>> on this vote the yeas are 51, the yeas are 49. since adjourn. >> meta- president? what following the conclusion of the impeachment growth of republican senators about not holding a full trial. claim the senate was obligated to do so. they also discuss what they believe secretary mayorkas was responsible for the situation of the southern border. >> the senate will be in order with senators taken their conversation to the coat room. >> meta-mp president we have set an unprecedented here. that means the senate can ignore and affect the house

impeachment. it doesn't matter if our friends on the other side thought he should have been impeached or not. he was. and by doing what we just did, we have in effect ignored the directions of the house which were to have a trial. we had no evidence, no procedure, this is a day it is not a proud day in the history of the senate. [applause] >> meta- president? >> 's header from utah's recognized metrics unanimous consent to enter original colloquy with my colleagues. >> that objection so order. >> meta- president. >> 's center for utah would hold we do not have order in the senate i would ask all senators to take their conversations to the cloakroom as well as the

staff. the senator would hold until we have order please. the center from utah's recognized. >> thank you meta- president. but we have witnessed today is a truly historic. this is it never occurred. nothing like this has ever occurred. under article one section iii clause six, we have been given a duty. we given a sole exclusive power to try all impeachment. try all impeachment's. not some of them, not just those which which we happen to agree. not just those we are happy the house of representatives undertook to prosecute. but all. the word tri- is also significant. reverse the word trial it's the same word it is a proceeding in which the law and the facts are presented. in front of judges in order to reach an ultimate disposition.

an ultimate disposition culminating in a verdict of guilty or not guilty. we were precluded from doing that job today. we are precluded from doing so in a way that's not only historic and unprecedented but counteran constitutional. nothing could be c further from the structure text in the constitution than that. let's look at the arguments that we would have heard we could have heard, that we should have heard today. had things unfolded as they were supposed to. had things unfolded in a manner consistent with the oath we took first were sworn in as united states senators, we are all required to take the same oath. when we did that. just a few hours ago in this very chamber in this very case to decide this case impartially. what would we have heard? >> first and foremost regardless

of what you think of what a trial consists of hot how of her howdifferent people mighy define the term a trial will always at a minimum involveus lawyers. involve lawyers unless the person is proceeding person that you will always have lawyers there. at least one side will always be represented and 99.9% of all cases both sides will. we do not hear that today. we did not hear from the committee of individuals to the house of representatives to be the house impeachment managers or prosecutors. what else would you expect to hear? you would hear evidence. evidence will be brought in. sometimes trials in the senate involve bringing in i evidence n a documentary form. other times you might have witnesses but we do not have any witnesses, we did not have any documentary evidence. other of that which was charged but let's talk about what was charged what i would speak could have, it would have been should've heard had begun her job today.

the accusations in this impeachment trial can be fit into two cap categories number one is found the article one of the impeachment. it alleges secretary mayorkas repeatedly, defiantly did the exactid opposite of what federal law requires. namely under. circumstances eight or nine different statutory provisions he violated, it was required to detain people. hmmm he did not detain but it's not just that he did not do it the law of required he did the exact opposite of that. instead of holding them until such time as they could be removed or alternatively adjudicated to have the status whether under in the context of immigration parole or a silent asylum orotherwise he just rele. and in many cases gave them work permits. we would have heard evidence

about the fact memoranda issued by secretary mayorkas within the department upon security did not just tolerate this result. they instructed this result we would've heard evidence about the fact that the outset of the biden administration secretary mayorkas when asked what he would tell those traveling to the caravan those pink many thousands of dollars per head and in some cases tens of thousands of dollars per head to international drug cartels instead of telling them don't do it he said maybe don't do it yet. give us a few weeks before we are ready to receiveve you. showing intention to facilitate the violation of federal law. we would've heard evidence about how he instructed his own department to violate those rules. we would have heard evidence

about how directly contrary to federal all those things are in contrary to his own oath in his own duties. as to article one the senate chose to dispose of this today by doing something it has never done in any context in or close to that. with eight-point t order it said as follows. majority leader stood up, defiantly refusing to have the senate perform its obligation. and raise the following point of order so they raise a point of order that impeachment article one does not allege conduct that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor as required under article two section four of the united states constitution and is therefore unconstitutional. all right, let's talk about that for a minute. had we been permitted to have a trial. had we been permitted to go into executive session. alternatively have we had been permitted to go into closed session as several of us move

today. we have been able to hear arguments about this how about how wrong this is because that is what you do and you have a trial. we have evidence, articles from lawyers as majority leader schumer just did you can consider the implications. and consider whether or not the argument is right we are sworn in we service both finders of fact relevant to this case we were denied that opportunity while we are exploring what we heard had begun to trial, had we done our job at export what we would've done it in a real trout summit made an actual motion. had we been permitted to do our job first and foremost this is patently absurd to argue a willful refusal to obey the law

one has a sworn solemn obligation to perform is somewhat not impeachable. we do not have to look too far in order to find support for the conclusion this is an illegitimategi, un- warranted, a substantiated plate when that contrary to law. we do not have to look further and then president biden's own lawyer, the solicitor general of the united states who holds a special position of the government performs the functions many people mistakenly associate with the attorney general but is in fact the solicitor general chief advocate before all proceedings and that u.s. supreme court. there is an exchange in a case argued last term and the supreme court of the united states called united states versus texas. in that case the supreme court

heard arguments from the state of texas whether or not this administration's approach toward the same provisions of law is acceptable. whether or not they could challenge them. now unfortunately the supreme court a reached a conclusion. a conclusion with which i strongly disagree. might have concluded ultimately the state of texas lacks standing to challenge federal policy among so we are discussing today. notwithstanding the fact it is conduct and its residents. but the important part that we should have been known to argue today's exchange thatay occurred at oral argument between justice kavanaugh and elizabeth, solicitor general of the united states. in her's capacitor solicitor general as the biden administration chief appellate advocate before the united state supreme court, justice kavanaugh

asked her a number of questions and on page 50 of that argument some of that discussion ensues. he asked the file if the new administration comes in and says we are not going to enforce environmental laws, we are not going to enforce labor laws but your position no state and a blanket matter not just not enforce those laws, correct? here's what solicitor general says that is correct under this court but the framers intended political checks in that circumstance. they did something that extreme not going to force law would be held has tools at its disposal as well. so, this argument continues. it continues on to the next page

in which justice kavanaugh says what are the exact tools and solicitor general answers she said well, think congress obviously has the power of the purse. he goes on to explain how this is relevance. this goes on until we get to page 53 and page 53 justice kavanaugh jumps back in. and says i think your position instead of traditional review congress has to resort to shutting down the government or impeachment for dramaticow steps for some sort or another. if those dramatic steps would be warranted to be in the face of statutory responsibility by the executive. so she just acknowledged exactly what's happening here. she acknowledges exactly the mobile but which the impeachment

power becomes very relevant but let there be any doubt on that. this step was settled. not just in 1789. we adopted the constitution. use the language they did but the framers were not operating in a vacuum. the writing on a blank slate they were incorporated legal terminology that have been used for centuries. stratus of the constitution discusses this very kind of thing. and explained in section 7098 of this written notso so very long after the constitution itself was written. we got the stuff from england the british knew what impeachment meant and they tunderstood what would constitue a high crime or misdemeanor. section 798 just a story acknowledges there is a

precedent, there's an understanding at the time of the founding that recognized you have an impeachable offense if among other things that admiral would have neglected the safeguard of the sea. they did not have homeland security secretary then. not in america. not in britain. this is an analysis. the exact same thing. someone who had a duty to do a certain thing under the law defiantly refused to do so. as her argus we could've, should've, it would have heard today had we had an actual trial had we been permitted to go into executive session or even go session.ed why close session? we don't want to have to drink close session. the standing rules of impeachment and this body preclude us from having this very kind of debate. so it would majority leader schumer by this are the great shock and surprise of all of us he wanted to warn the body and have the debate he would not let us do that the democrats voted us down.

that this article one in a nutshell. article two of the impeachment for those get to? those are interesting because those deal with false statement knowingly false statements repeatedly made by his secretary alejandro mayorkas to congress. to congress at is performing its oversight responsibility he lied to congress according to the allegations of t the articles of impeachment and article two. to my great shock it was dead wrong as to article one. he was dead wrong and article one he was deader than a doornail whatever that means 10 times more dead as a doornail and article to that article one. they allege in article two that secretary mayorkas made false statements but knowingly making false statements is a felony offense. it is a punishable as a crime or as a felony charge, prosecuted

at lots of convictions. you can go to prison for a very long period of time foro that. now, for chuck schumer to argue precooked et cetera yield? [inaudible] >> i thought i heard >> microphone, microphone. >> yes madam president i asked senator lee if you yield to a question. i thought i heard senator schumer argue today that lying was not a high crime or misdemeanor. and therefore could not be the basis for article of impeachment. to hear that correctly?

quickset is exactly what he said. that's exactly what he said we made this motion. he stood up and say i raise a point of order impeachment article two does not allege conduct that rises to the level of high crime or misdemeanor. >> so, even though lying to the united states congress is a felony, under the precedent ther majority leader in our democratic colleagues established, it is not a high crime or misdemeanor, is that what we did? consists precisely what the precedent set today stands for. we have effectively, by this vote the democrats force through not allowing us to debate this is why raise a point of order i made a motion to going to close session to discuss this. we have now set a precedent that effectively, very arguably,

effectively immunizes from impeachment. making a false statement to congress. >> may i ask one more senator? >> yes please. >> i am trying to follow the senate majority leader's logic. what do you have to do to get impeached now? a felony is not sufficient. what is above a felony? >> let's see, obviously spreading with a deep misinformation might be a felony. i suppose at some point. >> it takes, as i understand it, senator you are a legal scholar protects more than a felony now progress high crime or misdemeanor. >> yes. who's on first? what's on second? i do not understand any of this.

other thoughts about the precedent for democratic hall colleagues in their haste to sweep this under the rug may have established. >> would yield for it adjunct? >> with pleasure. lying to congress is a felony. since we are no longer using impeachment as a means to address someone who is lying to congress how does congress prosecute or address someone who deliberately lies to congress now the senate has swept away through this precedential action presidential actiontoday the ope impeachment for that purpose. thank you. >> like to respond to that point briefly if i could. whatat we have done is to

effectively immunize against impeach ability immunize, making false statements and going back to the original question i don't know it may be aggravated first-degree murder with enhanced atrocious and cruel conduct as aggregators constant maybe that's a high crime or misdemeanor. that remains to be seen. but keep in mind particularly with the effect that he set aside article one and they have already said that is out of balance as well for impeached ability the supreme court has said pretty much no one has standing to address that. what are we left with? getting back to the question from senator lummis. this is a anomaly precedent to set here with regard to false statements. because what does that do to her oversight hearings? were we rely routinely on

testimony provided under oath by cabinet secretaries and other administration officials. what does that do? what incentive structure does not create? >> of the saturday yield? >> guess the progress you aware the fact president clinton was impeached? and one of the charges against him was lying under oath to a civil lawsuit are you aware of that? >> yes. >> so you can be impeached for lying under oath in a civil lawsuit but apparently you cannot be impeached for lying to congress about how you do your job. i'll give senator schumer the benefit of the doubt. he is saying that fact pattern apparently does not rise to a level of high karma misdemeanor. it is eight policy disagreements. we have taken a policy disagreement in the house and tried to turn it into

impeachment. here is a question for you, senator lee. are you aware of the fact that two dayss ago, two days ago secretary mayorkas was asked about the parole of the man alleged to have killed lakin riley, why was he paroled? and how is he paroled? under the parole statute 212d5 there's two ways parole can be b granted. unique humanitarian needsnc circumstance, your mother is dying, something's going on bedding to get into the country on a temporary basis means you are witness in a public cartel trial. this is the only two reasons you can be paroled in two days ago, note yesterday secretary mayorkas said he did not know why he was paroled.

which one of the jew was it? this is a question from congressman bishop subject was paroled due to the central process center in el paso, texas. he was paroled because he denied any space for him. senator schumer, this is illegal. the secretary of homeland security cannot just add a condition to a statute. the statute does not allow you to give parole because you are full. the reason this man was given parole is not because of the statutory requirement because we had run out of space because we got more illegal immigrants then weal can handle. then the rest is history. i gets paroled, he goes to new

york he gets convicted of a crime he goes to georgia and is accused of murder inc. this lady. argue over whether or not you should love your job. and in your own style just happened two days ago this gives kangaroo courts a bad name this is a freaking joke. they do individual analysis i asked him to do a case by case analysis senator we compliant the law.

the 240,000 of significant public benefit under oath to me when i questioned i don't believe you. i do not believe you're doing it individual analysis on thiss stuff. drink blanket parole and paper would pick this stuff. it turns out he gave false testimony to the congress. whether he t lied or doesn't knw what he's doing, i do not know pretty should be impeached either way. if you don't know what you're doing you should be kicked out because you don't know what you're doing. but the man we are talking about is the one charged with murdering this young lady who is going on a jog. that's not important to the american people and find out how that happened and should somebody be held responsible? what is? you can talk about what we

impeached truck, claims it wasn't worthwhile? did it matter? was it all political this is not important. to say that how we are doing, how he is doing his job is not important with the american people. tell that to the rileyey family. this is not an academic debate. the policies at this administration being carried out by secretary mayorkas are illegal. the man charge was illegally iny released into this country. by dhs. this is something we argue about in the senate whether or not you keep your job. i can be swept under the rug. there's a lesson in november this is the only chance you have two get this right to the american people. finally for all of the rape, the murder, and the drugs the largest loss of life in america

fentanyl for young people. how many more people have to be diet, raped or murdered before someone is held accountable. later chance or democratic rents swept it under the rug because they are more concerned about the november election. and protecting the american people this is a sad day. remember what i said progression going to be offended. by the use of the term kangaroo court the entire marsupial world will be offended by this. under martial pill course yield? >> it certainly seems to me today, 51 of our friends across the aisle voted to not have a trial. make a note of this every person voted in that trout was a vote for an openot border. it was about to tell lakin riley's family the life of their daughter did not matter.

it was a vote to tell the 250,000 families who've lost a loved one to fentanyl, it does not matter. but what struck me as the clock struck midnight and we lost that vote act like the senate was gutted. we lost part of our powers. in high school we were taught high school government we talked about checks and balances. one of the checks and balances the legislative branch had on the executive branch is this impeachment process. and i want to asked my colleague from texas, why do i feel like i've been it got it right now the entire senate that somebody has been gutted of a power we are never going to get back that impeachment going forward may mean nothing, and my wrong? since ours it might friend from

kansas is not wrong. in the 237 years of our nation's history i do not know there has been a more shameful day in the united states senate than today. what we just witnessed was a travesty. it was a travesty to the united states constitution. and it was a travesty to the american people. and it is important to understand why i'm going to accurate account is with us. that will be zero. other than the presiding officer somebody has to preside. not a single democrat center chose to come to this t floor ad listen to one word of evidence. when it comes to the constitution joe biden and

alejandro mayorkas defying federal law. ignoring the text of the statute were deliberately releasing criminal illegal aliens over and over and over again. that is justt hunky-dory. you cannot impeach him for that part every democrat just voted. by the way, every cabinet member you have been given a blank slate. ignore the law. but democrats are in charge of the senate the entire cabinet could ignore the law. it is no longer impeachable. in democrat wonderland. openly defies the law. by the way, every democrat just voted that way but they did not hear one word of argument. the majority leader did not stand up and say here's the reason why it is okay. he did not present that argument. they did not read a brief. nobody read a brief period they

did not care enough to know what senator lee just laid out. the divided department of justice went in front of the u.s. supreme court and said at the executive defies the law the answer is impeachment. the willingness of every democrat to be blatantly hypocritical. just lesser of the biden justice department said no you cannot sue in court. when we the biden administration defy the law the answer is impeachment. everett senate democrat says no it's not impeached but i don't know what it is. actually do know what it is is only one answer left. which is everyone who is unhappy about the open border shows up in november to use the phrase throw the bums out. if you are not willing to do your job is there not one

senator on that side of the aisle that cares enough? to honor the constitution? by the way the second article they throughout said lying to congress to set a high crime or misdemeanor. it's not impeachable but set it of coletta pointed out bill clinton was impeached for lying under oath. and you know what happened? he was ultimately acquitted but after a full trial with a hurt the evidence the senate did its job. one of the impeachment managers was senator graham who presented that evidence right here on thee floor. before bill clinton there's a guy named walter nixon. you may not know who walter nixon is pretty was a federal judge who was convicted of perjury produced from mississippi and convicted of perjury in front of the grand jury. he was impeached and it went to the senate. the senate convicted him and removed him from theh. bench. in june with the precedents were

prior today? you commit a crime, lying under oath, purchase a high crime or a misdemeanor that iso impeachabl. no more because understand the democrat rule here for this is all about, some of the constitution none of them care. we repeatedly move let's go into the basic here's the other side of the argument. no. hear no evil see no evil speak no evil. evil what they did they don't want to know because they don't cares not about the constitution. it's not about the law. it is about political expediency. but every bit as violent as what they did to the constitution was, it's more offensive what they did to the american people. migrants died crossing illegal into this country per that's almost 3a day. you go down to the southern border, down to texas the democrats don't bother to because they don't d care about

the people dying. you see photograph after photograph texas farmers and ranchers are finding dead bodies on their properties. many of my colleagues have been down there with me, have seen the elderly people, that human traffickers have seen pregnant women that human traffickers abandon the infants and the toddlers left to die. the senate democrats just told the american people they don't give a dan. about the bodies of the people who have died the last three and half years for they do not give a dan about the people are going to die next week. next week more migrants are going to die but we brought 19 senators down to the border we went out on the boat in the rio grande we saw a man floating dead in the water. senator lee was there, senator kennedy was that he had died that day. the democrats just told the american people they don't care.

when you go down to the border and you look at the children who have been brutalized, just about all of us here are parents. i will tell you when you look in the eyes of a little girl or a little boy who's been abused by traffickers and you see it's pretty see the pain, you see the agony of children's trapped in sex traffic aim for the democrat said they don't't care. they won't hear the evidence they do not care it's deliberate and they don't care that it will happen next week. that it will happen tomorrow. tomorrowy there will be childrn brutalized because of the democrats open border policies and not a one of them cares. they do not care about the women who are repeatedly sexually assaulted. again you look at the eyes of these women coming over it is heartbreaking.

the democrats just said we don't care. they don't care about them more than 1000 americans that died last year from drug overdoses. the highest in our nations history. 70% are from chinese fentanyl coming across the border. the democrat said we don't hear about it we are not interested in the americans are dying. due to else they don't care about? they don't care about the criminals being released day after day. the biden administration is releasing murderers, rapists and child molesters every week receipt of the story of someone being killed. settlement being raped. as a child being assaulted by aillegal immigrants released by alejandro mayorkas and joe biden. how shocking is it that there is not one democrat who says a massive human suffering matters.

here the evidence but how shocking is that there was not one democrat, one, there are 51 of them on that side. not a single one could screw up the courage to say it let's do our job. let's hear the evidence. how shocking is that not a democrat cares about the terrorist who are streaming across our southern border for the nation of iran has called for jihad against america. hamas is called for against america has below has called for jihad against america. joe biden and the democrats have put outn a red carpet and saidf you want toca murder americans come across our southern border. we the democrats will welcome you. like many of us on this floor i was in washington d.c. on december 11, 2001. i remember the horror. i lost a good friend barbara

olson was in the plane that crashed into the t pentagon. arm of the smell of the smoke and sulfur and burning paradigm of the agony. and i remember the national unity that came after 911. democrats or republicans came together a i do not know i've bn evermore proudf of a president them and president george w. bush stood on a pile of rubble with a bullhorn talking to firefighters and new yorkers in one of the men in the crowd called out and said we can't hear you. and he responded well, i can hear you into the whole world will hear you as well. we were as one. today, not a single democrat was able to mount up the courage to tell the majority leader i do not want another 911 to happen. the house impeached alejandro mayorkas for other things releasing terrorist after terrorist after terrorist we

we'vegot to hear the evidence. i believe today we have a greater risk of a major terrorist attack on u.s. soil than at any point since september 11. every democrat just told the american people it does not matter to them to hear the evidence. i appreciate my republican colleagues who are here. who are willing to hear the evidence but willing to engage. willing to stand up and defend the american people. but you know what? the democrats who are not here, they are not here because you knew who else is not here? look up at the gallery, the reporters are all gone for a couple folks in the back i hope you all right. the reporters are absent. that's the democrats plan. what is fascinating we are

presenting arguments. many of us particularly in judiciary but many of us have presented those arguments over and over and over in hearings. not a democrat argues on the other side. it is an issue unlike any other issue i know of in politics if we are argument taxes as republicans we say we should cut taxes good for the american people do not democrats do? they stand up with other talking points, no, tax the rich. >> okay we have a debate were time but just about every issue for democrats will argue on the other side they have the spend. what is fascinating where is it dick durbin standing up saying no, no it is not right. it is not right children being assaulted every day but no it's not right women being sexually assaulted every day. no it'sy not right there releasing it is not there, not a democrat is there, why? you cannot defend it.

outside south texas for one or plus years is been democrat region of the state. itta is turning a red with the speed of a freight locomotive. because nobody can see the suffering that is unfolding and defendants. the democrats up, by their silence and by the complicity of the press corps, they are counting on the press corps to write story. victory for the democrats, they got rid of the impeachment trial. that is the headline they want. i understand they do not have a substantive defense. none of them in disputes eight word we are saying. not a single democrat has stood up and said it is wrong that lake and riley would still be alive if joe biden and not let her murderer go. they know it is right. the reason they did not want a trial as they do not want the american people to hear about it. and it is our obligation to make

sure the american people do. >> sent ricketts a former governor of nebraska let your perspective on this one. >> thank you very much. fish at the college commutes organizing this. my, my, my, what have our majority leader and the democrats in the senate brought? they have overturned 227 years of precedents my colleagues have talked about. twenty-one previous impeachments. all scheduled for trial. seventeen came to trial in winsted not because the person was to be impeached was either expelled or dismissed. prior to the trial. i called from texas pointed about that media beingwh complicit. one of the headlines and politicalt i was told about said

the trial lasted only three hours. there was noe trial. there was no trial. the majority leader decided that he could determine it was unconstitutional and get every single one of his democrats along a partisan line to vote for. said it was unconstitutional. did not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. let me briefly examine them. article 1 cent over to us by the house. going to read the title both willful systematic refusal to comply with the law. that is article one. let me tell you about complying with the law. prayer should this to this admi, the trump administration broughc illegal crossings under 45 year low. but we have seen it since them is an explosion of illegal

crossings. 1.7 in the first of the biden administration. nearly 2.4 in the second period nearly 2.5 in the third period now all the people try toeo cros the border illegal including that god always is 9.4 million people. larger than the population of new york city. 300,000 in just december alone. that is larger than our capitol city nebraska, lincoln. the evidence is right there that we are not doing a good job at the southern border. why would that be? because alejandro mayorkas is complicit in not following the law. in a memorandum he sent to immigration and customs officials in 2020 when he said i'm going to quote here the fact that a individual is that noncitizen doesn't say illegal alien which is what iten says ad

the law. the fact individual therefore should not alone base of the same just because you broke the law does not mean we have to enforce the law. that should tell you it right there he is willfully disregarding the law. have at the case ofab parole? the law says it's only supposed to be used on a case-by-case basis? and situations where the person has extreme humanitarian need or in the interest of our country. under the obama and trump administration average 5600 times paroled up to 600 in this country between the obama and trump administrations on an annual basis. last year alone paroled one point to million the whole class of people. clear abuse of the law.

focus when you see instances is not following the law, doesn't that raise the question shouldn't we have a trial question but shouldn't we examine whether or not he should be convicteded of this? and yet is my colleagues have pointed out not a single democrat, partisan line said that is not willful disregard of the law. let's move on to article two. article two again i'm just going to readju the title of this. it was sent over breach of publicpu trust. breach of public trust. what does that mean? how about misleading congress? would that be a breach of public trust? april 28, 22 a to repeated the house judiciary committee dhs possess the operational control of the southwest border

including accordance with statutory definition. what i just told you at the number people cross the board had exploded. my colleague from texas did a great job talk about the human suffering that was created. if we had been allowed to have a trout we would have heard from border patrol agents who agency would'vecome up and testy the boredom is not secure. i've been down in the border as well four times. i have seen the people coming across. that border is not secure. coupn border that paid to get across our border because the whole world knows this is absolutely what we are talking about. this is why we have to hear the evidence to go and determine whether or not there is in the

democrats have united to the detriment of our constitution and our country that we are not being allowed to have a trial to examine the evidence and determine whether or not alejandro mayorkas is guilty. and whether or not he should be impeached. i think the few things i have laid out here this afternoon go exactly do we should examine the question and the democrats chose not to even ask the questions before they dismissed the trial. thank you to my colleague from utah for giving the opportunity to be able to address these issues. >> thank you. before he had his name changed legally for the purpose of this chamber to the jr. senator from missouri, attorney general eric schmidt was one of the nations leading legal minds engaging in

this problem, engaged in trying to address the lawlessness that our southern border brought on by the administration and love to hear his perspective on what happened today. thank you senator. >> i think it's important for us to actually digest the folks here watching her in a gallery or the press as well to really understand what happened today. because what happened happened today wasn't some disagreement about the number of amendments people might have on appropriations bills were whether or not some vehicle is going to be a priority or not. what was established today with a new precedence. something that has never taken place in this chamber in the history of our republic. when the summit democrat's decided to do was a simple majority to bulldoze 200 years of precedent that said something very simple, that this chamber

would honor our constitutional obligations and conducted trial to hear the evidence. no real debate. we were to hear the evidence from witnesses, council the whole process and the whole procedure established throughout the ages that we were to honor. then we raised her right hand to be sworn in to honor and will make that sworn in today to honor. as a united states senator. that's all gone now. maybe forever. i don't see a circumstance now and you heard the parliamentary inquiries asking if the president had ever been established for this or that. 100 years from now when somebody else has harry truman's death if i remember to carve my name in it, before i die, we'll have this desk. i don't know the background but

what they will know what happened today. they will know that the united states senate under chuck schumer who will go down as one of the worst u.s. senators in american history because of this. they'll know that we just blew off an important duty to conduct a trial. it wasn't you know an idea to deter a phrase my friend from louisiana it wasn't some gamer pro with the tweet. these were articles of impeachment voted on by the people's representatives in the house of representatives who walked over here and delivered it. and so chuck schumer and the democrats will have to own that. and to paraphrase something the senator from kentucky said just a few years ago, i think there are going to regret it and i think they will work read it sooner than they think. having said that what was this

trial supposed to be about? and the senator from utah mentioned when i was attorney general of missouri he brought the first lawsuit against the for their actions at the southern border. when they decided to undo remain in. we were successful for while but what came out of that was a lot of what you might have read in article i of the impeachment that was brought over. a lot of those were from, a lot of those arguments were from that case. and as an adjusting side note we had an injunction in place. the biden demonstration keeping this important protection in place and they ignored it. wewe had to go back and do the judge time and time again to get them to abide by the law. what we found out from this aof and secretary mallorca specifically is he himself is willing to subvert the law, to

believe that he is above the law. to commit a felony that this chamber now has said doesn't rise to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor, that sets a precedence forever. so the human toll of this lawlessness is the border that has been overseen by secretary meyer for us is devastating. thousands of people died every month from fentanyl abuse or overdose. we have a ticking timebomb in this country with a national security threat. we don't know who 2 million people are. 9 million people come here illegally. most of them have been told please show up for a court date in 2030. that's not going to happen.

but 2 million of them, we don't know who they are and we don't know who or where they are from and we don't know where they are at, we are seeing a record number of chinese nationals come across justin calla for new loan to people from all across the world. coming here because they know our borders wide open it's not by accident. and whatever the motivations are secretary mayorkas's memo and instruction to his employees to ignore the law the immigration law in this country the snapshot is if somebody comes here legally they are detained, they are deported and unless adjudication exists by adjudication process. nine out of 10 of those are bogus. it's been a lava lamp for a long

time among republican and democratic demonstrations no longer because secretary mayorkas decided to instruct employees to subvert that love but if you want to change it come here and if you want to change the shell to let me that's what we are supposed to do. that's the article i ranch. just like the article i branch here in the senate, supposed to hold people accountable. in high positions of government. it is our remedy and as the back-and-forth in the united states versus texas and missouri case from justice kavanagh to the solicitor general of united states that indicated what is the remedy here? and the department of justice lawyer said well they have the remedy of impeachment. but i guess we don't actually have that and more. and so i know in these 24-hour

news cycles tomorrow we will be on fisa national security stuff and it will be easy to think for many to wipe today away. but it won't go away. it's a on this institution. it diminishes this body. it is why eyes set up to object to a idea that somehow we are supposed to negotiate away our constitutional duty. that isn't up for grabs. that's our job. thank you senator schumer to give us a half-hour to talk about this, no thanks, not for me. would i do that on some of mamet? probably not. but when senator schumer wants to set our constitutional order on fire i will stand up and i

will object and i know many other people share that point of view. there is no structure to the arson you are committing. so i appreciate the angry or the back-and-forth where having because sadly this is all we are left with. so many powers of individual senators have been given away over the years. this institution is no longer the worlds world's greatest delivered a body. it's a kabuki theater. with fewer powers that individual senators have and fewer powers that we have been given by our founders as an institution. for what? for what? a couple of days, couple of news

cycles? congratulations. congratulations chuck schumer. you on that. and every single democrat that voted for it will too. the border crisis is not going away. it still exists and the senate lost an opportunity to give evidence to hold someone accountable today. thank you senator. in thank you, excellent remarks. there are some days the one wishes you could live over and this is a day that will live in infamy that the inner -- future generations generations will which had gone differently. i've friend and colleague the senator from wisconsin who has many titles. titles of distinction. he's the prince and the mabus of manufacturing the connoisseur of cheese. these also among other things someone who has identified himself as the chancellor of charts showing the profound

depth of our border security problems. he's been working on this ever since he came to be chairman of the homeland security committee back in 2016. he built these charts in a way and he's rebuilt and them catching fire. your mousy politicians all over the country at every level of government and i mean every level of government looking at his charts. let's hear from him now. >> i think my colleague from utah. i was not aware of all those titles and i will accept them. if we would have had a trial and this travesty we have and there has been great damage done to our constitution in this institution by her colleagues on the other side of the aisle because they didn't want the american people to see this. i've described this had we had a trial this would have been

bigger if you double dna evidence to prove the crime. there's no way you can look at the history of illegal entry into this country and not recognized what has happened under a by demonstration under secretary mallorca's. it's nothing less than an utter catastrophe. i 10 or 15 minutes on the floor yesterday going through the history the cause cause-and-effect of this chart that shows but what i want to point out today is what the democrats did not want us to reveal because what this chart shows us that this was purposeful. this was willful. president biden secretary mayorkas our democratic colleagues in congress and the senate, they want an open border.

they caused this crisis. this didn't just happen. this is a game plan. they implemented and abated and abetted all the damage come out the destruction all the crimes the result of this they have aided and abetted. this chart shows the lawlessness that started back in 2012 under the obama administration is a deferred action for childhood arrival. this took prosecutorial discretion which again and i'm not a lawyer or prosecutor but i believe that's applied on a case-by-case basis. president obama took discretion granted to 200 of thousands of people. that's what has sparked every surge of illegal immigration since that point in time. i used to have a chart that showed unaccompanied children

and prior to daca maybe there were two, three or 4000 unaccompanied children per year. in 2014, because of daca we encountered 69,000 unaccompanied children. 69,000 even back then president obama with his department if homeland security reviewed 220 illegal immigrants per day and declared it a humanitarian crisis. 2200 people a day and by the way i went to mcallen texas with colleagues during the surge in people were singing the praises of cbp of scurrying bureaucratic

rules and setting up a detention facility. to protect children. they used fences and again the democrats were saying their praises to cbp. a few years later when president trumpeted deal with the crisis sparked by the daca memorandum of the sudden democrats were saying their kids in cages. do you know this is a double standard? i won't go throughout the history but i will point out president trump because the reality of the situation was we were letting children and detaining them and you had the interpretation of said children accompanied by their parents couldn't be detained three people around the world notice that. they started coming and they started creating fake families. children being sold in

testifying before my committee children being sold for $81. to create a family. the little boy was abandoned in the field 100-degree temperatures. he had already been used. to create that family but the only people that got in just left him there and the only identification with the phone number written on the issue. president obama secretary mayorkas said they had to undo all of president trump's border laws because they said those were. there's nothing humane about the multibillion-dollar business model of the most people on the planet. the human human traffickers and the traffickers and drug traffickers. how many overdose deaths? because of his open border policy? there's nothing humane about

that. when president trump gave this speech to the sharp rise in the sharp fall. in may of 2019 almost 4800 people entered this country illegally. president trump did something about it. he used what the supreme court said in the 2018 decision our existing law that exceeded difference to the president so even though that precedent of the authority had weakened by the interpretation of that settlement even if weakened authority present took the by the horns and to the third world countries had to threaten the president of with the terrorists that he would cooperate but in 12 months present went from his peak to his -- a little more

than 500 people a day entered this country. that was in april of 2020 and why did the numbers go up? president to campaign in every democratic presidential candidate pledge that they would and deportations and give free health care. in the world took notice. people started coming in and president biden took office and went president biden took office the catastrophes began. and again and president biden claims he doesn't have the authority. he has all to the authority the president trump has. president biden secretary mallorca's use that exact same authority purposefully, willfully to open up the border. so president biden didn't need

more laws and secretary mayorkas didn't need more laws. they caused the problem. we would have been happy to strengthen the authority to overrule the interpretation. they were not asking for that. all the democrat colleagues wanted was -- and that's the truth. we went from humanitarian crisis under a bomb of form 2200 people a day in trump had it up to 4800 people a day but he fixed it. president biden his record was more than 10,000 people a day in december of last year. 10,000 people during his entire administration. these efforts 7800 people and country illegal because he is welcomed them. he has incentivized him. he wanted to open border. because the problem and their democratic colleagues would not

even listen to evidence. they would not let the house miniatures make their case of the lawlessness of the wilson is of the lying to congress. because they didn't want the american people to see this. i have shown this chart to secretary mayorkas and i will show it again to him tomorrow when it comes before our committee. the first time i showed him a couple of years ago he looked almost as but i asked secretary mayorkas don't don't you brick ignites this is a crisis? he said i wouldn't say it's a crisis and i said would you they submit the problem? no senator, to challenge. i would be that as a lie. i would have liked to have heard the evidence by the house miniatures of utterances were secretary mayorkas like to congress which again as i

thought was definitely pointed out that the senator from way vienna isn't that a felony? does impeachment only have to be a misdemeanor? again so there is so much wrong with what our democratic colleagues did today by summarily cavalierly dismissing these charges. we'll come back to haunt our country. my final point will be this disaster is not a chart come its numbers and colors. the real disasters with individuals who have lost their lives and have lost loved ones, the children who have been raped and caught in the crossfire the gang wars. that's the real challenge and that's the real catastrophe. that's the real problem. the democrats today swept it

under the rug. it's a travesty that shouldn't happen will continue to prosecute this case up until november. >> grateful for this insight we had from our friends in college and the distinguished senior senator from wisconsin but when the senior senator from alabama was one of the united states senate it was a pleasure to get to know him and it's been a pleasure to work with them ever since. i visited the southern border a few months after he arrived and i noticed a distinct concern not only for the welfare of the residents of the state of alabama and all other americans but a genuine concern for those who have been human traffic into our country by the drug cartel. the acquiescence of the kroner blessing of this administration but i for one of glad that senator tuberville was the head

coach when their football team played see why you in the late summer of 1990 and i'd love to get his thoughts on this matter. >> it was a pretty good game by the way. >> it was a very good game. thank you to my colleague from utah. i'm kind of amazed at what has happened today. it's been categorized several ways whether it's a kangaroo court or three-ring circus, don't know how you look at to be honest with you. it is amazing what will when we sat here and watched we all thought the last two weeks there was an impeachment trial by secretary mayorkas but it only lasted a few hours. a historic event in the eyes of every senator not just the republicans but also the democrats. one thing i want to say is has a

faithfully executed his duty of the united states constitution, one that we all put our hands on the and swore to do. but it was amazing to me how this all went down at the end of the day. they really wasn't secretary mayorkas', he wasn't the only one who would have gone on trial. it would have been every democrat. every democrat here in the senate and every democrat in the house and every democrat that has run and are expected to branch. there has not been one person that has said anything since i've been here 103.5 years off we need to do something at the border. not one. we have led than 10 million illegal aliens in the last three years. that data point alone secretary mayorkas intentionally, intentionally failed to secure

the border. i personally would ask him one day why he was not the least given a fair chance of closing the border. he said senator we need more money. well i looked it up in his budget is 20% more than what president trump secretary of homeland security had. 20%. so his job is homeland security. that's his entire job. i'm sure all the democrats can conduct this impeachment trial today in a would have never seen the light of day after the trial because we would not have had the votes on our side to impeach. secretary mayorkas. no one said the impeachment process was over. the media will stop covering in a few days and will go back to

the blue states so they can manage the search of illegal aliens going to blue cities all over the country. last week the department of homeland security awarded another $300 million to cities in support of illegal aliens. today the city of denver announced that they would ship $8 million from their law enforcement to take care of illegal aliens. it's clear that biden administration is more concerned with taking care of these illegals than they are about protecting the citizens. i will ask again and secretary mayorkas will fill his oath of duty before this body protecting the country against all threats foreign and domestic and to keep our borders secure. he has not and it is not. mayorkas has been derelict in his duties. derelict. confrontational in his duty to to all of us when he passed him personally what he is doing at the southern border.

in voted against his impeachment are democratic colleagues are risking the lives of americans. senator schumer and the democrats can't say that they want to fix the border while trying to save his job but americans are dying every day from what's going on from our southern border. every state is a border state now. not just texas in arizona california come every state my state of alabama is being overrun with illegal aliens. the number of people crossing the border who are not on a terrorist watch who are on the terrorist watch list is unprecedented and that's what scares me. if you ask her fbi director he says we have a major threat to our country and he said it is coming but it doesn't seem like anybody is listening. nobody is listening that is in charge. this last week he was supported and afghan on the fbi terror

watch list has been in the u.s. from lost a year. he's a member of the u.s. terrorist group responsible for the deaths of the least nine american soldiers and civilians in afghanistan. unfortunately this known terrorist has been released on bond and is now roaming the neighborhood's in the united states of america. we have had 100,000 people a year die in the last three years the last time i looked to that's 300,000 people. it's a crime what's going on. law enforcement officers now tell me that they have never heard the word fentanyl until a few years ago, not heard the word. it was heroin and it was cocaine and meth and now it's almost 100% fentanyl just in the last

three years. that's a pretty good coincidence. in february this past year secretary mayorkas travel to speak with chinese officials about countering narcotics efforts. he discussed within the flood of chinese -- did he discussed the chinese flood of people coming to our country, 22,000 chinese illegals that come into our country just the last five months. most of these individuals are adults males and i wonder where we get the idea that there might be a big problem coming to america soon. get the media try to act like all the people that are coming here from china and all these other countries are great people. some of them probably are and most probably are not. they are coming here for different reasons. this is not a border crisis, it has turned into a huge invasion. it's a national security problem

and we are having it more and more each day. i just want to say this. we have not done our duty here today. we have failed the american people. my phone rings constantly about protecting the sanctity of not just alabama but everybody in this country. from what's happening at the southern border. nothing good is happening and what's happened from secretary mayorkas to the people that have opened these borders and again not just the southern but also the northern border. so we have failed the american people today. that's why i don't know that we don't do our job we had a republican majority when i first got here three years ago. we brought the president of united states to an impeachment trial and he was a republican. we put him on trial in this very

room. this is all politics. they broke something today that has never been done in the history of this school, excuse me i'm used to getting on people when their phone is ringing the classroom when i was a coach. it is never happened before and now we have set a precedent and unfortunately it will be a precedent probably that will be broken many times you is this body ever going to bail the hold anybody accountable for anything they have done wrong here the federal government? >> thank you, coach. one of our colleagues has been a long time advocate for secure borders. she's tireless in their efficacy. the senior senator from the state of tennessee, but to get her thoughts on what happened today. >> thank you so much to the senator from utah for organizing this. you know madam president i think

it's so important for the american people to really understand what has happened here today and what we saw happen here today is a violation of our oath, the oath that we take that we are going to abide by the constitution. now, some who were watching us and i would encourage all of my colleagues to watch as to pull out that constitution and read article i, section 2, which lays out the process of impeachment for the house of representatives. and then section 3 of that constitution lays out the duty of the senate in that constitution. now i have a poster appear from 2019. it is chuck schumer.

this was during the cross impeachment in 2019. now chuck schumer who is currently the majority leader basically made it a full-time job of talking about how the senate had to do their constitutional duty to hold a trial. that's all he talks about for days. the clips are all over the internet. one thing he repeatedly said, we have a responsibility to let the facts come out. a responsibility. now we have to say what we have to say what has changed between 2019, 2020 and today. we know what changed his

desperate hold onto the majority he did not want some of the senators who are highly races to haveheir to take a vote on the mayorkas impeachment. why is that madam crest president the number one issue with the american people is open southern border. and who is it that has regularly lied to this chamber, to the house, into the american people about what is going on at the southern border? it is secretary alejandro mayorkas. stood before the american t people. stood before hearings and committees and said the border

is secure. anyone who is watching, anyone who has ever been to that border, knows the border is not secure. they know that on the mexico side of that border it is being run by the cartel. we could spend an hour with the border patrol and you'll find out. last year their people from 170 different countries that came to the southern border seeking entry. not when it got here on theirer own. they paid the cartel and the cartels bring them over. the cartels are making a fortune. we are paying the price. we are paying this price the dereliction of duty carried out by secretary mayorkas. the waste not standing up for

the border control the way stop standing up for the american people. that is an issue. and a responsibility, did we had that responsibility? you bet we do. and that is why we are here on this floor to talk about this. because our border, when you look at the drugs, the fentanyl that are coming across that border. moving into communities across the state, across this country. every state a border state. every town a border town. every single family affected are worried aboutse the consequences of the border. thousands of americans dead from fentanyl poisoning. other americans have become angel parents because they are

children, their spouses have been killed in auto accidents criminal illegalal aliens. you know the sad thing about this? it is very intentional. this is their border policy. they intend to do this. so, looking up the drugs, looking at the crime and then looking at the human trafficking. on mayorkas watch and madam president this is something that is so important for the american people to know, intend the seat we have several groups that work on human trafficking. and seek to rescue women and girls and children being trafficked, sexually trafficked. the exploitation of these

children. we know that is driven by the cartels. the cartels have turned human trafficking in this country from a $500 million a year industry over the last three and half years it has become 13 billion with a a b. there trafficking children are being used for these traffickers. they are being recycled. these precious children have their name. there contact me in indelible ink written on their backs. written on their arms because the cartel uses these children to get cartel members across the border posing as families.

once at cartel member is in the u.s., they turn that child loose in the child gets sent back. that is disgusting. but, in the open mourner, that is what is happening. as the loss of 85000 migrant children. we've got 400,000 migrant children that have been turned federal government under secretary mayorkas. out of this, 85000 of those children cannot be accounted for. we have asked secretary mayorkas. where are these children. they do not know.

they do not know 85000 children are dead or alive. don't know if they been attached or if they've been put into gangs, labor crews. what we did find out from some reporters madam secretary is this, we found out some of these children were working in slaughterhouses in the night. that is what we found out. and by the way that was from a "new york times" reporter. this situation is a humanitarian crisis. the trafficking of human beings putting people into indentured servitude and slavery to the

house to the senate and secretary alejandro mayorkas. and who voted for it? every democrat on that side of the aisle that refused to let this trial come forward, each and every one, you are responsible for this not coming to light. it is a dereliction of your constitutional duty and a responsibility. yes, it is a responsibility that we as members have two make certain the american people know what happened today. >> think it senator blackburn. another great mind benefited in the senate our friend and

colleague the junior senator from florida. before he became the senator from florida previously governor scott the most heavily populated states in america. prior to that is famous in the business world. personally employing hundreds of thousands of people to the department of homeland security is an enormous organization. how best to run an enormous organization to do so with exceptional skill better than senator scott and no one understands better than him how the buck stops with the person running that organization. we would love to hear from himim now progressing to thank my colleague from utah for his

commitment to the rule of law and his commitment to the constitution. all of these efforts today in everyday he has been up here to make sure the senate follows the constitution. does not set precedents that don't make sense and today is a horrible day. i want to thank my colleagues from wisconsin for being such a voice on making sure the public knows was going on here. the information he puts out, the charts he uses, the information he has gives everybody an idea of what's actually going on. but important today democrats had a banner day. democrats in the senate said impeachment by the nsa's house of representatives don't matter anymore. they don't matter. according to what democrats did today we do not need to hold impeachment trials here in the

senate, ever. that is a horrible precedents out the constitution issues. and does not matter for example your cabinet secretary even in structured your agency to ignore the law and not execute the laws of the nine states. it does not matter if i order an agency to ignore the i laws in nine states americans are murdered. they are, they have been. it does not matter by ordering an agency ignore the law in the united states and deadly fentanyl poisoning to our communities and poisons our children and our grandchildren does not matter it or ignores the law the nine states on the terrorist watch list and migrants with known gang affiliation string stream into our country to an extent fbi director testified sitting right next to him most dangerous time in america since 911. stop and think about what you

found per secondhi period your brother or sister a child or grandchild, niece or nephew, think of one of them. just pick one of them. you cherish, you love them, you think of wonderful things about them. now that thousands of american families that personha you are thinking about today is dead. let me say that again. thousands of american families the person you are thinking about today is dead. taking too soon by the deadly fentanyl crisis the white open southern border. every one of us knows some film of the spent ripped apart by the deadly fentanyl crisis. everybody does.

if tort open southern border. it happens because of leading lg our border patrol do their job and stop these deadly drugs, secretary mayorkas intentionally is usingas them to illegally crs the border and come to our country with all sorts of services. they get phones, they get lawyers, they get hotel rooms all paid for by the u.s. taxpayer. every victim for his agency has a name. just think about that family member. the lawless border crisis every single day deadly fentanyl, criminals, terrorists, human traffickers, they pour across

biden's open border. this is all intentional. there are 1145 children between 14 and 18 years old who died from fentanyl in 2021. that's like having a classroom of kids die every week. every week. in 2022 just outside of orlando her son who was in the air force he had a bright future in the air force. he came home to surprise her on mother's dayhe weekend. unfortunately visited an old friend he did not know have been doing drugs. the friend convinced the young man to take a xanax which was unknowingly laced with fentanyl. the mom found him dead. came home to surprise her for her birthday and he is dead. put yourself in the position of that mom. what is she thinking about today? what is she thinking about she watches the senate floor every

democrat says the guy who made thend decision to open the southern border will not be held accountable. twenty-six ~ ashley dunn is americanan lost. ashley's mother josephine said her daughter did not overdose, but was poisoned by one half of one percocet tablet that was counterfeit according her daughter was murdered by products made in mexico. they were welcomed into this country beit mayorkas and his administration. to date senate democrats made sure secretary mayorkas will never have to answer priest ever going to answer for ashley's death. he said were going to have to answer for any of the other deaths. but you know what? he will know what he did.

people know too much of what he did. they will never ever get away with this. america is a more dangerous place because mayorkas invite have criminals, drugs, terrorists and other dangerous people in charge. all over the country. while americans with families are being killed. america has been torn apart by vicious crimes and deadly drugs because we have a wide open southern border. you go to the southern border on the other side you have ids everywhere. they do not want the people at the border patrol that meets on our side to know who they are. why would you do that? secretary mayorkas is the first and only sitting cabinet secretary to be impeached. he will always be known as the first sitting cabinet secretary to bet impeached. and now he is forever going to be blocked from me acquitted of that charge. i wonder how that makes them feel.

he will never get the chance to be acquitted because of what the senate democrats did today. i still have a question for my senate colleagues. did you silence mayorkas because democrats are terrified of hisce record and unable to defend him? or just because you don't trust auhim? whatever the answer is the thint that every reported here and every american needs to understand is this, democrats put politics of the safety of american families. and the security of our great nation today. if you are the consequences of that unprecedented failure will be devastating beyond our worst fears. i think itl is going to take decades to read the criminals from this country. and in the meantime, how many people like ashley are going to lose their life? how many people are going to be raped? how many will be put into slavery? i hope to god it does not happen

to your family. thank you. >> comments have been made by so many colleagues today and this colloquy and for the insights they have shared. each comes from a different state bringing a different set of perspectives to the table. a different set of political and professional perspectives that help them shed light on this important issue. provide insights and warnings about the rather grave implications we so cavalierly overlooked today. we, meaning the senate as a whole with 49 of us standing in

the way raise a word of warning about what we are doing and what implications that might have for thes future. that warning signs arear everywhere. and tragically we have seen just in the last few days with news breaking in recent hours that the consequences of our open borders policy can touch all of us one of her dear respected colleagues having looked lost a beloved staff member within the last few days. lost that staff member as a consequence of the actions taken by an immigrant in this country who is here unlawfully who should not have been here. that is a troubling thing at a human level there are so many

ramifications for their so many thousands of families hundreds of thousands in fact so many millions and impacts it depends how you solicit hundreds of millions of americans have been impacted and or real meaningful ways by the open borders policy that has been so prominently featured by these articles of impeachment. over three decades ago i spent two years along the u.s./mexico border dan in mcallen, texas region. served as a missionary. and as a missionary one lives and works among people of all backgrounds. spent a lot of time with people of modest means. in my case i spent most of my

time with people of such humble means that it never quite witnessed in the united states. conditions i did not know existed on any widespread basis in the united states. including some people with dirt floors and no indoor plumbing. but, in countless cases those were little more rare but they exist. are they existed in the early 1990s. even though those were more rare, those extreme cases alms all the people interacted with on a day-to-day basis of the pee of very humble means. they were living paycheck to paycheck just trying to get by. many of them selves were recent immigrants. some might suspect were here legally others i suspect were

illegally. it was not standard practice at the time for missionaries talking to people to find out their immigration status. we were there for different reasons. but you get to know people you get to know their backgrounds. you get to know their concerns. one of the things that stands out for my memories of those two years that i interacted with people learn their customs and their language. most of them did not speak english. some of them did notdn speak english had lived in the nightside's most or all their lives for their some in the older generations whose families had been in texas for a very long time for it for generations and some of the older generations of people race speaking largely if not exclusively spanish. regardless of the immigration background or whether their family had been in texas for

generations or for only days or weeks. whether they came legally or illegally, something i learned about them no one was fierce uncontrolled ways of immigration quite the same degree as recent immigrants. especially recent immigrants of humble means living on or near the us-mexico border. it is their schools, it is their jobs, their neighborhoods, their homes, their children, their families who are most directly affected by the uncontrolled waves of illegal immigration. it's of those things, mr. president that are at their doorstep. they note every one of thosef things are placed grave jeopardy every time the floodgates open and people poor across our border into the united states

without legal authority to beng here. every single time that happens that is adverse consequences. we talked a lot about the more obvious the more newsworthy, more news covered implications of open borders. situations like lake and riley. but we do not always talk about how it affects otherfe people ad more mundane, more pedestrian ways. i think we have to be mindful and really watch out for the hotendency of those who are privileged enough to serve in this body. she other immigrants those with the hispanic surname. anyone, by among other things

assuming those groups speak monolithically or we speak for them in so far as we are seen as advocatingat. advocating a position that's tolerant ofr or eager to embrae open borders. it is not the full picture. as one of the more blatantly awful to bring about in our society. they are hispanic surname. dold not do so it went open borders but simply not true. it's peaks of profound ignorance to the plight of these individuals. when we claimed they speak monolithically evenn indirectly. they were for open borders just because their last name was their first language.

or how recently they arrived in the united states or where they were theylive relative to the b. getting back to the bigger picture here and what specifically happened today, when i think about going on 13 and half years i've spent in the united states senate i don't think of i don't think i remember another day of such profoundly disastrous consequences were done in this body to shatter norms, rules, precedents, legal traditions at in this case constitutional principles. quite like this decision here today did.

remember, just before thanksgiving in 2013 up in the senate not yet three years. it's just days before thanksgiving, just before we broke for the thanksgiving recess. a group of my colleagues lungs one particular party decided to nuke the executive filibuster. decided to break the rules of the senate in order to change the rules of the senate. not by changing the rules themselves, if it changing the changing therules themselves ta, but instead by simple majorityim vote that created new precedent to undercut and flip the meaning

of one of the senate rules. getting rid of the cloture rule when it comes executive calendar. spoke to a lot of people after that happened.pl people of the political parties. including some of both political parties even within this body who serve in this body, who express regret over that day. particularly i heard from people not serving in this body. people of all walks of life including people of all political persuasions that acknowledge the profound consequences that could happen would eventually have of the united states senate. because again it involves a rather shameless cynical maneuver.

whereby the senate broke the rules of the senate in order to change the rules of the senate without actually changing the rules. pretending the rules said a not beat when in fact they said be not a. who will hoodwink it might've once said he asked rhetorically if you count a dog tail as a leg, how many legs does the dog have? whenever he asked this to an individual they tend to say understandably, excepting the framework of his hypothetical that would be five legs. he would respond by saying no there's not five legs even if you call the tail of the dog a leg it's still not a leg. that is what we did roaming and nuked the executive filibuster on that fateful day in

november 2013. in countless ways what happened today was far worse than that. because what was at stake today was not just rules, tradition, precedents and norms of this body. rules, precedents, traditions and norms that i would adhere have at no moment it nearly two and a half century existence, and countenance results of like what we achieve today. that is to say we have never had something like this. articles of impeachment passed by the house of representatives transmitted to the united states senate at a moment when the person impeached was either dead nor a person who had left the

office senate can be expelled by the respective body by two thirds supermajority vote. they are not subject to impeachment pere se. carve out that narrow rare the e exceptions articles of impeachment have been cast in a way that are patently wrong where subject matter jurisdiction in this body was lacking at the time the articles were passed or between the time they were passing the time they arrived in the senate. we have can be fairly characterized as essentially a perfect record or a consistent record if we held a trial we held a bare-bones of a trial in

which we had arguments presented by lawyers at a minimum by lawyers representing the house of representatives there are impeachment managers. sometimes described colloquially as houseui prosecutors to that least heard arguments by them. normally that involves a presentation of evidence by them. by the house impeachment managers. normally it involves both sides having lawyers not just the house impeachment managers but also defense counsel representing the impeached individual. and normally there's been evidence presented in arguments made about why the articles of impeachment either were or were not meritorious. and in every one of those circumstances what the narrow exceptions that i have described

as the sole exceptions there has been at least some finding on some of those articles in every single case culminating in a verdict. a verdict of guilty or not guilty. that is, by itself is a precedent and a norm and a custom and a set of rules we have overlooked today we have run roughshod right over. there is something much more at stake. much more concerning about this. i find so troubling. under article one section iii clause six, the senates given the sole power and with at this sacred responsibility and duty to try all impeachments.

now, as i have just described in every circumstance where there is not some jurisdictional defect and by that i mean bona fide subject matter jurisdictional defect such that we lack jurisdiction to move forward. we have proceeded and reach some kind of a verdict in every one of those cases. but not today. you know, mr. president i have been concerned for weeks and i had heard rumors for weeks that what was going to happen today is the majority leader was going to approach these articles with a certain degree of indifference and offer up a motion to table. i immediately became convinced after looking at the rules and studying the precedent on this that a motion to table would be inappropriate here. it would be inappropriate for

the same reasons i have just explained we've never done that, never done anything close to that. who's closest precedent for something like that was so far off course it could not even be relied on. i recall the only pressure that even sound likee the same thing was very different from that. during the trial over the impeachment of andrew johnson one senator had made a particular motion to do a particular thing during that trial another senator later moved to table that motion. there is no motion to table the articles of impeachment. in any event i became convinced after studying this a motion to table would beat without precedent and contrary to

everything i thought i knew about art rule constitutionally and otherwise. to conduct impeachment trials. i wouldth be convinced this was bad precedent it would set a certain precedent suggesting it is okay if the party occupying the majority position did not want to conduct a trial it would not have too. he could sweep them aside. as i say channeling the immortal words of russia and the song free will if you choose not to decide you've still made a choice. you have made a bad one if you choose to set aside the impeachment articles without rendering aho verdict of guiltyr not guilty. whether pursuant to a motion to table or otherwise and motion to table would be an especially bad basis and especially bad

strategy and bad mode for disposing of an otherwise and oe addressing articles of impeachment. important in this context to remember the united states senate has exactly three states of being. we exist at any given moment either in our capacity as a legislators and legislative session in executive session where we consider presidential nominations and also on occasion treaties for ratification. both executive functions carried out under our executive calendar. our third state of being exists in this context we are to operate as a court of impeachment.

it is solely in our capacity as senators and sitting in a court of impeachment we are administered as second separate oath different from the oath we all take each time we are elected or reelected to the senates. a different capacity. it is a capacity that requires us to decide the case and to do so on the merits of the case. it is also unique in that it is the only mode in which there is a solid expectation on blemished until today if we do in fact have articles of impeachment over which we have subject matter jurisdiction the case is not been rendered moot.

there's an expectation backed up by history and tradition, that we will do the job. that in fact according to these precedent up until today we will reach a verdict of guilty or not guilty by the time that we are done. those things do not exist in the other two states of being. in our legislative calendar there is no expectation or tradition or implication from the constitution we will affirmatively act upon and ultimately dispose of every piece of legislation presented to the united states senate. we do not do that. we have never taken that approach but if we did it would grind the place to a halt i do

not think you would physically be possible. nor has it ever beenen the expectation on the executive calendar. sure we tend to get to most of them. but there is an understanding that unless or until such time as we confirm a particular nominee, that not many is not confirm such that we get to the end of the rotor the end of congress or even have a session if that person is to be confirmed that person is to beat renominate person considered by the senate butut even then there is no guarantee as to any final vote disposing of that nomination. it's different in the context of an impeachment where we sit as a court of impeachment was sit as a court of impeachment and in so doing we become two things.

in any trial in an ordinary court there are two functions that a trial involves. you have got to have finders of fact that's a role played by a jury in our system. both in civil courts, civil cases and criminal cases. you have got to have judges of legal issue. typically those are performed by a judge. and in some cases most commonly if the party agreed to have the issues of fact decided by a judge rather than a jury if it issues a fact in the issues of law decided by a judge. we serve both functions were finders of fact and judges of the law relevant to the impeachment case before us. mr. president that is the whole reason were given a separate oath forve that.

we don't take a separate post every time i bring up a bill or get it's a presidential nomination or consider ratification. we do take a separate oath every time we received article of impeachment it's not just because these things are more rare then it bills as they are introduced, or nominations as they are received or treaties presented to us for potential ratification. it is because it is a sacred responsibility and which there is an expectation backed up by centuries of tradition custom precedent and understanding of a constitutional text. that will dispose of the case. a finding of guilty or not guilty accepting these rare instances which is not in this

instance. the particular way was crazy and impossible to defend. absolutely impossible to defend on its merits. remember there were two articles in these impeachment charges. article one alleged that an eight or nine different instances in which a secretary mayorkas had an affirmative legal duty to detain illegal immigrants pending adjudication either of their asylumm claims r of their argument they might be entitled to some of the form of relief including immigration parole.

secretary of homeland security had affirmative duty to detain them while those decisions were pending. eight or nine different statutes require that. eight or nine different statutes he deliberately violated. he did theed opposite of what te statute required. and that by doing that he invited and facilitated innovation of the southern border that is unprecedented in american history. it's a dangerous it has resulted in heinous crimes being committed. loss of life, loss of innocence, loss of property, many, many harms occurring as a result of othis. occurring as a result of these deliberate decisions not only not to do the job he was hired to do it he swore an oath to

perform well but to do the exact opposite of what the law required. you mentioned a little while ago the writings of justice joseph story. one of our early supreme court justices a couple centuries ago familiar with the constitution at a time closer to the founding. and also very familiar with it english legal antecedents on which the constitution was predicated with the legal terminology inc. from english law into the american constitutional system. it is great's on the on the conn in section 798 he explained a

few things about impeachable offenses. and he said in section 798 quote exhibited the parliamentary history of impeachment so we found many fences not easily definable by law and many of a purely political character have been deemed high crimes and misdemeanors worthy of this." this extraordinary of impeachment. the litany of things that qualified for this they are of a political nature. and worthy of impeachment

attempts to fundamental law the fundamental laws is good have broad application more fundamental to our republic. our federal legal system. in our fundamental laws governing who may enter this country and under what circumstances. he went on to identify a number of other things that fit this definition. adding to it among other things one thing in particular it would meet the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors and thus be impeachable would be an instance in which a lord admiral

may have neglected the safeguard of the sea. some on the other side of the aisle have argued really what secretary mayorkas did was just not do as good of a job as he showed of and could have in enforcing the law and that cannot be a basis for impeachment they argue. some will invoke a line of reasoning maladministration i am not at all sure that argument even stated in the abstract is accurate. in fact iis tend to think it is not because the constitution itself assigned that job to this

branch of government. to the house as it assesses whether to charge c something as impeachable and to the senate as it assesses whether an impeachment presented by the house warrants conviction. removal. from office. that really is our job and it ia political character regardless of whether they would amount to independently prosecutable criminal offenses in a criminal court of law sense of that word. but, in any event if you buy into that reason there are those scholars who believe that. i seem to recall professor alan dershowitz a respected harvard law professor from whom we have

heard in past impeachment proceedings. he believes in this approach. even under professor dershowitz approach he is someone for whom i i have great respect even whee i disagree with him. even if you are to accept that premise this is not just that this is far beyond maladministration. not justd secretary mayorkas did not do as good of a job as he initiative and code of them we wish she would've it is that he will fully subverted with the bar required and did the exact opposite of what the law required. that is impeachable. it has got to be impeachable. and yet the majority leader stood up and set a raise a point of order impeachment o article e

is the part that deals with secretary mayorkas decision to do the exact opposite of what the law requires. the majority leader continued impeachment article one does not allege conduct that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor o as required under article two section for the niceties constitution is therefore unconstitutional. i don't know how he gets there. they can't get there except for bright sure force the way you do something by sheer force here is you produce a simple majority of votes from senators declaring the impeachment equivalent of fdefining the tale of a dog to e a leg.

what i found even more stunning as stunning as the first move was and is disappointing of it was a simple majority of united states senator often the same political party i would add, not mymy own somehow i managed to outdo that one fight later making the same point of order with respect to article two. arguing i raise a point of order impeachment article two does not allege conduct that arises to the level of high crime or misdemeanor as required under article two section four of the niceties constitution and therefore unconstitutional. let's remember what article two was about. article two charge secretary

mayorkas with knowingly making false statements to congress. as congress was carrying out its oversight responsibilities testified often under oath to congress. now, unfortunately we never got to hear any evidence on this. therefore we were not presented with the opportunity to make a final determination on this. but, we instead have the majority simply roll right over all of this by just declaring it is because it is. it is because we say it is. it is not an impeachable offense even if has been alleged and the house impeachment manager of the

house prosecutors is what we sometimes callse them were denid the opportunity to try to prove that he knowingly made false statements to congress. to say that is not impeachable is breathtakingly frightening. we have nowwe established a precedent in the united states senate if you occupy a high position of trust within the united states government, a cabinet member in this instance and you knowingly, willfully make false statements to congress when congress is trying to get the truth about what you're doing in your job and whether or not you are faithfully executing, implementing and enforcing the law but lying to congress in

that sense even under i oath is not an impeachable offense. that precedent could suggest we immunize from impeachment. how are we to conduct adequate oversight if even theoretical threat the theoretical, hypothetical potential threat of impeachment is not on the table? it severely weakens the fabric of our republic. certainly weakens the ability of the united states senate. to push back on abuses by and

within a coordinate branch of government. government. when james madison expressed in the federalist papers among other places government was sort of an experiment, and exhibit a display of human nature therein and other federalist papers he explains things like the fact that if we were angels we wouldn't need to government and we wouldn't g need all these rus to govern those responsible for government but alas we are not angels and don't have access so we need rules. madison was also a big believer

in the fact that because we are not angels we don't have access but we do need these rules you've got to set up a system in which power can be made to check power and use it each branch with incentives to guard against abuses of power. i've wondered over time as i've seen the united states senate gradually but steadily ove many decades voluntarily relinquish its power much of it started with our work on the legislative calendar starting in earnest in the 1930s gradually and steadily outsourcing power to

unaccountable bureaucrats pass all sorts of laws saying we shall include of the law with respect to issue x and delegate the department or commission or agency the power to promulgate rules. little by little the american people lose control and little by little, you start to see this diminishes the overall accountability of the united states government and when agency or the departmentar promulgates, people understandablyeo predictably and very consistently come to us to

complain this is killing us, this rule made by unaccountable bureaucrats is now going to shut down my business. i'm going to be deprived of life, liberty and property or a combination of the three with her i choose to comply or not, it's going to harm me and article one, section one says all legislative powers shall invest in the congress that shall consist of article one section seven makes it clear which article one sets up which is to say you cannot make a federal law without the assent of both the house of representatives and the senate on the same bill that passed the same and then present it to the chief executive for signature or veto or acquiescence once you follow the formula you're not

supposed to be able to make the federal law. one of the more influential political philosophers observed that the lawmaking power is itself non-delicate bull, the task of lawmaking as we see when people come back to complain to us that the administrative regulation when it causes problems, people come and complain to us and then members of congress beat their chest and say those barbarians over at

agency commission department why we didn't mean to authorize this we just said make good law. we didn't say to make bad and then predictably, senators, representatives say something like the following. you know what i'm going to do for you i'm going to write to them a worded letter as if that were our job we were sworn in to do is to write harshly worded letters. it's not that of course. it's to make laws. i keep these two stacks of documents behindhe my desk. one is small usually a few inches, no more than a foot or so, consists of the laws passed by congress. the other stack is 13 feet tall,

about 100,000 pages stacked up on very thin paper, double-sided small print, consists of last year's federal register, the annual cumulative index of the federal regulations as they are released comment in letters they are finalized. those rules carry the force of the applicable law failure to apply andd shutdown your busines and result in enormous fines and many cases in your imprisonment if you don't follow them and yet they are not enacted themselves through the formula prescribed by article one,y section seven because in that instance we've authorized the making of other

lawmakers, not ourselves and to whom we have given this assignment perhaps well educated and well intentioned, wise, specialized, well-trained asiz they might be they don't stand accountable to they american people. there never name would never appear on the ballot and stand essentially to every american including those who will stand accountable to those laws who may lose life, liberty and property as a result of those things. it's not right we all know deep down. we know every time we are presented with one of these

complaints by ourts constituent, and we all have them. my office is in nearly constant refrain yet they often precipitate the predictable harshly worded letter. in other instances, they might culminate in the filing of a resolution under the congressional review act. as fun as those can be as they give an opportunity to debate you follow the rules of the congressional review act you can pretty much always get one of those voted on and at least have an opportunity to present those here in the united states senate and voted up or down as to whether or not you want to disapprove of the regulation in question.

ultimately however those proved dissatisfying from a constitutionalin standpoint in e sense that with very narrow exception they don't really do any good because nearly any administration whose bureaucratic structures will promulgate the administrative rulere in question will like for policy reasons and political reasons the policy choice embodied in those regulations andan consequentially, the president's administration promulgated that regulation being challenged under the resolution of disapproval will almost always veto any resolution of disapproval past by the houses p of congress.

it's very rare that that doesn't happen. only one exceptionon i can think of from a few decades ago the only time that works other than the one exception that i'm thinking of occurs when you've got a new administration and regulations that have been promulgated towards the t tail d of the previous administration. we had a number of those when president trump took office following president obama's time in office where regulations from the obama era were becoming ripe for the resolutions and we were able to get them passed by both houses of congress and then signed by president trump. those circumstances are rare and

the voters of the country subject to these administrative regulations that are in fact laws, those things go without redress. it's one of the reasons i've long advocated for us to pass a measure called the rains act if the genie came to me and said you can pass any bill pending in front of the united states congress it would be the reins act that would require us to do what i believe the constitution already requires which is fine for the administration to be proposed but unless or until they are enacted into law by both houses of congress and then signed into law or acquiesced by the sitting president or in the

event of a veto that a veto is overwritten and can take effect but short of that, you don't get the law. these two have far-reachingar effects including the member of the judiciary committee i and a few of my colleagues tried to figure out a few years ago how many criminal offenses are on theow books, how many different provisions in federal law describe criminal penalties and can result in a criminal conviction. we ask the question of the congressional research service, the entity to which we turn in order to get answers to questionsqu like this. of thee answer came back to us n a way that i found absolutely

stunning. the answer that came back to us from the congressional research service they did a good job doing it and convinced they gave us the answer, it is unknown and unknowable but we know that it stands at least 300,000 separately defined criminal offenses on the books. 300,000 plus occasions both houses of congress passed into law a separate statute defining a criminal offense with criminal penalties. in many of these instances one of the reasons the number is so difficult is because a lot of these are defined administratively so that's one area in which the united states senate has been deliberately shirking its responsibility and

handing them off to a somebody else refusing to do the job that we have been given to do. so we've done that time and time again and also on the executive calendar where we've changed the law where in some cases adopt standing orders that have been and braced in subsequent iterations of the senate limiting the number of presidential n nominees requirig confirmation, so we've narrowed the playing field shirking the responsibility even if the size of the government has increased and now we've seen it done again today in our third state of being in our category where we operate as a court of impeachment where even here we have one job in this area to

conduct impeachment trials and there's a thousand ways you can conduct with the whole senate, you can specialize so that it's heard in the first instance by a select committee with members of both political parties who here the evidence and then after doing that submit the whole matter for a final vote to the whole senate, you can hear evidence through individual witnesses and receive evidence innc documentary form. if there are a thousand different ways to conduct a trial some of which allow it to be conducted pretty quickly and others might take more time, but there is a thousand ways we could do it and here as with the other two states first on the

legislative calendar and then executive now as we sit at the court of impeachment, we've narrowed our work again shirking kiour responsibilities again, declining to perform our constitutional duties. this i is shameful. i'mt embarrassed that as a senae weee seem so enamored with the idea we can't do the things given to us. what isll especially troubling about this that we are in fact a government of limited enumerated powers, our job is not as some people put it to run the country. our job is not to make law on any matter that we think

appropriate or significant. our job is not just to enact legislation in any area we think ayit might go down to the beneft of the american people. we are supposed to be a government of limited powers charged with a few basic things. we are in charge with the uniform system of weights and measures, the nationality laws, regulating trade or commerce between the states. we are in charge of declaring war, establishing and regulating an army navy coming up with rules governing state militias which we now describe and referred to as national guard. regulating the value thereof and coming up with bankruptcy laws

regulating in some instances federal land. we haven't done one of those in over a century.

those acting pursuant with acts of piracy with impunity offered by the united states if they are able to make it back and then share with the united states government. other powers of congress and the lion's share of what the federal government. s we occupy the most significant, prominent, dominant power within that and enforcing the policies that we enact. the judicial branch headed by the supreme court interprets them not just in the abstract, but in a way to be able to resolve disputes properly brought before the jurisdiction of the courts disputes over the

meaning of federal law. we've got the most dangerous, prominent positions. it makes since the founding fathers interested that rule to us because we happen to be the branches of government most accountable with regular intervals. you can fire one thirdat of the body that the members of this body every two years and it's one of the reasons you know the founding fathers considered of the power that we wheeled, the most dangerous because it made us subject to the most frequent and regular and direct kinds of guarantees of accountability. that is true elections. now we've got to somebody that's impeached and he was charged with enforcing and administrating, administering and implementing and didn't do

his job. though it falls on us to design designed that to get married instances in which the violation of the law can't be and adjudicated in court such as this case we referred to earlier united states versus texas where a majority of the supreme court of the united states against by the way a brilliant dissent of thestate of texas didn't have standing to address violations of law and deviations from law of secretary mayorkas and the biden administration. >> so if not us, who? in countless instances, the court can do it, the executive

branch isn't going to check the executive branch. the buck stops with us. it's our job to do this and today we failed. we didn't just failed, we tried and the majority of us tried not to, went out ofhi our way to define the law saying something other than what it says so we can share our responsibility. again, shame on us and those members of the body who voted to do that today. i wonder what future generations will say about this. i wonder how many ways in which future generations will suffer from what we did today. i hope they take this as a lesson of what not to do and soon departed from this awful president otherwise this will lead to the shedding of tears

and worse. we are told that they are just too busy to conduct an impeachment trial and we are about to be told of the senate ris just too busy to require tm to get a warrant before searching the private communications of the american people incidentally collected and stored in the biden 702 databases. too busy to do those things but i think we are about to be told it's not too busy to send even more money to ukraine where we've already spent $115 million. not too busy to do that, not too busy to expand fisa without adding a requirement but way too busy apparently to do with the senate and only the senate can

do and what in the constitution, we must do. madam president, like the ghost of christmas future in charles dickens a christmas story, i hope that as we examine our future and what today's action pretends about the future of the united states and of the united states senate i hope we can choose to depart from this course. while i fear our past will prove to be our prologue, i sure hope we will solidify and more deeply

entrenched this unwise indefensible move that we took today. but i'm gladod we had the chance today to set the record straight, to make an adequate record of what really happened and that while a majority, a slim majority chose to excuse the inexcusable today. some of us tried to stand in front of that trainman to try to stop it. i hope that this will prove to be an