[inaudible]

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