme heat on

our transportation system and the punishing effects, truly punishing effects it can have on the health of our transportation workforce. the science is clear that greenhouse gas emissions are having a substantial effect on our changing climate. so where do those emissions come from? where do they come from? well, the transportation sector in america is the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the united states. let me say that again. the transportation sector is the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in the united states, accounting for nearly 30% of our emissions economy-wide. the transportation sector is the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the united states. after that, another 28% comes from our power plants, generating electricity.

yet another 25% comes from the manufacturing operations like cement plants and like steel mills. this means that the cars, the trucks, the buses driven on our highways every day are a major source of the emissions that are warming this planet that we call home. and that is why the federal highway administration's greenhouse gas performance rule is so important and must be upheld by congress. it's simply not possible to meet our climate goals without addressing emissions from the transportation sector. for my colleagues who might not be familiar with the federal highway administration's performance measure, i'd like to take a couple of minutes to talk about what the rule actually does is as well as what it does not do. first, the rule provides a

framework for state and metropolitan planning organizations to measure the amount of greenhouse gas emissions generated by vehicles on our nation's highways. this rule does so by using long-standing authorities under the national highway performance program which have existed in statute since 2012. under the national highway performance program, the federal highway administration can enact measures to assess the performance of our nation's highways, including for environmental sustainability. the federal highway administration has already enacted performance measures in other areas, including safety and congestion. during negotiations on the bipartisan infrastructure law, some of us wanted to require the federal highway administration to set a greenhouse gas performance measure. that's what we wanted to do.

while we couldn't get bipartisan agreement to require a greenhouse gas performance measure, the federal highway administration used then the discretionary authority it has had since 2012, for 12 years, to set performance measures to relate to the sustainability of our highways. in addition to measuring emissions states must establish targets for reducing emissions over time. however, the rule does not take a one-size-fits-all approach. instead it gives each state, each state the flexibility to set its own reduction target. let me say that again. the rule does not take a one-size-fits all approach. instead it gives each state the flexibility to set its own reduction targets. it's also important that our colleagues understand that the greenhouse gas rule does not

impose any penalties on states that for whatever reason are unable to meet their targets, that they have set. not that someone else has set. that they have set. the rules do not require states to transfer highway funding to other modes of transportation or to pay a financial cost if their emissions do not decline in accordance with that state's targets. that means that under this rule, none of our colleagues' states will see a reduction in the highway funding or any change in the way that highway funds are administered in their states. that bears repeating. this means that under this rule, none of our colleagues' states will see a reduction in their highway funding or any change in the way that highway funds are administered in their states. in fact, congress specifically authorized funding in the bipartisan infrastructure law to help states meet their emission

targets. we established a new carbon reduction formula program that provides funding to every state for projects that reduce emissions from transportation. we also provided $p.5 billion -- 7.5 billion, billion with a b in the bipartisan infrastructure law to build electric vehicle charging stations. our states are far behind from being punished. in fact, they have been provided with historic amounts of funding to address climate change. so in closing, madam president, let me just say that i believe we have an important choice to make here. are we going to continue to ignore the significant impact the greenhouse gas emissions are having on our planet in are we going to take reasonable steps as the federal highway

administration has done with this rule making to address the problem head on? i hope that our colleagues will join me and others in opposing this congressional review act resolution. let me just close this for another minute if i could, madam president. we've got some young people sitting up here. they are pages, we call them pages, and they are nominated by senators all over the country, democratic senators and republican senators. they come here to go to school. they haven't graduated from high school yet. they come here to pick up their school work and usually in high school and maybe stay for one year, one academic year and eventually go back home and finish their education and go on to amazing things. they are just wonderful young people, very proud of them, the ones from delaware and every other state as well. they have a bright future. they have a bright future. there's also some incredibly,

incredibly scary threats to that future, and one of those is we live on a planet that is growing hotter, growing hotter, growing hotter, and the question is are we going to do anything about it. and we're trying very hard to do that. the good news is we can do something about it, turn it around and reverse it in ways that create jobs and economic opportunity. we adopted that legislation in the inflation reduction act, in the bipartisan transportation bill, and the treaty called the kigali treaty. we've done a lot. the key is not just doing those things, but continuing to doing those things. continue to doing those things. with that, madam president, i hope our colleagues will join me in opposing this congressional review act resolution. i say this as one who oftentimes works with, votes with both my colleagues, our colleagues from

west virginia on all kinds of issues. this is just one where we don't see eye to eye. and my hope is our colleagues from both sides of the aisle will vote no. thanks so much. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from north dakota. mr. cramer: thank you for the recognition. let me say thank you to the senators for their support for the congressional review act resolution. i also want to thank the chairman of the epw, the distinguished senator from delaware, and my friend who as he just said we worked close together on lots of things. it's a great committee, it's fun

to work on. again, we don't see eye to eye on this one but i want to offer my respect for the good work that we all do together. thank you, senator. you know, madam president, few things are more frustrating in government than unelected bureaucrats asserting authority they don't have and foisting federal mediocrity on the excellence of states. shortly the senate will take up my bipartisan resolution that overturns the biden administration's obviously illegal, regardless of how you might feel about the merits, an obviously illegal rule that requires state departments of transportation to measure co2 tailpipe emissions and then set declining targets for missions traveling on the highways of their respective states. this rule is wrong on so many levels and has already been overturned by courts in texas and kentucky. now we, the elected policymakers in our system, have the opportunity to correct course

and spare the taxpayers the gross expense of litigating this demonstration of bureaucratic arrogance. when the environment and public works committee negotiated the highway bill, we considered giving this authority to the department of transportation. but after the hearings and the deliberations, the committee chose not to grant such authority to the agency, and we passed the bill out unanimously. and it became the foundation for the broader bipartisan bill known as the infrastructure investment and jobs act. these decisions were not accidental, they were intentional. when we pointed this out during the department of transportation official comment period, the federal highway administration provided a very novel rationale. get this now. they argued since congress was aware of their plans to

promulgate this rule and did not explicitly bore dwroe, quote, congress -- borrow it, quote, congress determined have the agency expertise to be handled regulatory authority. that is not just arrogance that is arrogance on steroids. here is what he winston churchill had to say, nothing would are more fatal than for government to get into the hands of experts. expert knowledge is limited knowledge and unlimited ignorance to the plain man is a rigorous guide. congress, madam president, does not leave determinations to agencies. congress either grants such authority or it does not. and if not, the agency does not possess that power. in fact, let me read a couple of

lines from the courts who already ruled on this issue. quote, if the people, through congress, believe that the states should spend the time and money necessary to measure and report greenhouse-gas emissions and set declining emission targets they may do so by amending section 150 or passing a new law, but an agency cannot make this decision for the people, an agency can only do what the people authorize it to do. and the plain language of section 150c3 and its related statutory provisions demonstrate the department of transportation was not authorized to enact the 2023 rule, that is judge hendrix. and another judge wrote, if the

administer, the federal highway administer, if they were allowed to have policy, this would corrupt the vibrant system of federalism. neither the constitution nor the administrative procedures act authorizes this. end quote. b absence of a prohibition is not a license for anyone to do as it pleases. agencies must abide by the law not invent the authority they desire. several states rejected this illegal rule, several state departments of transportation objected to it in writing, and sefrm states joined this litigation and 50 senators have cosponsored this congress review act. let me quote a couple of states. the arizona department of transportation, quote, disagrees

with the justification in the nprm regarding the legal authority for federal highway administration to establish a greenhouse gas emissions performance moesh. end quote. the michigan department of transportation writes, mdot is apprehensive about supporting new measures not explicitly authorized by congress, therefore there is no provision requiring the highway administration to establish a greenhouse gas measure. 20 attorneys general from montana, virginia, georgia, ohio, and a number of other states wrote, quote, the proposed greenhouse gas measure would be a serious revision of what congress has written and congress has not given the highway administration such editorial power. end quote. madam president, the biden administration should have never introduced this rule but now we, the policymaking branch of government must end it. i urge all of my colleagues to stand up for the senate and vote

for the restoration of the articles of powers. vote yes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, s.j. res. 61 is considered read a third time. the question occurs on passage of the joint resolution. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal.

the clerk: mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey.

mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin.

ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. the clerk: mr. hawley

mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. the clerk: mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy.

mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee.

the clerk: mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. & mrs. murray. mr. ossoff.

the clerk: mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts.

mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. the clerk: mr. schmitt.

vote: mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren.

mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young. senators voting in the affirmative -- braun, brown, cassidy, cramer, crapo, hagerty, hoeven, lankford, lee, lummis, manchin, paul, romney, schmitt, scott of florida, sinema, thune, tuberville, vance, wicker,

young. senators voting in the negative -- mr. moran, aye. mrs. blackburn, aye. senators voting in the negative -- baldwin, blumenthal, booker, carper, casey, coons, cortez-masto, heinrich, klobuchar, lujan, mark why i -- mark why i, murphy, padilla, rosen, smith, welch, whitehouse.

the clerk: mr. schatz, aye. mr. fetterman, no. mr. schatz, no.

the clerk: mr. tester, aye. mrs. hyde-smith, aye. mr. warner, --

ms. ernst, aye. mr. grassley, aye.

mr. ricketts, aye.

the clerk: mr. peters, no. mrs. britt, aye. mr. king, no.

the clerk: ms. collins, aye.

the clerk: ms. butler, no. mr. scott of south carolina, aye. mr. sanders, no.

the clerk: mr. menendez, no. the clerk: ms. stabenow, no. mr. merkley, no. the clerk: ms. duckworth, no.

the clerk: mr. hickenlooper, no.

the clerk: mr. mullin, aye. mr. barrasso, aye. mr. risch, aye.

vote: the clerk: mrs. fischer, aye.

the clerk: ms. murkowski, aye. mr. wyden, aye. mr. wyden, no.

the clerk: ms. hirono, no.

the clerk: ms. cantwell, no. mr. cotton, aye.

the clerk: mrs. murray, no. the clerk: mr. bennet, no.

the clerk: mr. cruz, aye.

the clerk: mr. budd, aye. the clerk: mrs. capito, aye. ms. hassan, no.

mr. marshall, aye. the clerk: mr. van hollen, no. ms. warren, no.

the clerk: mrs. gillibrand, no. mr. rubio, aye.

the clerk: mr. kaine, no. mr. cornyn, aye. mr. graham, aye.

the clerk: mr. daines, aye.

vote: the clerk: mrs. shaheen, aye.

mrs. shaheen, no.

the clerk: mr. kennedy, aye. mr. tillis, aye. the clerk: mr. warnock, no. mr. kelly, no.

the clerk: mr. ossoff, no.

k the clerk: mr. rounds, aye. the clerk: mr. reed, no.

the clerk: mr. mcconnell, aye.

the clerk: mr. sullivan, aye.

the clerk: mr. hawley, aye.

the clerk: mr. boozman, aye.

the clerk: mr. johnson, aye.

the clerk: mr. cardin, no.

the clerk: mr. durbin, no. mr. schumer, no.

the presiding officer: with 53 yeas and 47 nays, the joint resolution has passed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the consideration of h. j. res. 98. which the clerk will report. the clerk: h. j. res. 98 providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 in the united states code and so forth. the presiding officer: majority whip. mr. durbin: unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of h. con. res. 85 which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h. con. res. 85, concurrent resolution authorizing the use of

emancipation hall in the capitol visitors center and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the concurrent revvings be -- of resolution be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection.

the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: thank you, madam

president. madam president, i'd like to talk for a few moments about -- and then i'm going to have a motion -- about the people of secretary mayorkas. as you know, madam president, our government is one of laws, not people. laws, not people. and as you also know, madam president, the united states senate is built on precedent and custom and history and the law. not political expedience. we in the senate are supposed to listen to the american people, not ignore them.

and one of the ways we do that, madam president, is by playing by the rules that we have all agreed to. all of the rules all of the time. now, my senate democratic colleagues today or at least very shortly, however, may be willing to jeopardize centuries of this stability, the stability that this body has -- has brought and lives by for short-term political advantage. we all know what's going on here. we all know exactly what's going object here -- on here. for the very first time in our nation's history, my senate democratic colleagues are seeking to table, maybe even

dismiss, an people by the united states house of representatives of a sitting cabinet official without holding a full trial. if my senate colleagues do that, they will be summoning spirits that they won't be able to control. let me say it again, madam president. the united states house of representatives -- we're not talking here about some slow bro who lives off chicken mcnuggets and weed and happens to have an opinion. the united states house of representatives, elected by all of the american people, spent months investigating our border policy and secretary mayorkas'

role in it and they thoughtfully crafted and passed with a majority vote two articles of people and now my senate democratic colleagues want to toss them out in the trash like a week-old tuna salad sandwich without hearing from the other side. in the more than two centuries that this body has existed, we have never once tabled an people. not once of the senate has never dismissed people articles under these circumstances either. neither tabled nor dismissed. if the senate dismisses these charges without a full trial, it will be the first time in the senate's long history that it has dismissed people charges against an official it has jurisdiction over without the

official first resigning, and that's just a fact of history. the senate has the responsibility to hold this trial and everybody in this body knows it. yet, my senate democratic colleagues seem willing to forfeit our constitutional authority in order to bury the evidence of how bad the border crisis is. now, i, for one, want to hear the house's evidence and senate republicans are offering our colleagues across the aisle, all of whom i respect, by the way, a menu of options for how to hear that evidence and listen to secretary mayorkas's defense without eroding institutions. if the senate makes the people trial impossible, as i'm afraid they're going to try to do, they will be silencing the voices of the americans who elected them

and they will have to own the decisions they will be making and bear the consequences tomorrow and tomorrow may come sooner than they can imagine. apparently my democratic colleagues are really leaning in on their double standards. whenever protecting democracy -- have you heard that expression? or upholding, quote, the rule of law? have you heard my democratic colleagues talk about the rule of law? i have. i agree with them. whatever they use those expressions, but it becomes politically challenging, they seem happy to ignore the rule of law and the will of the people. and their political expedience is in full view today. i regret to say that. we'll see what my democratic colleagues do with respect to my

resolution and senator lee's resolution. senate democrats, i'm afraid, are silencing the american people who want their country's secure border back. the truth is that the american people are tired of the drug trafficking, they're tired of the human trafficking, they're tired of the sexual abuse of women and children, they're tired of the widespread illnesses, they're tired of the debt, they're tired of the behavior of president biden and secretary mayorkas with respect to the border, they're tired of the chaos, they believe it is chaotic by design and they believe it is undermining their national security, and they're right. now the american people may be poorer under president biden and secretary mayorkas, but they're not stupid. they're not stupid.

in total more than nine million people, foreign nationals, have crossed the southern border under president biden and secretary mayorkas. nine million have crossed the border and secretary mayorkas doesn't have any idea who they are. he doesn't have any idea where they are. customs and border protection seized 57,000 pounds of fentanyl from 2021 to 2023, that's enough to kill every man, woman, and child on the planet, not in the united states, on the planet. the southern border is an open, bleeding wound. now the majority of the house of representatives reached that

conclusion, that's why they voted to impeach secretary mayorkas, and they have sent us that evidence and that evidence alleges that secretary mayorkas's policies have made our immigration system septic. if i were secretary mayorkas, i would want to answer those allegations. as a senator, i want to hear the evidence. and i know the american people want to hear the evidence. these are serious charges, madam president. by tabling or dismissing the articles of people without so much as a trial. i think it was -- like it was just spam in their inbox, my

democratic colleagues are setting a precedent that the next administration can ignore the laws of congress and the will of the american people as long as it advances the majority party's agenda. that's what they're saying. now, my resolution will give the procedures we need, set up the procedures we need to conduct this trial fairly and efficiently. my resolution is modeled on the procedures that this body used during the second people trial of president trump. when president trump's first impeachment came to the united states senate, the senate republican were in the majority. you didn't see us trying to table that impeachment. you didn't see us trying to dismiss that impeachment because we believe in the rule of law all the time, not just when it's politically expedient. we heard the evidence. we did our job.

and that's what we ought to do right now. the proceedings set forth in my resolution are efficient, they're fair, they're honest. they will not uproot the long-standing precedent that we have given to articles of impeachment in the past. it will give the articles of impeachment serious consideration as we have always done. and here's my final point. if senate -- if my senate democratic colleagues -- let me say it again -- each and every one of whom i respect, if they choose to ignore this impeachment, they will have placed their seal of approval on the lawlessness at the border and the chaos it has brought to so many american communities. and they will have ignored 200 years of senate precedent.

200 years. a charitable interpretation based on policy does not exist for what my democratic colleagues are going to try to do. it is awfully based on raw, gut politics and they know it and i know it. and everybody in this room knows it. please don't do it. please, my friends, don't do it. please don't allow the senate to rot from within. the american people deserve better. i ask unanimous consent, madam president, that the committee on rules and administration be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 623, my

resolution that i just talked about. further, that the resolution be agreed to, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: reserving the right to object. madam president, the senator from louisiana is my friend. we throw that term around here in the senate, but it's true. i think wee say the same. we both serve on the senate judiciary committee. we've worked on issues together. we've been adversaries but we've done it respectfully, and i will continue that, i hope, this day. but the gentleman, the senator from louisiana, brings to the floor of the senate and to this debate special qualities. he sounds many times like a

homespun back woods lawyer. don't be fooled. he's a graduate of a famous university in england. i've fopthen which one -- forgotten which one. oxford, cambridge, one of those. they're not the big ten but i know they're in england. i congratulate you. i was never even considered for a university of that stature. he's a brilliant lawyer and senator and raises important questions, not just for the moment but for history. the question before us today that he's raising is about the purported impeachment -- i should say actual impeachment of a member of president biden's cabinet, mr. mayorkas, head of the homeland security department. and that is about to be reported to the senate and we have constitutional responsibilities when it is reported.

in this situation we are waiting for the actual report to arrive. i think it will be momentary, perhaps this week or next, and we will take up this matter as we're required no do. the -- required to do. the house homeland committee engaged in a year long investigation of secretary mayorkas and his alleged now administration of the border of the united states. this committee in the house held 12 hearings, testimony from more than two dozen witnesses, producing nearly 400 pages of re reports. the senate when sitting as a court of impeachment is not responsible for making the case on behalf of the impeachment managers. we are the jury. we are the ones who will decide the impeachment. our duty is to make the determination based on the

articles of impeachment and the facts at hand. we are not a fact finding -- fact-finding operation. my friend from utah is also on the floor. during the first trump impeachment said and i quote, the senate here sitting as a court of impeachment has both the authority and the obligation to decline to hold a full trial where the material facts of the case are not in dispute, end of quote. the facts are not in dispute here. this is the first time that the house has successfully impeached a sitting cabinet-level official without providing any evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor, none. all those hearings, all those pages, all those witnesses, no evidence of high crimes or misdemeanors, and that is a requirement of the constitution. the articles of impeachment that

will be before us contain zero evidence that secretary mayorkas has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. instead they can be read as a summary of republican grievances with this administration's approach to border policy, immigration, detention, and methods of removal and parole, all of which is conduct that falls squarely within the executive branch's constitutional prerogatives. fortunately, the constitution was designed to prevent this type of partisan politics driving this effort from contaminating the extraordinary process of impeachment. the delegates to the constitutional convention considered and rejected the concept of maladministration as an impeachable offense, in part because they feared the misuse of impeachment for purely political retribution. the constitution empowers the senate to have the sole power to try all impeachments and to determine the rules of its

proceedings, but the senate only has the power to convict, remove, and disqualify officers whose conduct meets the constitutional standard. that standard is well known to all members of congress and the senate particularly. given that the senate only has the power to convict, remove, and disqualify officers who are -- who have committed, quote, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, end of quote, the appropriate senate response to impeachment articles that do not articulate that change, those charges is objection. if congressional republicans were genuinely interested in addressing concerns about our border, they should be willing to work on a bipartisan basis to pass legislation, fixing our broken immigration system and give this president and secretary mayorkas the tools they've asked for to address the situation at the southern border. i want to make sure this is

clear on the record. the border is broken. it needs to be fixed. what we should do and what we did do is to establish a bipartisan committee. the republicans said we insist that james lankford, a respected senator from the state of oklahoma, speak for us and negotiate for us when it comes to changing the rules at the border. we agreed with that. senators worked with senator lankford whom i respect and came up with a bipartisan proposal that gave new authority to the president and to the executive branch to deal with the crisis at the border. what happened on the republican side of the aisle when james lankford, the republican senator from oklahoma, came up with this proposal? all but seven of them -- i believe that was the number -- walked away from him and said they wouldn't support it. why did they do that? you know why they did it. because donald trump announced he wanted no part of any

agreement, any bipartisan effort to solve the problem. and then former president trump said, and blame me. well, i am blaming him. we had an opportunity to actually do something on the floor of the senate when it came to the border. he stopped it. and so many of the republican senators who begged us to work with senator lankford turned their backs on him after the yeoman effort he put into this undertaking. that's the reality. we had our chance on a bipartisan basis and still do to resolve this problem rather than engage in any political stunt. instead the vast majority of republicans including the junior senator from utah and others on the floor recently blocked the bipartisan border reform bill that was written by the republicans december natured negotiator senator lankford. they had their chance. it didn't work. neither will this. i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: i will respond briefly.

the united states house of represe representatives, the united states house of representatives has found after a lengthy investigation that the chaos at the southern border is manmade. and the united states house of representatives has alleged that that man's name is secretary mayorkas. we need to hold a trial. now, senator durbin is my good friend and as usual he's -- and he sounds very confident that the evidence will exonerate secretary mayorkas. how does he know? he hasn't heard the evidence.

and he doesn't want to hear the evidence because he's scared that the american people might disagree. that's what this is all about. raw, gut politics. mr. lee: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, the house impeached secretary alejandro mayorkas. he's the second cabinet official to be impeached in all of american history. the last cabinet member to be impeached was william w. beltnap in 1876. the senate held trials in virtually all previous impeachments except for those in which the impeached officer no longer held office. however, majority leader chuck schumer now wants to effectively pardon secretary mayorkas, pardon him from this impeachable

offense. pardon him from the impeachment itself without letting us even examine the evidence. madam president, facts are not undisputed in this case. they are not undisputed in the least. if they were, there wouldn't be a need for a full trial. there would, however, still at a minimum be a need to reach a verdict of guilty or not guilty because in literally every other circumstance in the history of the republican -- less circumstances have arisen that have rendered the case moot. the united states senate sitting as a court of impeachment adjudicates the matter, whether through short proceedings or long ones, whether through a trial conducted on the senate floor or by delegation to a select committee. it does in fact reach a verdict of guilty or not guilty as is the senate's constitutional obligation. but when the articles of impeachment arrive, we have to remember that we have a

constitutional duty to hold a trial. again, what that trial consists of may depend on the circumstances, but we still have to hold a trial sufficient to get to the point in the absence of the case being rendered moot or something of that nature to reach a verdict of guilty or not guilty. now, i'm so grateful to house speaker mike johnson for delaying delivery of these so that we can give our full consideration. ignoring the evidence before us betrays the trust of those who sent us here. now, in this spirit i introduced a resolution, a resolution to ensure that we are prepared to consider the impeachment articles in a manner befitting of our responsibilities. you see, the senate has three states of being. it is always either sitting in a legislative capacity where we pass bills, we debate, amend, and ultimately pass or decline

to pass legislation. the executive calendar where we consider presidential nominations and considerate indication of treaties. and third state of being of course consists of the senate sitting as a court of impeachment. we're always in one of those three states. we have a separate set of rules governing our impeachment proceedings. but those rules aren't so specific as to define the precise details of each and every impeachment proceeding. those have to be negotiated independently through resolutions. and it's to that end that i offer this resolution to put meat on the bones of the standing order of the standing rules of the senate on impeachment trials. this resolution mandates that the senate begin resolution on the impeachment articles no longer than seven days after the house of representatives transmits this emto the senate. this timeline is not just for

the senate but so that the american people can hear from secretary mayorkas himself. he's afforded up to seven session days to respond to the charges that will be present the to us by the house. both parties in this debate would be permitted to submit trial briefs within specific deadlines ensuring that all arguments are heard and considered with the gravity they deserve. it requires the house to file its records, including materials from the judiciary committee and documents related to secretary mayorkas' impeachment. these reported'd records, which are -- these records, which are subject to scrutiny and objection by mayorkas, are crucial evidence in our proceedings. my resolution lays out how motions and arguments will be carefully managed, motions except those to subpoena witnesses or documents, would be required to be filed before the proceedings start. the structure of the presentations and questioning

would be designed to allow secretary mayorkas to comprehensively present his case. after the questioning period, we would proceed to final arguments and decide whether secretary mayorkas is guilty or not guilty not guilty. with my resolution, we'd be ready to conduct a fair and legitimate trial. so to my colleagues, if you're confident that the charges against secretary mayorkas are baseless, then why object to organizing a fair and legitimate trial? why try to sweep this under the rug? why pardon someone before they're even afforded the opportunity to prove their innocence? if you trust that secretary mayorkas didn't authorize millions of individuals to enter illegally into our question for swift release into the interior, just hold a trial. if you're certain that secretary mayorkas hasn't in fact increased the poll factors,

incentivizing parents across the globe to send some 430,000 unaccompanied children into the united states, in many cases to have them end up in the hands of traffickers, ben by all -- then by all means don't object; hold a trial. if you're confident that secretary mayorkas hasn't created at least 13 illegal immigration parole programs in violation of the very law invoked or, then hold a trail u if you're so sure, so confident, so certain that under secretary mayorkas customs and border protection hasn't dramatically decreased its vetting practiceses for allowing chinese immigrants to cross our border with military-aged chinese males, don't object; hold a trial. if you believe that we haven't seen a dramatic increase in the

known terrorist encounters at outer southern boatered, don't object -- southern border, don't object. hold trial. if you're confident that secretary mayorkas hasn't allowed fentanyl to cross the border, hold a trial. an invasion, madam president, is taking place on american soil. at least eight million people -- that's at the low end -- have illegally crossed our border since mayorkas became secretary of homeland security, and the numbers just keep rising. this unprecedented influx includes gang members, drug traffickers, human traffickers, individuals from every section of the world including the thousands of military-aged males from china. in december alone, the u.s. department of homeland security reported 302,000 encounters -- that's in one month, the highest

number ever recorded in a one-month period. these are not the kinds of records we should try to be breaking. but he's broken them again and again and again. now, to be clear, secretary mayorkas has the tools to stop this invasion, to halt it in its tracks, and he has the tools to do it today. not only does he have the tools, but he has the obligation and sworn responsibility under the laws of the united states to do so. he doesn't need legislative action from congress. madam president, these aren't victimless crimes. the tragic case of laken riley, a life cut short by an illegal alien, one of the millions whom secretary mayorkas has allowed to enter our country unchecked, is a reminder of the human cost of this prolonged, severe, and deliberate, milli-schuss

abdication of duty. laken isn't alone. her case represents hundreds of thousands of families across the nation whose lives have been upended by the invasion, that our leaders willfully allowed to happen and indeed invited. sxrfkt -- in fact, they encouraged them to happen. should secretary mayorkas be found guilty, these are impeachable offenses of the highest order. make no mistake, this is deliberate, althoughful, malicious determination to break the law in order to bring in millions of people who do not belong here. there's no doubt at this point that the invasion of our southern border has inflicted pain and suffering on countless americans. so we're obligated to figure out who is responsible and to make sure that they're held responsible. that's exactly why we're here. to that end, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the

committee on rules and administration be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 624. further, that the resolution be agreed to, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. lee: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: it is indeed unfortunate that this has happened. we followed the model of previous resolutions that have been used in order to set up impeachment debates. this one was based off of one of the impeachment trials of the 45 attingth president of the united states. -- 45th president of the united states. these terms were agreeable under previous impeachment proceedings and now they're not. this is not, madam president, the kind of case in which the material facts are undisputed, nor is this the kind of case in

which the office held by the person impeached has been vacated either by death or resignation. and so in order to comport with, comply with, to follow the precedence that we've consistently followed in this country, to say nothing of the constitutional obligation behind those precedents and those customs, we need to hold a trial. it is not enough simply to stand up and say, we're choosing not to address these. we don't feel like addressing these. we are going to decline to address them without a finding of guilt or innocence. this is not appropriate. so if they don't like these particular terms, then perhaps we can find another regulation that will allow us to approach these proceedings with dignity and fairness as an institution, showing dignity and fairness to accused and to the american people alike. including and especially those

americans who've been victimized by the acts of lawlessness carried out by this administration, under the leadership of secretary alejandro mayorkas. we have an obligation to do this. absent one of the circumstances not present in this case where the case has become moot -- this one is not -- we have an obligation, regardless of what the pro-sighs procedures look like -- precise lowers look like, to reach a verdict, to make findings, to convict or acquit, to reach a verdict of guilt or not guilty. it's wrong for us to ignore this duty. and it's also phenomenally dangerous. this precedent having been set will suggest from this moment henceforth insofar as the party of the president of the united states is the same party that

controls the majority of the seats in the united states senate. articles of impeachment passed by the house of representatives will be essentially dead letter, to be dismissed without a verdict, without a finding of guilt or innocence, of guilty or not guilty. that would be a shame, and it would be a derogation of our constitutional responsibility. my hope, my expectation is in a we can find some other means. if this one is not acceptable to the body to my friend and colleague from illinois, then perhaps another will. but we must keep trying. we can't pretend that we can simply table these. that's not what we're required to do here. and it is a derogation of our responsibility. thank you. mr. cruz: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: madam president, there are times when the eyes of history are upon the united

states senate. this is one of those times. we are facing today an existential crisis at our southern border. it is qualitatively different than anything we have ever faced at our southern border in the history of our nation. a few moments ago the senator from illinois acknowledged the border was broken, although he acknowledged it in a classic washington way of using the passive voice, the border is broken, that is designed to hide and obscure who broke the border. he is correct that the border is broken, but it was broken deliberately by the president of the united states, joe biden, by the vice president of the united states, kamala harris, by the secretary of homeland security,

alejandro mayorkas, and by every single senate democrat who repeatedly have rubber-stamped and embraced this open-border policy. the senator from illinois said the border is broken. he is also the chairman of the senate judiciary committee on which i severn, on which senator lee serves, on which senator kennedy serves. over the past three years we have held precisely zero hearings on the southern border. the senate judiciary committee cannot be bothered to inquire as to the cause of this crisis. understand why alejandro mayorkas became the second cabinet secretary in the history of the united states to be impeached. the last one was in 1876, the secretary of war. and now 148 years later, alejandro mayorkas joins him. it is not because alejandro

mayorkas is incompetent. it is not because he's negligent. it's not because he's bad at his job. rather, unfortunately, alejandro mayorkas is very, very good at his job. however, he does not view his job as securing the border. he does not view his job as protecting our homeland security. rather, he views his job as openly and directly violating, flouting federal law and aiding and abet being the criminal invasion of this -- abetting the criminal invasion of this united states. he is not trying to secure the border. he is trying to accelerate the invasion that is happening a he wants more illegal aliens and more criminal illegal aliens released in this country. under the biden administration, 10.4 million illegal immigrants have been released into this

country and senate democrats are desperate to avoid the misery and suffering and death that their radical policies have produced. at a hearing before the judiciary committee, i asked secretary mayorkas how many migrants died last year crossing illegally into this country. he said, i don't say know. i have no idea. i said, of course you don't. the number is 853. that he's number from your own department. but you don't care about the dead bodies that texas farmers and ranchers are finding nearly three a day. when i brought 19 senators down to the border to see firsthand to see what was happening, we went out on a boat on the rheogrand river. we -- rio grande river. we saw a man dead in the river that day. i invited my democratic colleagues. i've invited the senator from illinois. come to the southern border and see the people who are dying

because of the policies you support. none of them have any interest in seeing firsthand the deaths they are producing. madam president, i've looked in the eyes of children, of little boys and little girls who've been brutalized by human traffickers day after day after day. none of the senate democrats within thes to take -- want to take responsibility for the lilt girls and boys who tomorrow unspeakable evils are being done. i've looked in the eyes of women who have been repeatedly raped by human traffickers, none of the senate democrats want to take responsibility for the horrific violence and suffering their open bothered policies have -- border policies have pro introduced. when i asked secretary mayorkas

about colored wrist bands on a poster i displayed at a senate judiciary committee, he said he had no idea what they are. they are worn by just about every illegal alien, it correspondence to how many thousands of dollars they owe the cartels. the cartels don't view them as human beings or even livestock, they are cargo and the colors show how many thousands of dollars they owe. you stand on the banks of the rio grande river, you will see hundreds and thousands of those wrist bands laying on the grass, i said, mr. secretary, you told the american people you are utterly incompetent of your job and don't give a damn enough to try. when i invited my democratic colleagues to come to the border and see the wrist bands, the democrats don't take us up on it. understand why the wrist bands

matter. thousands upon thousands of teenaged boys turn themselves into the biden administration, they say, where do you want to go? some will say chicago, some new york, some los angeles, and the biden administration puts them on an airplane, puts them on a bus and sends them to every city in america. the mayor of chicago, the hometown of the senator from illinois, has declared it a crisis, the illegal aliens pouring into his senate, yet, senate democrats will not only do nothing about it, they continue the policies in place that make it worse, and understand those teenaged boys that arrive in new york or new york, the democrat mayor of said it's a crisis, the democrat mayor of washington, d.c., has said it's a crisis, when they arrive, they owe the cartels thousands of dollars. if they don't pay the money back, the cartels will murder

their families and so they are working for the cartels, there are crimes going on in your home state of california today by illegal immigrants the biden administration has released that are working for the cartels, there are californians being robbed right now, who are carjacked assaulted, there are people in chicago being robbed and assaulted. you want to understand the misery, take a lack at laken raily. only -- riley, only on one side of this chamber, if a democrat senator said the words, laken riley, i have not heard it come from their mouths. she was a beautiful 22-year-old woman who was murdered because of the democrats' open border policies? how can i say that with senator? because hir murderer -- her murderer, an illegal rim grant from venezuela, was apprehended

in el paso. we had him, he was arrested, and all joe biden, all alejandro nicholas mayorkas had to do was mol the law, and we would have put and he never would have murdered laken riley. but president biden and alejandro nicholas mayorkas decided their law was more important. he went to el paso. he was arrested again for endangering the safety of a child. unfortunately, new york city is a sanctuary city run by democrat politicians. what did they do? they let him go a second time. he went down to georgia, laken riley, was out jogging, a nursing student, she was out jogging like millions of people do across america and this murderer took a brick and beat her to death.

if either joe biden and mayorkas followed the law, she would still be alive. you know what i also haven't heard from senate democrats the same jeremy casaras, murdered in maryland, miles from where we are, by an illegal alien that joe biden and alejandro mayorkas released just a few weeks ago. news broke of an illegal alien from haiti that not only did biden released but flew from haiti to the united states. the biden administration has had over 300,000 secret flights bringing illegal aliens to america, in this case they brought the immigrant to boston, massachusetts. and what happened just a couple of weeks online? he was arrested for violently

raping a 15-year-old girl who was seriously disabled. these are the very real consequences of the democrats' open border policies, and yet democrat senator don't want to confront the people who are dying, who are suffering because of them. alejandro mayorkas was not impeached because he's neglect. he's impeached because he's actively defying the law. he's turned the mexican drug cartels into decabillionaires, according to "the new york times" in 2018 the revenue from human trafficking that the cartels earned was roughly $15 billion and then $13 billion, the drug cartel profits have gone up 2016%. what is the senate to do when people occurs?

well, fortunately we have a document that tells us what to do. it's called the constitution of the united states. under the constitution it is the sole power of the house to impeach and the sole power and responsibility of the senate to try. 21 times in our nation's history, more than 200 years, the house has impeached an individual and sent the articles of impeachment. in one time the senate concluded it had in a jurisdiction because the person was a senator and it only attaches to members of the executive branch or judicial branch, they dismissed it because of lack of jurisdiction, in three of them, the individuals impeached because they were no longer in office. the senate didn't act because it was moot because the individual impeached was out of office. ? the remaining 17 times, all of them, 100% of the time the senate conducted a trial, the senate heard evidence, and the

senate adjudicated guilt or innocence. each senator stood up and said guilty or not guilty. not week when the articles arrive, we are told that senator schumer intends not to proceed to a trial, not to allow any evidence but simply move to table, to throw it out at the outset. why is senator schumer doing so? three reasons. number one, he desperately wants to stop the house managers from presenting their evidence. the senator from illinois says he knows there's no evidence. it's like as ostrich putting his head in the sand. one way to know there is no evidence is to hear no evidence, consider no evidence, and do rg you can to -- and do everything you can to prevent the american people from hearing the evidence. the other is to stop the trial. they don't want the american people to know the suffering

that is going on. the democrats want to desperately want to prevent, democrats who are on the ballot, they want to avoid an adjudication. because you know what? senate democrats are back in their home states saying i'm concerned about illegal immigration, if they were concerned, we can decide that next week by voting to fulfill our constitutional obligation to hold a trial. now, let me saying in. i look and see the senator from illinois, i see the senator from west virginia. all three of us were on the senate floor at another momentous time in 2013 when then-senate majority leader harry reid exercised the nuclear option and blew up the filibuster for nominations, that did enormous damage to the institution of the senate. i remember standing in the well of the senate, 10 feet from where i am now and turning to senator amy klobuchar that day, and i told her, i said you are

going to regret this day. this is a catastrophic mistake and i told her then this diagnose from harry reid and democrats will be more justices and more justices on the court -- madam president, if you want to know why roe v. wade has been overturned, it is because harry reid and the democrats sxersed the -- exercised the nuclear option in 2013. had they not done so, there's no way this senate would have confirmed all three of the nominees put forward. it was the direct consequence of the utter disregard for this institution senate democrats have. now, i bring that up because we are at a second moment that is equally consequential, except instead of nuking the senate rules as they did in 2013,

senate democrats are preparing to nuke the constitution of the united states itself, the people clause, which every single time that the senate has had jurisdiction and the person has been in office, the senate has held a trial. if senate democrats proceed next week to table that, this they will blow up that precedent, and i'm here to make a predicts. -- predicts. senate democrats sometimes behave like mo small children to anticipate the consequences of their actions. everyone can recognize right now, we've got a presidential election coming up in november, none of us knows the outcome. i'm going to pause it to you right now. there is a significant chance that donald trump will be reelected and i will say that is something that no one on the democrat side wants to see happen. there is a significant chance that republicans will retake the senate. there is a possibility that democrats will retake the house.

that is a very likely scenario in this election. if that happens, i turn to my friend from west virginia because i want you to contemplate what will happen. if that happens, i'm going to make a predicts one year from today, we're going to be on this senate floor and if democrats control the house, they will have impeached donald trump again. impeached him a third time and maybe a fourth time and maybe a fifth time. if they have the house, that's what they're going to do. and if and when those people articles come over to the senate, if senate democrats next week dismiss this people, i'm telling you right now, senate republicans will do the same thing to any people that cops over from -- comes over from the house and what senate democrats will have done is effectively eliminated the senate's power of people any time the senate is the same party as the president.

madam president. us were here -- many of us were here during the first trump people, there was a democratic house, there were articles of impeachment sent over, the senate republicans could have played these games and tried to table the impeachment sand said we're going to shirk our constitutional duty, we're not going to have a trial, but we didn't. we followed the constitution. my question for my colleagues here, is there even one democrat who cares about the institution of the senate, who cares about the constitution, who cares about democracy? democrats love to pound their chest and say they are defending democracy while gauging in a relentless -- engaging in a relentless assault on democracy. i have a resolution that would appoint an people committee to

hear the trial. so the trial doesn't have to be on the senate floor. that is typically done for presidents. instead the people committee could hear the evidence which the senate has done over and over again. democrats who say we have other things to focus on, fisa and other matters, did -- it would delay nothing on the senate floor to follow our constitution and have an people committee but it would avoid destroying the impeachment power of the senate and destroying the constitution and it would also give the american people a chance to hear the evidence and to -- to hear the presentation of the house managers, therefore, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on rules and administration be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed proceed to s. res. 622. further, that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to

reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action are or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: madam president, the date was june 27, 2013, and on the floor of the united states senate, we had done something that no one believed could be achieved. we had, through the gang of eight, established a comprehensive immigration reform bill. i was part of that gang of eight, eight senators, four democrats, four republicans who labored for months to create that legislation. it was it was comprehensive as i noted. cover every aspect from border all the through through the immigration process. we brought it to the floor in the hopes for the first time in decades we'd finally reach an agreement, a bipartisan agreement. the people that were involved in it, john mccain on the republican side, senator flake from arizona, senator graham

from south carolina, and four democrats worked hard to bring this to the floor. it was an opportunity for us to finally do something together. it got 68 he votes. we needed 60. we got 68 votes. there was a lot of celebration because business and labor and others were supporting us and were so happy we got it done. we know what happened to that bill. it went over and died in the house of representatives. the republican leadership over there refused to even call it for consideration. of the republican senators currently on the floor, two of them were on the floor on june 27, 2013. they both voted no. listen to the speeches and ask yourself the question, if the border and immigration policy need to be fixed in america, why weren't you there when we had a chance for a bipartisan approach to comprehensive immigration reform? and to make it even worse, there

was an argument made that we would not provide defense supplemental spending asked for by the administration around the world unless we came up with a border reform bill within the last several months. and the republicans said we have a leader on our side of the aisle that we want to head up our effort to come up with a bipartisan bill to deal with the border. we do believe it needs to be fixed. it is in crisis. they proffered james lankford, a conservative republican senator from oklahoma, a highly respected senator. i may disagree with him on many issues, but i respect him as a member of the senate. he was to be their lead negotiator, and we respected that request. the democrats had chris fermi and kyrsten sinema joining in the effort and brought to the floor or prepared to bring to the floor a measure that was a bipartisan approach to solve this problem. why is that necessary? because in this body you need 60 votes. if you don't have 60 votes, you're wasting your time.

we needed something bipartisan. and so this measure was headed to the floor. and at the last minute, former president trump announced that he wanted to stop the process. he did not want to even attempt to sof the problem -- solve the problem with bipartisan legislation. he said you can blame me if you want to. and i blame him again. yes, he did that. an unfortunately, the republican senators were complicit, most of them, in that effort instead of respecting what james lankford had achieved and what a bipartisan bill would have made. so you can say what you want and make all the speeches about bodies and suffering and i'm sure some of that is true, but the bottom line is when you had a chance to do something about it with the bipartisan gang of eight bill, you voted no. and when you had a chance to support james lankford's bipartisan approach to fixing the border, you were not there to be seen. you were loyal to donald trump and not loyal to the situation that we face in the senate. i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the senator from texas. mr. cruz: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that i have

two minutes to respond to senator durbin. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: madam president, nowhere in senator durbin's marks did we hear any mention of the children being brutalized by traffickers. nowhere did we hear of the women tracked in sex slavery. nowhere did we hear the words laken riley. nowhere did we hear jeremy caceres. nowhere did we hear about the dead bodies, three nearly a day that are being found on texas properties. nowhere did we hear a word about the suffering. instead what did he do? he pointed to the democrats' long-standing objection to grant amnesty to as many people as possible so they get more democrat voters. the gang of eight bill was a terrible bill and senator durbin is unhappy that democracy operated and the house of representatives made the decision not to pass it. that's the way our system works. that's what led senate democrats and joe biden to decide just open the border lawlessly because they couldn't actually get the votes to pass their bill. the shoourm bill he's talking about -- schumer bill he's

talking about would have made this situation worse. and understand what senator durbin is saying. it is the policy of senate democrats to support these open borders. they don't have any arguments on the merits. and by the way, joe biden inherited the lowest rate of illegal immigration in 45 years. all he had to do was nothing because we had success in securing the border. and joe biden and alejandro mayorkas deliberately broke the border and they continue the policies in place that ensure tomorrow more children are going to be brutalized, more women are going to be raped. they know that and they're not willing to do anything to stop it. that is, i believe, immoral and wrong, and the senate should hold a trial as the constitution requires. we owe that to the american people. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. braun: i ask unanimous consent that the following senators have up to five minutes

each, myself, senator manchin, senator marshall, and cassidy for up to ten minutes before the roll call vote. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection. mr. braun: thank you. we've had to several times recently -- and i'm talking about since the biden administration came into of office -- to where when you can't legislate, all of a sudden you use executive orders and rules. you've heard of the deep state. that's what happens when you can't get your way legislatively, which means you've got to get 60 senators corralled here to do it. and you start doing things, in many indications pushing -- many cases pushing legal limits administratively. that is when government has gone wild. i want to take you back to about a little over a year and a half

ago when covid was in the rearview mirror. if you remember, there was the effort to try to force vaccinations on every individual in the country working for an employer with a hundred employees or more. that would have been almost everyone. it had folks in indiana that owned businesses wondering now that this was all in the rearview mirror, why would you do it? it's government gone wild. it was our office that dusted off the congressional review act that said enough is enough. of course, speaker of the house pelosi wasn't going to take it up there. we did pass it in the senate. and thank goodness the supreme court came in about two weeks later and said enough is enough. that's unconstitutional. had to do it another time. on all your hard-earned money

you put into your investment accounts. you heard of esg, environment, social, and governance. that should be of equal value as return on investment. you know it shouldn't be. that's when you're trying to weave in ideology along with investment returns. we had to dust it off again, and that passed in the senate and the house and generated president biden's first veto. the number of times we've had to do it since then, too many to count. we're doing it again here this evening. i've led bipartisan letters to the nlrb, national labor relations board, raising concerns about its proposed rule regarding joint employer status over the past couple years to no avail. and what they're wanting to do again -- this is getting into

m mainstream, small business, and leverage that executive now we are to do something that would mess up what has worked with el for a long time. this rule replaced the 2020 joint employer rule that focused on direct and immediate control as the criterion. and replacedit with indirect -- replaced it with indirect and reserve. which means it's subjective. you can do whatever you want because you don't want that particular rule that would have kept it where it's always been and where it's worked. it's caused confusion for franchise owners for years. it's going -- in fact franchisees just as bad. those are the main street business owners. it would have immediate and long-term negative effects on millions of workers and thousands of businesses when the economy is already reeling from the inflation and the sugar high economy based upon borrowed

money spent to help few parts of it. that's what they've given us. and then they want to do this. franchisers and franchisees, main street america, gets impacted by it. moving forward this misguided rule, the nlrb would hurt entrepreneurs. that's the backbone of our economy. they're the ones that start things that some day may become a larger business. 32% of small business owners say they would not have a business if it was not for franchising. the nlrb should not move forward with this joint employer rule because it will have a negative economic impact that's actually inconsistent with common law. the board should maintain the 2020 rule. it wasn't broken. it was working. they seem to be doing everything that tries to fix it when it's not broken.

i yield. the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: madam president, i rise today and i agree with my friend senator braun and senator cassidy. my friend and my colleague from kansas senator marshall. i rise today to support of the joint resolution of congressional disapproval to overturn the national labor relations board's new joint employer rule. this rule is just another example of executive overreach and the partisan politics that we deal with all too often. small businesses are the heart of our economy. from states like myself in west virginia, small rural states, this is the backbone of our business society. and especially we have 98% of our businesses are small in west virginia. i don't have one city in my state with the population greater than 50,000. i'm a million 700,000 of small

towns and cities. this is who we ever. the -- we are. the covid-19 pandemic was hard on small businesses and franchises with an estimated 32,700 franchise businesses closing during the first six months of the pandemic. the last thing they need is greater uncertainty caused by this rule. and the joint employer rule has caused confusion for franchise owners for years. telling them they could be held liable for actions taken by businesses with their brand potentially subjecting them to corporate control. franchising is a pathway to entrepreneurship for americans across the country and it helps build generational growth. by providing access to capital, training, managerial assistance, and a system of support which is so needed in small rural areas. the franchise model helps many americans overcome the numerous barriers to owning their own business for the first time the dream of coming true of having your own business and controlling your destiny.

one out of every three franchise owners say they wouldn't own a small business without the franchise business model that they buy into. the unique model is used by over 5,000 independent businesses in my state of west virginia, providing over 45,000 jobs. this new rule has further confused the issue and put the franchise model at risk. under this rule businesses are liable for entities. they do not control. i repeat. under this rule businesses will be liable for entities that they do not control. it makes no sense. let me give you an example. if under this brand there are uniform standards for their products or they would require hair nets to be worn, they would then be found as a joint employer. as simple as that. if that's part of the model you buy into, part of the franchise you bought, has certain requirements to deliver products safely and healthy. this is despite the fact they have no responsibility, no responsibility or role in hiring, firing, or wage

decisions for their employees in any way, shape, or form. does that make any citizens? it just doesn't. franchisees for years have enjoyed the independence of running their own businesses and making their own decisions about their employees. working with their employees in joint relationships. if a franchisor is now held responsible for these decisions, the franchise model will essentially no longer exist. the guidelines won't be there because they're totally liable and responsible. the bottom line is this rule will shut the door of thousands of americans who want to start or maybe already have a business and fulfill the american dream. that is why i introduced the congressional review act with my senators i just mentioned as our colleagues to make clear this rule does not work. businesses should not be viable for entities they do not control. the national labor relations board moved forward on this rule without bipartisan support. and i can assure you they did not have bipartisan support. a member of the board even found that this rule would be even more catastrophic than

previously attempts to change the standard and potentially harmful to our economy. we know previous attempts to change the joint employer standard resulted in a 93% -- i repeat again -- 93% increase in litigation, a loss of over 376,000 jobs, opportunities, and were eventually struck down by the courts. this doesn't work. the courts have already ruled it doesn't work and it will happen again. but here we go. here we go. we should be focused on protecting main street businesses, not obstructing them. i am standing here today for the thousands of small businesses, not only in my state but across the country, that are hardworking employees and surrounding communities that are going to be harmed by this rule. i encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, my friends on both sides of the party, democrat and republican, basically to vote yes on this resolution and allow us to continue to work towards a

bipartisan, commonsense solution instead of a more partisan political solution. thank you, madam president. i yield -- i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. cassidy: mr. president, the senate will soon vote on the resolution of disapproval hoping to overturn the biden administration new joint employer rule. this rule favors coerced union indication. dollar is franchise businesses operating in our communities. they employ over nine million americans. the franchise model is

particularly empowered underrepresented groups in the business community such as women and people of color. this allows them to become that successful business owner, to live the american dream, create an opportunity for their own family and for their employs. -- employees. president biden's new rule threatens this business model. it places responsibility upon employers for the labor decisions of the individual franchise owners despite the franchiser having no operational authority over the business's employees. saddling franchisers with liability for thousands of franchise owners that operate small businesses is a sure way to destroy the system of franchising. according to the international franchise association, when the obama administration opposed a

similar policy, small businesses lost 33 billion per year due to increased liability costs. the biden administration's policy has strong opposition from republicans and democrats. it is also opposed by over a hundred organizations, including those representing small businesses and workers who will be severely impacted. it is not surprising that the joint employer rule is a major priority for large labor unions. it is easier for unions when they only have to negotiate with one major entity rather thank with each individual small business. this allows the union to wield more influence in the collective bargaining process. president biden's promise to have the most pro-union administration in history, this priority should not be making it easier to forcibly and coercively unionize workers

while undermining the business model of the -- of the establishments they work for. unfortunately, this policy threatens the jocks of the workers employed by and earning a living from the franchise business model. i close by encouraging all my colleagues to pals this bipartisan -- to pass this bipartisan resolution, support those americans who otherwise would not be able to own a base without the franchise model. let's stop this harmful overreach that only hurts jobs and economic development in our communities and denies opportunity for americans seeking a better life. with that, i yield. mr. marshall: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. marshall: thank you, madam president. i want to thank also the senator from the great state of

louisiana for his leadership in this very important issue. the joint employer rule from the nlrb will crush the franchise model as weigh know it. it's going to crash the model of business that brought financial freedom. what i love about the franchise model is everywhere i go visiting with these owners, it's been so helpful for minorities for veterans, for women. these franchises provide a model, the framework on how to be successful. but this new rule from the nlrb would destroy the model as we know it. ing now i'm not sure that kansas had the first franchise but in my mind they d i remember when pizza hut started in witch tow. not long after that came rent-a-center, and many, many more. that story has been repeated all across the country.

these businesses started off small but through franchising were able to grow into national franchises. today there are 7,500 franchises employing 75,000 employees areacross the state. now, again, everywhere i go across the state of kansas, people want to talk about inflation, but what's becoming more prominent, especially to a business owner, is regulations. just that this overburden of regulations that's keeping us all down and driving up the cost of doing business. more regulations means more money, more cost to that owner. the question i get from folks is, why does the white house want to fix something that's not broken? listen, this is -- the system is working just fine right now. so why are we trying to fix it? i remember president reagan talking about the ten words that every american hates to hear. i'm from the government and i'm here to help had you.

we need less regulations, not more regulations. this definition is over-ly broad and this rule threatens the success stories for all those happy endings, for all those american dreams that have become true. instead of being independent business owners, franchisees will be reduced to middle managers, killing jobs, killing income as well. this rule attempts to trigger joint employer status if two employers share the concerns of employment and then talks about indirect control as one of these terms of condition. so instead of make upping over-ly broad, burdensome rules, we should mass more rules like our own save local business act which provides clear and consistent standards for joint employment status. i ask my colleagues to join us in supporting this cra. this rule from the federal government is a solution in search of a problem o thank you so much. i yield back.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, h.j. res. 98 is considered read a third time. the question occurs on passage of the joint resolution. is there a sufficient second? the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito.

mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth.

mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven.

mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan.

ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy.

mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney.

ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune.

mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young.

the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- braun, britt, bud, cornyn, cotton, cramer, crapo, graham, hagerty, hoeven, king, marshall, rubio, schmitt, scott of south carolina, sinema, vance, young. senators voting in the negative -- baldwin, brown, butler,

cantwell, cortez masto, durbin, gillibrand, kaine, klobuchar, peters, smith, tester, warnock. mrs. hyde-smith, aye. mr. hickenlooper, no. mr. murphy, no. mr. fetterman, no. mr. cassidy, aye.

the clerk: mrs. capito, aye. mrs. shaheen, no. the clerk: mr. tillis, aye. mr. schumer, no.

the clerk: ms. warren, no. mr. rounds, aye.

the clerk: mrs. fischer, aye. the clerk: mrs. murray, no. mr. daines, aye. mrs. blackburn, aye. mr. reed, no.

mr. thune, aye. the clerk: ms. rosen, no. mr. sanders, no. the clerk: mr. kelly, no.

the clerk: ms. lummis, you feel

the doflt

the clerk: mr. schatz, no. mr. kennedy, aye. ms. hirono, no.

the clerk: mr. paul, aye. mr. cardin, no. mr. lujan, no. ms. ernst, aye. mr. whitehouse, no.

the clerk: mr. bennet, no. the clerk: mr. wicker, aye.

mr. barasso, aye. mr. carper, no.

the clerk: mr. boozman, aye. the clerk: mr. mcconnell, aye. mr. johnson, aye. mr. booker, no.

the clerk: mr. manchin, aye. the clerk: mr. tuberville, aye.

the clerk: mr. merkley, no. the clerk: mr. scott of florida, aye.

the clerk: mr. wyden, no. mr. blumenthal, no. mr. sullivan, aye. mr. markey, no. mr. ricketts, aye. mr. warner, no.

the clerk: mr. casey, no.

the clerk: mr. welch, no. mr. heinrich, no.

the clerk: mr. risch, aye.

vote: the clerk: mr. ossoff, no.

the clerk: mr. lankford, aye. the clerk: mr. moran, aye. ms. collins, aye.

the clerk: mr. grassley, aye.

the clerk: mr. cruz, aye.

the clerk: mr. padilla, no.

the clerk: ms. murkowski, aye.

the clerk: ms. duckworth, no. mr. mullin, aye. mr. van hollen, no.

the clerk: ms. hassan, no.

the clerk: ms. stabenow, no.

vote:

the clerk: mr. coons, no.

the clerk: mr. hawley no, no. .

vote:

l

sit in the house of representatives is expected to center articles of impeachment against the cabinet officer for only the second time in our nations history. this is not routine business. instead this is a very serious moments. february 13 at the house agreed articles of impeachment against the department of homeland security secretary mayorkas for willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law." and breach of public trust." this chamber it will soon have a constitutional duty to uphold and i firmly believe the senate, the u.s. senate must conduct the full impeachment inquiry trial for secretary mayorkas our constitution gives the senate the responsibility and the duty to try all impeachments. requires a vote of two thirds of the senate present before the

federal officer is convicted. that's a pretty high standard for constitutional process. for every impeachment in our history the senate has held some form of a trial. unless a better officer has resigned prior to the trial. this time it should be no different. under president biden and secretary mayorkas more than nine-point to million illegal crossings along our country's southern borders. the senator from new hampshire. ms. hassan: i move to proceed to calendar number 315, senate 4072. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 350, s. 40 25e6r7ks bill to prohibit funds to implement, administer, or enforce certain rules of the environmental protection agency.

ms. hassan: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the 2308ing senate resolutions -- s. res. 634, s. res. 635, s. r res.. -- 636. the presiding officer: the senate will proceed to the resolutions en bloc e has hayes ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc e. the presiding officer: without objection. has mass mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the appoint at the desk appear accept vatly the records a if made by the chamber. expeditious officer without objection. ms. hassan: as a reminder, senators will gather tomorrow at 10:20 a.m. to proceed as a body to the hall of the house of representatives for an address by his excellency, can a she did a fumio, prime minister of japan. and i move to recess until 12:30 p.m. on murals day, april 11. the presiding officer: question

is on the motion. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to e the senate stands in recess until senate stands in recess until the senate today confirmed and marie allen to u.s. district court judge for utah. with her confirmation president biden's match former president trump at this point has presidency with 193 lifetime judicial confirmations. lawmakers also pass to measures that would block biden administration policies. one disapproving a greenhouse gas emissions rolled the other stopped a new standard for determining joint employer status and collective bargaining. the house had planned to send impeachment articles against homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas to the chamber today that has been pushed to next week. several senate republicans requested that delayed effort of the chamber conduct a full trial in spite of the democrats plan

to quickly vote to dismiss or table the articles. as always alive senate coverages here on cspan2. ♪ sees bit is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more including media calm. >> @media, we believe whether you live here or right here our way out in the middle of anywhere you should have access to past reliable internet. that is by we are leading the way. >> media calm support c-span as a public service on these other television providers. give me a front row seat to democracy. >> tonight president biden first lady jill biden host a state dinner honoring japanese prime minister at 11:00 p.m. eastern on c-span we will feature highlights from the evening including prime minister's white house arrival