[background sounds] [background sounds]

>> we take you live now to the u.s. capitol where the senate is about to gavel in. at one p.m. eastern lawmakers will be sworn in as jurors for the impeachment trial of homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas. also on the agenda today in the senate legislation to reauthorize section 702 of the fourth intelligence surveillance foreign intelligence surveillance act until 2026 this warrantless surveillance authority set to expire this coming friday.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, giver of every good and perfect gift, use our lawmakers today to cause justice to roll down like waters and righteousness and righteousness to do what is right, love mercy, and live humbly for your glory. for your glory. guide them to turn their ears to your wisdom. as you illuminate their hearts with your truth.

may they call on you for direction, depending on your prevailing providence, and defend the truth regardless of thef consequences. grant that their faithfulness to you will beai like the light of morning at sunrise like a morning without clouds and like the sun gleaming on new grass after rain. we pray in your glorious name, amen. please join me in reciting pledge of the allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, for the republic for which it

stands, one nation, undergod indivisible with liberty and justice for all. ead a communica to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., april 17, 2024. to the senate: under the to the senate: under the >> 2024 to the senate under prevision of rule 1 i hereby appoint honorable john w. hickenlooper senator from the state of colorado to perform the duties of the chair signed patty murray. under previous order, the leadership time is u reserved. morning business is closed. under previous order of the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to hr7888 which the clerk will report. >> motion to proceed the

calendar number 365hr7888 and act to reform the foreign intelligence surveillance act of 1978. >> mr. president, the majority leader. >> mr. president, this afternoon senators will come tohi the flor and be sworn in as jurors in the impeachment trial of secretary alejandro mayorkas. yesterday, the senate received the impeachment house managers who read the two articles against the secretary. today, the trial will excellence and we will be in our seats as jurors for the third time in four years. but this time, senators will provide as jurors in the lease legislate substantive and impeachment trial ever in the history of the united states. the charges brought against secretary mayorkas failed to

meet the high standard of high crimes and misdemeanors. to validate this gross abuse by the house, would be a grave mistake, and could set a dangerous precedent for the future. for the sake of the senates integrity, and to protect impeachment for those rare cases we truly need it, senators should dismiss today's charges. so when we convene in trial today, to t accommodate the wiss of our republican senate colleagues, i will seek an agreement for a period of debate time that would allow republicans to offer a vote on trial resolutions, allow for republicans to offer point of order and then move to dismiss. let's not kid ourselves about what's going on today. the impeachment of alejandro mayorkas has nothing to do with high crimes and misdemeanors and

everything to do with helping donald trump on the campaign trail. secretary mayorkas has not been accused of treason or accepting bribes or unlawfully attacking our elections. or anything of this sort -- he's not been accused of criminal wrong doing. hein did not blackmail a foreign power to dig dirt on a political opponent. nor did he insight a violent mob to wage in insurrection against the peaceful transfer of power. instead, the hard right wants to exploit the supremely serious matter of impeachment for the sake of cable news hits, and content for social media. this is an illegitimate and profane abuse of the u.s. constitution. the framers were clear impeachment should never be used to settle policy disagreements. legal scholars from across the

ideological spectrum have agreed to the s same for decades even "the wall street journal" editorial board, the dolling of the conservative argued a few months ago that, quote, a policy dispute doesn't qualify as a high crime and misdemeanor unquote. if our house republicans want to have a debate about the border, democrats are glad to have it. but instead of wasting time on impeachment, we should debate bipartisan legislation to secure our border once and for all. in fact, that is precisely what we tried to do in this chamber justn a few months ago. i warninged with the handful of democrats and republicans to draft the strongest border security bill to come before the congress in decades. before donald trump and the hard right killed it in its tracks. it was everything that what republicans could have wanted and more. a bill to hire more border

patrol agents reform asylum fight fentanyl crisis, and create brand new powers for the president to close the border. it was strong, strong stuff, and theuf national border council ad national border patrol council, the chamber of commerce, and the ultimate conservative wall street journal editorial board all through their support behind our bipartisan bill. if both chambers would have voted on it i'm certain it would have passed and be signed by the president. but that's precisely why donald trump inci the hard right were afraid of it. instead of providing a solution to the border, donald trump and his maga radicals want to exploit the border for political gain. and today, with this trial, maga radicals want to likewise exploit our constitution and try to gain an edge on the campaign

trail. it is beneath the dignity of the senate to entertain this makely partisan exercise one that both conservative and liberal legal scholars agree fails to meet the high standard demanded by impeachment. so i will say it again. impeachment should never, never be used to settle policy disagreements -- that would set a disastrous precedent for the congress and could throw our system of checks and balances into endless cycles of c chaos. now on senate business. the senate might be stuck addressing theck houses bogus impeachment charges but that doesn't erase the fact we have a lot of work to do. in the congress and the upcoming days -- before april 19th, the senate must come it an agreement on fisa reauthorization. last night, i filed culture on

motion to m proceed to the house passed fisa bill and that vote is to set to take place tomorrow. democrats and republicans are going to have r to reach an agreement if we want to get fisa reauthorization done before the deadline. otherwise, this very important tool, for ensuring our national security is going to lapse and that would be unacceptable. the house has not made our jobs any easier with this bogus impeachment trial. but m that doesn't let us off te hook to work together quickly to get fisa reauthorization done. on another important matter, we are still waiting to see how speaker johnson and house republicans will proceed on the national security supplemental package. one way or another i hope i fervently hope that we can finally finish the job in the next couple of days. but that is not certain. and will depending a lot on what the house does. the entire world is waiting to see what house republicans will

do about aid to ukraine, aid to israel, humanitarian assistance and indo pacific. putin is watching very closely, to see if america will step up and show strength or slink away from a friend in need and anyone who thinks the war in ukraine is just a regional conflict in eastern yiewmp chinese communist party would beg to differ if president xi sees america waffle in helping ukraine, he may conclude he -- that we will similarly get cold feet in the indo pacific. congress must finish the work on the supplemental once and for all. the time for waiting and delay has long been over i urge house republicans to continue working in a bipartisan spirit to get this aid passed. the security of america -- of our friends and broad and western democracy itself demands that we act. now, later today president biden

will call for the tripling of tariffs on steel and loom numb imports from china this is a strong and decisive response to continue unfair trade practices by china. i've been a loud and fervent on steel and aluminum imports and i saw for myself how unfair chinese practices were carving its way at american production and american jobs. the deck has been long stacked against u.s. steel and aluminum workers for years because of the chinese government. for china the equation is simple. they overproduce steel and aluminum with subsidies and low cost labor and then flood marks with the cheap products and then dominate any competition and reap the profits. american businesses end up falling further and further behind. critically the president is also calling for action to prevent companies from rooting steel and

aluminum imports in mexico to circumvent to tariffs and perhaps no industry that's felt the unfair trade practices than shipbuilding. the u.s.an was once a global leader but now we produce less than 1% of the world's commercial ships. over the last two decades, china has dray dramatically increased dominance in shipbuilding industryry putting american businesses and workers at risk and jeopardizing our national security. so the president announcement today is welcome step to getting americans steel and aluminum businesses back on level plays field with china. i can assure you mr. president, there's no shore shortage of american businessesss ready to step up and compete in the global market in my home state of work steel workers in western new york helped forge the steel aluminum that built america's bridges and buildings. and they stand ready, alongside other power house communities in

ohio, pennsylvania, and elsewhere who built america from the ground up. so i commend the president for a strongor and decisive call to triple tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from china and democrats will keep working to bring american businesses and workers back on the level with the world. and finally, mr. president, today we're mourning a colleague forger member of this chamber, bob graham who passed away yesterday at the age of 87. but to realize he was a man of great integrity. he was a devoted public servant who dedicated his entire life to his beloved florida from the state legislature to the governor's mansion to the halls of the united states senate. our prayers are with his family and his loved ones.

mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. con. res. 33. the presiding officer: the clerk will record. the clerk: s. con. res. 33, concurrent resolution authorizing the use of the rotunda of the capitol and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

quorum call:

>> serious as four heart attacks and a stroke. the first one is systemic refusal to comply with the law. not negligence. willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law.

the second charge is breach of the public trust breach of the public trust. serious, serious charges. as that happened, every day or every week or every month or even every year around here. our currency is almost 250 years old. this is only happened 22 times. 22 times has the united states house of representatives impeached the public official. and every single time check, go, google it. every single time you can write this down. take it home to momma. every single time except when

the public official has quit the united states senate has done its job. through thick and thin whether the democrats win majority of the republicans were in majority didn't matter who the president was. we did our job because we respect institution of the constitution. we expect -- we respect the three branches of government. we respect the united states house of representatives. we respect them enough to do our job. we held every single time. except when the public official quit. now, in the next two days, you're going hear one of my colleagues the majority leader say we don't need to hold a trial. he's going say the evidence is insufficient.

it's not worth our time. i want you to think for a moment. just ask yourself this question. how does he know the evidence isn't sufficient? how does he know? he hadn't heard the evidence. what you're about to say folk it is breaks my heart to say this. over the next two days what you're going see it, is not about the evidence. it's not about them all. it's not about the process. it's not about but should be 250 years of precedent in history. it's about law, gut, politics.

raw, gut politics. some of my colleagues in this body do not want us to talk about the border in an election year and we all know -- >> without objection. >> critical under foreign surveillance act, set to expire in two days. today, i would like to briefly address the newest red heiring being raised in opposition to authorizing section 702. the reauthorization passed house

process that will enhance accountabilities at the fbi and protect the rights of american citizens. it also included a necessary fix to the way we authorize the government to lawfully collect communications from foreigners located overseas for a specific intelligence purpose. as part of the standard judicial oversight of the 702 process, the intelligence community has been restricted in what kinds of technology counts as, quote, electronic communications service providers, end quote, under this statute. when section 702 was written, the internet was in the dark

ages compared to how it exists today. clearly, social media and internet communication usage has changed dramatically since the earliest days of twitter. and so have the technical mechanisms by which massive packets of data transit the internet. as the internet evolved, the fisa court did not allow doj on its own to expand the definition of a provider to meet the new realities of contemporary technology. this created a critical, unintended gap in our collection ability against overseas foreign targets. here's the good news, the house

did, on a strong bipartisan basis, what legislatures should do, in fact, a majority of the majority and a majority of the minority voted to change the statute to make sure that our collection ability on foreigners overseas reflects the reality of modern communication. it was a simple fix to update the law to respond to technological change. but listen -- but to listen to the chicken littles on the left, the sky is falling. the aclu says this will expand warrantless surveillance and strongly implies it will do so against americans as they go about their daily lives. everyone is a

spy under this provision. well, excuse me if i don't take my cues from liberal court packers. this could not be further from the truth. the house bill's simple fix does nothing, nothing, to change who gets targeted by section 702. foreigners overseas whose communications are like lay to return important -- likely to return important intelligence. the fisa appellate court affirmed this in a decision that predated the legislative fix saying, under section 702, the government is prohibited from intentionally targeting any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the united states. even foreigners located in the united states, even foreigners operating illegally in the

united states. the court went on saying, quote, customers using wi-fi access provided by a cafe or library, for example, would not be targeted under section 702 regardless of whether the interceptors connectivity being -- internet connectivity being provided is being considered an electronic communications service. so let me say that again. they would not be targeted under section 702. nor, contrary to the fears of some of our colleagues, would u.s. persons be at risk of drone strikes as they surfed on public internets. it only aplays to foreigners overseas. all that the house did is fix a dangerous loophole that would

have allowed our foreign adversaries to escape the reach of our intelligence services. trust but verify, right? well, this bill helps us do precisely that. it includes significant reforms that dramatically enhance transparency into house section 702 is used by the intelligence community. it includes reforms to prevent misuse of the authority and require accountability for any such misuse, including new civil and criminal penalties. so i would urge my colleagues to look at the facts of this latest fearmongering crusade to soberly examine the same classified material our house colleagues read that explains this provision in detail. to reject hyperbole and lies and

secure the homeland. we do have a plan to address migrantmigration at the southern border. we're executing it, and we're starting to see the results. well, those were the words of secretary mayorkas after the biden administration had been in office for eight months. but in the past three years they've taken on an altogether greater significance. the administration's plan to address migration? it turns out their planning was exactly what then-candidate biden said on the debate stage -- to surge migrants to the border. how did they execute it? by slashing the previous administration's commonsense border security policies, no more remain in mexico, no more

border wall construction. secretary mayorkas bragged back in 2021, the biden administration had repealed so many border enforcement tools that, quote, it would take so much time to list them. and how about that last part -- we're starting to see the results? since this administration took office, the surge in illegal a.i.rrives at the border -- arrivals at the border has set new records several times over. cbp personnel have worked overtime to contend with a humanitarian and security crisis. and yet for years the biden administration's top concern about the border was not calling it a crisis. again, quote, we do not have a plan to address migration at the southern border. we're executing and we're starting to see the results.

results? indeed, mr. president, in the form of a tragic, painful, and unnecessary crisis. today it falls to the senate to determine whether and to what extent secretary mayorkas enabled and inflamed this crisis. under the constitution and the rules of impeachment, it is the job of this body to consider the articles of impeachment brought before us and to render judgment. the the question right now should be how best to ensure that the charges on the table receive thorough consideration. but instead the more pressing question is whether our democratic colleagues intend to let the senate work its will at all. tabling the articles of impeachment would be unprecedented in the history of

the senate. it's as simple as that a -- as that. tabling would be declining to discharge our duties as jurors. it would mean running both from our fundamental responsibility and from the glaring truth of the record-breaking crisis at our southern border. i, for one, intend to take nigh role as a juror in this case seriously, and i urge my colleagues to do the same. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

>> mr. president, this afternoon senators will come to the floor and be sworn in as jurors of of secretary mayorkas. yesterday the senate received the impeachment house hous who read the to market articles gives the secretary. today, the trial will commence and we will be in our seats as a jurors for the third time in four years. but this time senders will provide as jurors in the least legitimate, least substantive, and most politicized impeachment trial ever in history of the united states. the charges brought against secretary mayorkas failed to meet the high standard of high crimes and misdemeanors. to validate this gross abuse by the house, would be a grave mistake and could set a dangerous precedent for the

future. for the sake of the senate integrity and to protect impeachment for those rare cases we truly need it, senators should dismiss today's charges here so when we convene in trial today to accommodate the wishes of our republican senate colleagues, i will seek an agreement for period of the big time that will allow republicans to offer a vote on trial resolutions, allow for republicans to offer points of order, and then move to dismiss. let's not kid ourselves about what's going on today. the impeachment of alejandro mayorkas' nothing to do with high crimes and misdemeanors. and everything to do with helping donald trump on the campaign trail. secretary mayorkas has that been accused of treason or accepting bribes or unlawfully attacking our elections or anything of the

sort. he has not been accused of criminal wrongdoing. he did not blackmail a foreign power to dig dirt on a political opponent. nor did he incite a violent mob to wage an insurrection against the peaceful transfer of power. instead, the hard right once to exploit the supremely serious matter of impeachment for the sake of cable news hits and content for social media. this is an illegitimate and profane abuse of the u.s. constitution. the framers were clear, impeachment should never be used to settle policy disagreements. legal scholars from across the ideological spectrum have agreed to the same for decades, even the "wall street journal" editorial board, , the darling f the conservative intelligentsia argued a few months ago that, quote, a policy dispute doesn't

qualify as a high crime and misdemeanor, unquote. if our house republicans want to have a debate about the border, democrats are glad to have that. but instead of wasting time on impeachment, we should debate bipartisan legislation to secure our border once and for all. in fact, that is precisely what we tried to do in this chamber just a few months ago. i worked with a handful of democrats and republicans to draft the strongest border security bill to come before the congress in decades. before donald trump and the hard right killed it in its tracks. it was everything that what republicans could of wanted and more, built to hire more border patrol agents, fight and the fentanyl crisis and create brand-new powers for the president to close the border. it was strong, strong stuff, and the national border patrol

council, the national border patrol council, the chamber of commerce and the ultimate conservative "wall street journal" editorial board all through their support behind our bipartisan bill. if both chambers what about audit i'm certain i'm certain it would have passed and be signed by the president. but that's precisely why donald trump and the hard right were afraid of it. instead of providing a solution to the border, donald trump and his maga radicals want to exploit the border for political gain. and today with this trial, maga radicals want to likewise exploit our constitution and try to gain an edge on the campaign trail. it is beneath the dignity of the senate to entertain this nakedly partisan exercise, one that both conservatives and liberals legal scholars agree fails to meet the

high standard demanded by impeachment. so i will say it again, impeachment should never, never be used to settle policy disagreements. that would set of disasters precedent for the congress and could throw our system of checks and balances into endless cycles of chaos. >> today, it falls to the senate to determine whether and to what extent secretary mayorkas enabled and -- under the constitution and the rules of impeachment it is the job of this body to consider the articles of impeachment brought before us and to render judgment. the question right now should be how best to ensure that the charges on the table receive thorough consideration. but instead, the more pressing

question is whether our democratic colleagues intend to let the senate work its will at all. cabling articles of impeachment would be unprecedented in the history of the senate. -- cabling -- with the simple as that. tabling would mean declining to discharge our duties as yours. would mean running both from our fundamental responsibility and from the glaring truth of record-breaking the presiding officer: we are. mr. thune: i would ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, 7,633,650, that's the number of migrant encounters at our southern border since president biden took office. 7,63 7,633,650. the situation at our southern border is out of control. we have had three, three now,

successive years of record breaking illegal immigration under president biden, and we're on track for a fourth. there have been more than 1.3 million migrant encounters at our southern border since october 1 of last year, which was the start of this fiscal year. 1.3 million just since october 1 of last year. and that number just refers to individuals who are actually apprehended. there have been almost 150,000 known got-aways so far this fiscal year, and those are individuals at the border patrol -- that the border patrol saw but was unable to apprehend. often we see migrants turning themselves into authorities so it's especially concerning to know that so many individuals have purposely evaded

interdiction. and of course we don't know how many unknown got-aways there have been. u.s. border patrol chief jason owens in a march interview with cbs news said, the number of known got-aways is keeping him up at night. this is a national security threat, he noted. that's a quote. border security is a big piece of national security, he goes on to say, and if we don't know who is coming into our country and we don't know what their intent is, that is a threat, and they're exploiting a vulnerability that's on our border right now, end quote. that again, mr. president, from jason owens, u.s. border patrol chief. well, mr. president, the situation at our southern border right now is a national security threat.

there's no question that the kinds of numbers we're seeing smooth away for dangerous individuals to enter our country. during fiscal year 2023, 169 individuals on the terrorist watch list were apprehended trying to cross our southern border. more, i might add, than the previous six years combined. and that's just the individuals again who are actually -- who were actually apprehended. with somewhere around 1.8 million known got-aways since president biden took office and an untold number of unknown got-aways, i think we can safely assume that there are plenty of dangerous individuals making their way into our country without being stopped. mr. president, while there are always various factors that affect the flow of illegal immigration, we are on track for a fourth record breaking year of illegal immigration under the biden administration because of

the actions that president biden has taken or failed to take. from the day he took office when he rescinded the declaration of a national emergency at our southern border, president biden made it clear that border security was at the bottom of his priority list. and over the three years since, he has turned our southern border into a magnet for illegal migration from repealing effective border security policies of the trump administration to abusing our asylum and parole systems, which are now providing temporary amnesty to hundreds of thousands of individuals here illegally. which brings me, mr. president, to today. in just a few minutes the senate will be sworn in to consider the articles of impeachment against homeland security secretary mayorkas, one of the chief architects of the biden's-of-administration's lax border security regime.

we expect that the democrat leader will move almost immediately to dismiss the charges. at most we expect a few hours of process with no examination of the evidence the house has collected and essentially no consideration of the serious charges before us. mr. president, whether or not senators ultimately decide that secretary mayorkas's actions warrant a conviction, they should be given the time to actually examine the charges. in a courtroom a case is not dismissed caught the -- without the court taking the time to examine the facts. and the senate sitting as a court of impeachment should be no different. the senate should be having a full trial and taking the time to examine the evidence that the house has collected. and then senators should be able to vote guilty or not guilty. instead the senate leader is set to sweep these charges under the rug. it's just more evidence of the

fundamental, unseriousness democrats have shown when it comes to the raging, raging national security crisis at our southern border. mr. president, by the end of the day the democrat leader may well have effectively made these charges disappear, but there is nothing that the democrat leader can do to obscure the failures of secretary mayorkas and president biden. thanks to their refusal to secure the border, we have experienced three now successive years of record-breaking illegal immigration. and unfortunately there is no end in sight. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the clerk: ms. baldwin.

quorum call:

>> including members of the house prosecution team. we just witnessed something that has occurred only now 22 times in american history. the 21 prior occasions the house of representatives has passed articles of impeachment, in 17

out of those 21 cases the result has been the culmination of a trial in the senate resulting in a finding of guilty or not guilty of conviction or of acquittal. it's not only expected but required under the constitution that we should do this, under article one, section three, clause six of the constitution. send shallot power to try all impeachment. that meets all in features. the only form of exceptions out of those 21 that i reference are instances in which the case became moot or we lacked jurisdiction in the first instance. we don't lacked jurisdiction in this instance. in fact, we have it. secretary mayorkas is still in office. unlike those four he was neither a member of the senate and, therefore, not subject technically to impeachment authority but rather to expulsion, nor is he deceased nor this has he left office.

so we we can subject matter jurisdiction over this in that circumstance where expected and effect required to conduct a trial. what that means is we are sworn in, we will be sworn into more as senators, as perform the equivalent of the judge jury function where we are both finders of fact and also imbued with the authority to decide questions of law relative impeachment trial. and what all that presupposes is that we will reach a finding of guilt or innocence. hilty, not guilty. we shouldn't the site step in despair previously chuck schumer of the democrats have talked a lot about wanting to just table this, it never in history of the united states said it had we address articles of impeachment with a motion to table. they are not talking about doing a motion to dismiss. that begs the question, a what basis are they going to move dismiss what they are not articulate their position.

i suppose we'll hear more about that tomorrow. in any court of law that i know anything about an order to simply dismiss an accusation civil or criminal you will have to make the case that the law doesn't allow what you to do, what you were doing. it doesn't state a claim upon which relief can be granted or hear a claim upon which a person can be impeached. i have yet to the make an argument about that. in the context of rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in civil litigation you resolve all factual inferences and assume all facts alleged in favor of the plaintiff. the nonmoving party. and if all the facts are true then and only then do you get to assess that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. i have yet to any articulation of their three of why they're entitled to a motion to dismiss. and, in fact, as we had just

read, heard, read and read along with the chairman of the house impeachment committee representative mark green from tennessee, if you take all this facts to be true, as i believe we must in the circumstance until we got a chance to be finders of fact ourselves, there can be no doubt that a case for impeachment candidate and has been made here and that we must convene a warner: are we in a qu call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. warner: i ask the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: i rise today as senator from virginia, more importantly chairman of the intelligence committee, in supporting of the reforming intelligence and securing america act, h.r. 7888, which passed the house earlier this week with a 273-147 broad bipartisan support. section 702 of the foreign

intelligence surveillance act, fisa, which a lot of this debate focused on, is a critical source of foreign intelligence. it is indispensable to the work of the men and women of our intelligence community, and many others do every day to protect our national security. section 702 authorizes -- authorities have enabled the i.c. to thwart terrorist attacks, track foreign spies, uncoverage economic espionage, protect u.s. troops, expose human and drug trafficking, prevent sanctions evasion, and disrupt foreign cyber attacks. a whole litany of the responsibilities of the i.c. just to demonstrate how important these capabilities are to our national security, 60%,

60% of the items that appear in the president's daily intelligence brief actually are sourced information obtained pursuant to section 702. in the public domain, there are many examples of the value of section 702. these include when section 702 contributed to the successful operation against one of the last remaining 9/11 architects. 702 coverage identified evidence of an a.i. -- of an al qaeda courier in pakistan with imminent plans to detonate explosives on subway tracks in manhattan, and through those, that surveillance, was able to prevent the attack. 702 section identified the hackers responsible for the 2021

ransomware attack on colonial pipeline that crippled fume supplies across the east coast and enabled the united states to recover 2.3 million in paid ran snobol -- ransom. secretaries of defense, directors of national intelligence, and many other cabinet officials, from both the current and former administration, have spoken out on the vital importance of ensuring that section 702 does not lapse. to quote the president's intelligence advisory board, if congress fails to reauthorize section 702, history may judge the lapse of 702 authorities as one of the worst intelligence failures of our time. quite honestly, that's what we're looking at if we don't get this done. nonetheless, as we indicated, we just find ourselves just hours away from a possible sunset of

this critical authority, which sunsets friday night at midnight. now, some members argued that because the fisa court recently approved new certifications, there's no urgency to reauthorize the law. those claims are both misguided and dangerous. in the event of a statutory lapse, some providers, american companies working with us, are likely to stop or reduce cooperation, perhaps with exi existing tarpths of collection -- targets of collection, but especially with new ones. we know this can happen because it's exactly what happened when a similar lapse occurred following the expiration of section 702's predecessor statute, the protect america act. now, to be fair, it is also true that section 702 is in need of some reforms. and myself, senator rubio, 16

members, bipartisan, have sponsored the senate version of this bill and have pressed for additional reforms to protect the civil liberties of americans, while still preserving the core values of the program and protecting american national security. in recent years, a key oversight focus has been on the number of queries of section 702 information. section 702 is a database, there are a series of databases. you can sometimes queer question that database within certain protections. now, the focus has focused on particularly those queries performs by the fbi and involving u.s. persons. there's no dispute that for too long, the fbi keery -- query practices were sloppy. for a time, as recently as 2019, more than three in ten of the fbi queries were noncompliant. that means literally, 30% of the time the fbi was not following their own procedures. the fbi took much too much time to implement needed reforms.

but fine tax deductible lay in 2022 and 2023 it implemented comprehensive reforms that dramatically improved the query compliance rate from 70% to over 90%. it means less than 1% of these queries fall outside of the reform practices that the fbi has put in place. what do these reforms include? maybe one of the most important ones is that rather than by default fbi agent queries to databases, in the past they'd have to opt out of quering the 702 database, now they have to opt in and make the case that they need that for national security purposes. this -- another reform that's been in place -- there was a series of actions in the past called batch queries. a group of people might be

arrested and suddenly you're quering a whole batch of them. those batch queries have been dramatically diminished. at the same time there are new reforms that require the fbi leadership to approve sensitive queries of politicians, journalalists and religious leaders. it has to be the director of the fbi, the deputy director or the head of the national security division. the bill before us, which again we had preconferenced most of this with the house. this is the house bill we're going to be taking up later this week. the built before us now codifies these reforms, ensuring that a future president, attorney general, or fbi director cannot simply walk them back. when we pass this legislation and it is signed, these reforms will become the law of the land. in addition, the reforms i've already talked about -- to it the reforms i've already talked about the bill goes even further. it also includes significant new protections for u.s. person

queries, including a complete prohibition on queries solely useded to find evidence of a crime. as was unanimously recommended by the president's intelligence advisory board. the bill also increases transparency of fisa court proceedings going so far -- this was added in the house -- as to allow members of congress and their staffs to attend court hearings. you've heard on this floor and the floor of the house many times, we don't know what's going on in the fisa court hearing. well now the member of the congress or the senator's staff, they will be able to do that. and this also creates an ongoing reform commission to recommend further fisa reforms. the truth is, section 702 is already the most regulated and closely overseen intelligence

authority of any we have in this country, and frankly in countries around the world. if enacted, the reforms included in this bill would be the most comprehensive set of reforms ever enacted. we often reform this every five years or it had to be reauthorized. this set of reforms is more than those in the past. i would like to talk about other things that have the subject of considerable debate. some have suggested that we should impose a warrant requirement. let me be again be clear -- let me again be clear. a u.s. warrant would do grave damage to national security. the fbi and other agencies have relied on u.s. person queries of section 702, as i innumerated earlier, to investigate

cyberattacks, prevent assassination plots, and to disrupt narcotics trafficking. many of these successes would not have been possible if the government was required to obtain a warrant for u.s. person queries and significant intelligence would be lost. because -- and people say, well, why is that so hard to put in place? let's think about this for a moment. a warrant requirement requires a plausible -- i'm sorry, a probable cause that the subject of an query is an antiquity of a foreign -- is an agent of a foreign power. i remember talking with the presiding officer about this. the majority of times that an american person is queried is not because we suspect them to be an agent of a foreign power but because they have been a victim often times of a cyberattack. even the most fervent advocate

of warrant cannot explain if we're trying to -- there's no way you could get a probable cause showing that that person is an antiquity -- is an agent of a foreign power. the warrant -- the idea well we could simply contact the person, well, that does not pass the smell test. sometimes this gets complicated. let me give you a couple theoretical ways that this warrant requirement i believe falls short. let's say that the intelligence community is aware that iran is planning a cyberattack against a u.s. victim, maybe even a victim that would sit in this chamber u in that case you the intelligence community may want to query whether it has intelligence collected against iran for when iran or their

agents is talking about that american. so that we could actually get the full exposure to make sure that we could both do victim notification and also preclude future attacks. these queries would serve to protect the victim, not investigate them. but it would never be possible to establish, as any warrant application would require, probable cause that the victim is an agent of a foreign power. because they're not, they're a victim u let me give you another example. assume the united states apprehends a non-known foreign terrorist overseas. on that person -- dill dill point this out to the presiding officer -- there's a phone number. it is a 303 area code. we don't know whether that phone number is a real number whether it is the number of an

american, whether it is the number of a foreigner because, as the presiding officer knows, somebody might have been a foreigner, gone to colorado, gone to denver, got a phone, carries that phone with them forever. the idea that you could get a warrant of probable cause on the basis of that phone number alone, again, does not pass the smell test. it cannot happen. the truth is, well, wereunsaid, we'll give thank you an exemption for exigent circumstances. the process will not work or will work in such a slow fashion that the use of this critical tool, 60% of the intel the president reads every day comes from 702 intelligence. the truth is it would take weeks or months to obtain an order from the fisa court during the time the bad guys go back to the

example. there is a 303 area code. you're going to wait weeks until you can even query that phone number? some say, you make the query. but you don't look at the results. again, either one of those circumstances basically neuters the whole ability of 702 to work. second, the house-passed bill includes an important amendment to the definition of electronic communications service providers, ecsp's, that address collection gaps caused by the internet in telecommunications technologies since 702 was first written in 2008. as somebody who meant isst spent a career in telecom, the world has changed in the telecom domain from 2008. this amendment in terms of the definition is, again, focused on

this current intelligence gap. it still requires that the targeting that goes on in 702 focuses on overseas non-u.s. persons. and contrary to what some members have literally said on the floor of the senate this technical amendment that was added in the house specifically excludes coffee shops, bars, restaurants, residences, how tells, libraries, recreational facilities, and a whole litany of similar establishments. it would not, as some critics have maintained, allow the united states government to compel, for example, a janitor working in an office building in northern virginia to send out spy for the intelligence committee. nor would it allow states to target women seeking abortions. state and local authorities don't even have access to raw 702 data. secondly, the law is and remains

crystal clear on this point. 702 cannot be used to target u.s. citizens domestically. period, full stop, no exceptions. the amendment, the ecsp amendment, was required because, as i pointed out earlier, the world of telecom has changed dramatically since the law was first put in place 16 years ago. keep in mind, back in 2008, when section 70 2 was first parsed, we had pay phones on most corners. and the cloud was actually something that might cause rain rather than be a place where communications are often often stored. in short, what happens here is that the government serve a 702 directly. this is why this came about. and that american company said, we think your old definition of a service provider doesn't apply to us.

and, you know what? in litigation, that claim won. and the fisa court specifically said, we need to make sure that we update the definition. the house added that updated definition. now, i don't believe we should roll that back. this is not, as some have claimed, some broad expansion of 702 powers or jurisdictions. and i could get into the complexities of how there are some data centers, it's been reported in the press, that at certain times activities that take place at a data center don't fall into the old definition. do we really want that data that passes through the data center to be lawfully collected? i think we do.

now, let me be first to say that the house bill is not perfect. i think we should have gone for a five-year reauthorization. what the house passed was a two-year reauthorizationment. i accept that. i think the reforms that were put in place will further protect -- i go back to one of the earlier comments. we've gone from a 30% noncompliance at the fbi to less than 1%. in terms of the warrant requirement, you're never goin to get a probable cause warrant if the individual that is being remember queried is actually the victim of a crime. and we're sure as heck not going ab able to get a warrant requirement met if you capture a terrorist and go from the 303 area code to i think las vegas is 702, madam president. you don't know who or what that number is until you do the

query. as i mentioned in these last couple moments, this new definition, the technical definition that the house adopted with an overwhelming bipartisan majority, is not an expansion. it simply brings up the terminology up to 2024, which was different than 2008. the notion that we would allow this incredibly, in a sense, the crown jewel of our intelligence collect abilities to go dark, as we simultaneously try to debate aid for ukraine and israel and humanitarian relief for the palestinians in gaza, the idea that we would suddenly go dark at this moment in time would be the height of irresponsibility. so i know we've got to get through with this afternoon's proceedings, but i would strongly urge members to join me in voting to pass h.r. 7888,

without amendment, to make sure that we don't have a lapse, and i know we've made documents and individuals available in the scif. but if members have questions, if members have concerns, if members hear others come to the floor and make other charges, please talk to me, talk to senator rubio, talk to anybody in law enforcement or the intelligence community that so many of the claims here just are not accurate in terms of what this bill does. i think this is a strong reform bill. i think it needs to get passed and we need to let this critical authority -- to not let this critical authority lapse. thank you, madam president. and with that, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: role roll. -- the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

>> mr. president. >> the majority leader. >> mr. president, this afternoon senators will come to the floor and be sworn in as jurors in the impeachment trial of sect alejandro mayorkas. yesterday, the senate received the impeachment house managers read the two articles against the secretary. secretary. today, the trial will commence and we will be in our seats as a jurors for the third time in four years. but this time senators will provide as jurors in the least legitimate, least sensitive, a most politicized impeachment trial ever in the history of the united states. the charges brought against secretary mayorkas fail to meet the high standard of high crimes and misdemeanors. to validate this a gross abuse by the house, would be a grave

mistake and could set a dangerous precedent for the future. for the sake of the senates integrity and to protect impeachment for those rare cases we truly need it, senators should dismiss today's charges. so when we convene in trial today to accommodate the wishes of our republican senate colleagues i will seek an agreement for it. back of debate time that would allow republicans to offer all vote, with offer points of order and then moved to dismiss. let's not kid ourselves about what's going on today. the impeachment of alejandro mayorkas has nothing to do with high crimes and misdemeanors, and everything to do with helping donald trump on the campaign trail. secretary mayorkas has that been

accused of treason or accepting bribes or unlawfully attacking our elections or anything of this sort. he has that been accused of criminal wrongdoing. he did not blackmail a foreign power to dig dirt on a political opponent, nor did he incite a violent mob to wage an insurrection against the peaceful transfer of power. instead, the hard right once to exploit the supremely seriously matter of impeachment for the sake of cable news hits and content for social media. this is an illegitimate and profane abuse of the u.s. constitution. the framers were clear impeachment should never be used to settle policy disagreements. legal scholars from across the ideological spectrum have agreed to the same for decades, even the "wall street journal" editorial board, the darling of the conservative intelligentsia argued a few months ago that

quote, a policy dispute doesn't qualify as as a high crime ad misdemeanor, unquote. if our house republicans want to have a debate on the border, democrats are glad to have it. instead of wasting time on impeachment we should debate bipartisan legislation to secure our border once and for all. in fact, that is precisely what we try to do in this chamber just a few months ago. i worked with a handful of democrats and republicans to draft the strongest border security bill to come before the congress in decades. before donald trump and the hard right killed it in its tracks. it was everything that what republicans could've want to do more, bill to hire more border patrol agents, the fight of dental crisis and create brand-new powers for the president to close the border.

it was strong, strong stuff and the national border counsel, the national border patrol council, the chamber of commerce and the ultimate conservative "wall street journal" editorial board all through their support behind our bipartisan bill. if both chambers would have voted on it i'm certain it would have passed and be signed by the president. but that's precisely why donald trump and the hard right were afraid of it. instead of providing a solution to the border, donald trump and his maga radicals want to exploit the border for political gain. and today with this trial maga radicals want to likewise exploit our constitution and try to gain an edge on the campaign trail. it is beneath the dignity of the senate to entertain this nakedly partisan exercise, one that both

conservative and liberal legal scholars agree fails to meet the high standard demand by impeachment. so i will say it again. impeachment should never, never be used to settle policy disagreements. that would set a disastrous precedent for the congress and could throw our system of checks and balances into endless cycle of chaos.

moderate to probably would not vote to convict mayorkas at all. they don't think that he has committed any impeachable offenses but they want some debate tactic we are talking sender dislike senator mitt romney here, but it's unclear if a time grid will come to fruition and if it doesn't because of a group of very conservative senators who want to see a full trial play out

then it will move straight to motion to dismiss and this they the wrapped up in a couple of hours. >> as far as those republicans and what to slow the process, do they have any tools to do so and are some of the voices that we might hear from two today? >> there's a few procedural tools and we know that a time agreement was floated to a few senators offices last eye, though senators included eric schmitt and some more conservative members are we also saw them have a press conference yesterday, though senators included rick scott, ron johnson and a few others who have told schumer we want a whole trial. but at this point it's all democratic voting centers including a few key independence, if they all band together it's a simple majority in this thing could be over in a few hours despite conservatives best efforts. >> when it comes to the managers we just listed off those managers to come over from the house side, if things progress as expected when we hear from them today do you think?

>> i don't think we will be hearing from them. it should go that the senators are sworn in. they are officially going to become a jury today. they will sign the oath of book you mentioned a little earlier which really just encapsulates the seriousness of any speakman trial that just a vocal oath is not enough, that you need to sign it as well and then it's going to be up to the republicans whether they accept schumer's time agreement of the 45 minutes a debate on each side, 90 minutes of debate and possibly some procedural vote and that a motion to dismiss. if there is a motion to dismiss women that hear from those impeachment manager at all. >> when it comes to the sense of decorum that takes place during an event like this how would you describe it? >> typically impeachment trials are very serious. in the last two impeachment, impeachment trials of former president trump it's very solemn and again that's why they say the oath but because this is

something that's unprecedented. this is a historian moment and so the decorum in the chamber will likely be quiet. should be most of the senators paying strict attention and that's why as you noted earlier that hear ye hear ye and they say that out loud before starts to remind the senators of assistance of the moment to not make any reactions and you really, really take in the moment and be serious about it. >> they are being series themselves but imagine also this in public at large watch along with everyone else on this and i suppose that has some impact on the events of the day about the people watching c-span or other platforms. >> absolutely. and that means at the the day we know immigration and order is a topic that matters greatly to the public and something that's going to especially be brought up time and time again before the election come this november. something is a very serious conversation to be having. senate majority leader chuck

schumer earlier today said he doesn't believe an impeachment trial is the place to discuss policy differences as he views it and it should be brought back to national security supplemental like what the house is currently debating. >> you hinted at this earlier but as far as democrats who are probably vote to dismiss these charges it will probably be wholesale amongst them. but amongst republicans is at the same thing as far as will all of them vote to go forward with these charges? >> there's a few senators i'm personally keeping my eye on. the lobby store mitt romney as a majorly the only republican to vote to impeach former president donald trump twice and will also be given up on lisa murkowski, susan collins can possibly bill cassidy. there are some a few moderates i think our particularly notable and i think the c-span audience and others should be keeping an eye on to see if there also vote to dismiss. and if not what they are particularly wanting from some debate than. >> again audience if you're

watching where just moments away from the start of the senate impeachment trial of homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas. against a with us as a watch the plant during the course of the day. any other thoughts going into this as far as for audience what they should be watching for? >> just if this is incredibly the stored moment. whether do you with the trial in full force or if they do motion to dismiss this and it's over today, it's history and it should be taken very seriously and i think it's going to set the stage the up to the election on board and immigration as a larger topic. >> as good as even though the proceedings might in today, s. res. the sentiment about those topics and special light of these actions today, what's the feeling of congress of actually doing something with it comes to immigration related matters, particularly on a senate? >> that's a really, really good point. we know that chris murphy, senator lankford and store

kyrsten sinema have put forth a border negotiation, aboard a package that was negotiated a few months ago and obviously that was shot down. it did not go forward. .. and republicanses on the issue. >> host: we talked a little bit about this, but senator patty murray takes the position of preside ising officer here. what's the job for her today? >> guest: her job is to make sure that all senators are maintaining decorum, that they're taking the job seriously are, that they're not speak out of turn and that they're taking their oath very, very seriously. so she's going to be looking for anybody that's not paying attention, anybody that's

speaking, muttering and just making sure that it goes very, very smoothly and and that it has the seriousness of a courtroom, because that's what the math is being turned into today. >> host: samantha behrmann, find her work at the national journal web site. thanks for your time. >> guest: thank you for having me p. >> host: as you heard our guest say, we, again, moments away prosecute start of this trial of the homeland security secretary, alejandro mayorkas. follow along on c-span2 today for however long the trial takes place, and the length there uninterrupted, also a follow along on the web site at c-span.org. and if you miss if it on both those fronts, our other platform, c-span now if, our app, you can follow it there as well.

>> host: as the senators gather, senator schumer in his seat as the events of today are just about to start. on x this morning it was speaker mike johnson. you remember it was the house that brought over these articles of impeachment. he posting, postabout 40 minutes ago saying yesterday the house

impeachment managers delivered the articles of impeachment for secretary mayorkas, today the senators will be sworn in as jurors. if the senate fails to hold a trial, it is an endorsement of biden's border catastrophe. again, that's speaker mike johnson there commenting on the day's events. we'll see what happens as this plays out. senator patty murray will proceed over this event in her chair as it's set to begin in just a few minutes.

>> appointed as the head of dhs, and he led development of what was known as dhaka and led towards that, and he -- daca, and ea also a served as assistant u.s. attorney, on top of that a political ref i few gee, born in havana, cuba. he's the first latino e and immigrant confirmed to serve as homeland security secretary. as for those articles of impeachment delivered by house republicans, that to be considered by the senate, again, limited debate expected featuring republicans with senator schumer ultimately moving to dismiss the charges overall. and that's what you'll see play out today on c-span2.

again, our app at c-span now and the web site at c-span.org.

>> host: senate impeachment trial is part of that process that lays out -- plays out. senator patty murray will take the oath as the presiding officer over this impeachment trial. the swearing in of all senators will take place serving as their official part as jurors. they will sign an oath book as part of the process that you heard our guest talk about from national journal and then the proclamation given by the sergeant at arms and then the start of the trial itself. remember, limited debate is expected on the floor before that move to dismiss by senator schumer. out of indiana saying republican senator mike braun plans to raise a point of order asking senators to vote on the issue requiring a writ of summons from

secretary mayorkas to aerohis response to the charms that he willfully and system systematically broke public trust. quote, prierntiond his allies in the senate are trying to sweep this impeachment under the rug because they don't want to talk about their open border policy and the americans that have lost their lives because of it. they're breaking the most basic rules of the senate to stop the american people from hearing about their catch and release program that let millions into our country with no right to be here, again, that's part of what you'll see play out today perhaps during in this trial. again, stay close to c-span as it proceeds.

>> it's c-span's coverage of the senate impeachment trial of homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas set to start shortly. just about an hour ago at the washington examiner web site, a story taking a look at one of those faces to watch as far as the actual vote to the motion to dismiss. senator jon tester, democrat from montana, highlighting the

fact that he's in the midst of one of the most competitive senate match-ups, he's expected to face former navy seal tim sheehy, one of toes-up categories, adding that tester's under a significant amount of pressure, telling the reporter he still needed to read the articles. however, the national republican senatorial committee and outside groups already putting into motion the plans to put the coming months as painful as possible for the montana democrat. this depends on how he votes and the rest of the senate votes now that they are set to be deemed as jurors in the senate impeachment trial of alejandro mayorkas. and while we wait for the trial to start, joining us to help us walk through other things to expect during the morning, national journal senate correspondent saw -- savannah behrmann, thanks for giving you your time.

>> guest: thank you for having me. >> host: tell us about the intention of senate minority majority leader schumer trying to appease republicans to have them have their say before dismissing the charges? >> guest: absolutely. so what we're seeing from senate majority leader chuck schumer here is him trying to appease to a group of moderates who probably would not vote to convict mayorkas at all. they don't think that he has commitmented any impeachable offenses, but they want some debate time. we're talking about senators like senator mitt romney here. but it's unclear at this point if a time agreement will come to fruition, and if it doesn't because of a group of very conservative senators who want to see a full trial play out, then it'll just move straight to a motion to dismiss. and this thing may be wrapped up in just a down canful hours -- couple of hours. >> host: as far as those republicans that that may want to slow up the process, do they have any tools at this point to do so? and who are some of the voices that you might, we might hear from today? >> guest: absolutely. there's a few procedural tools

in their belt, and we know at this point that a time agreement was floated to a few senators' offices haas night. those senators included eric schmidt and some more conservative members. and we also saw them have a press conference yesterday, those senators including rick scott, ron johnson and a few others who have told schumer we want a full trial. but at this point it's all democratic voting senators including a few key independents, if they all ban together, it's a simple majority, and this thing could be over this if a few hours despite conservatives' best efforts. >> host: when it comes to the managers themselves, we just listed off the collection of managers that come over from the house side. if things progress as a expected, will we actually hear from them today, do you think? >> guest: i don't think that we will be hearing from them. it should go that the senators are sworn in, they're officially going to become a jury today. they will sign that oath that you mentioned a little bit earlier which really just just

encapsulates the seriousness of an impeachment trial. just a vocal oath is not enough. they need to sign it as well. and then it's going to be up to the republicans whether they accept schumer's time agreement of about 45 minutes of debate on each side, 90 minutes of debate and possibly some procedural vote and then a motion to dismiss. if there is a motion to the president pro tempore: a quorum is present. pursuant to rule iii of the rules of procedure and practice in the senate when sitting on impeachment trials, the hour of 1:00 p.m. having arrived and a quorum having been established, the senate will proceed to consideration of the articles of impeachment against. alejandro n. mayorkas, secretary of homeland security. mr. schumer: madam president, at this time, pursuant to rule iii

of the senate rules on impeachment and the united states constitution, the president pro tempore emeritus, the senator from iowa, will now administer the oath to the president pro tempore, patty murray. mr. grassley: will you place your left hand on the bible and raise your right hand? do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of >> do you solemnly swear that -- to the impeachment of alejandro n. mayorkas, secretary of homeland security, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and all ofra us so help you god? >> i do.

the president pro tempore: at this time i will administer the oath to all senators in the chamber in conformance with article i, section 3, clause 6 of the constitution, and the senate's impeachment rules. will all senators now stand and raise their right hands? do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of alejandro n. mayorkas, secretary of homeland security, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws, so help you god? senators: i do. the president pro tempore: the clerk will call the names in groups of four, and senators will present themselves at the desk to sign the oath book.

the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn.

the clerk: mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun.

the clerk: mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. the clerk: ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper.

the clerk: mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons.

the clerk: mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer.

the clerk: mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth.

the clerk: mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer.

the clerk: mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty.

the clerk: ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. the clerk: ms. hirono.

mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson.

the clerk: mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king.

the clerk: ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. the clerk: ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall.

the clerk: mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. .

the clerk: mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. the clerk: mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters.

the clerk: mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney.

the clerk: ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders.

the clerk: mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. the clerk: mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen.

ms. sinema. ms. smith. the clerk: ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune.

the clerk: mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance.

the clerk: mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch.

the clerk: mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young.

the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. schumer: any senator who was not in the senate chamber at the time the oath was administered to the other senators will make the fact known to the claire so the oat may be -- to the chair so the oath may be administered as soon as possible to the senator. the presiding officer: the sergeant at arms will make the proclamation. the sergeant at arms: hear ye! hear ye! hear ye! all persons are commanded to keep silent, on pain of imprisonment, while the house of -- while the senate of the united states is convenes as an edu court of impeachment to consider the

articles of impeachment against alejandro nicholas mayorkas, secretary of homeland security. mr. schumer: madam president, in a moment i will ask for unanimous consent to allow for debate time, to allow for republicans to offer and have votes on trial resolutions and allow for republicans to offer and have votes on points of order. so i ask unanimous consent that senator lee be recognized to offer a resolution that is the test of -- text of s. res. 614, the full senate trial, that senator cruz be recognized to offer the text of s. res. 622, the trial committee. that there then be up to 60 minutes of ipodate on the resolutions -- of debate on the resolutions concurrently and equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. following the use or yielding back of that time, the senate vote on or in relation to the resolutions in the order listed with no amendments in order.

further, following the disposition of the trial resolutions, if they are not agreed to, senator schumer or his designee be recognized to make a motion to dismiss the first article, that the motion be subject to only seven points of order, that there be up to 60 minutes for debate cob currently and -- concurrently and equally divided on the motions to dismiss and points of order, and following the use or yielding of that time, the senate vote in relation to the points of order in the order railed -- raised and motion to dismiss. further, if senator schumer or des designee makes a motion to disminimums the second article of impeachment, the motion be subject to one point of order, with 60 minutes for debate, con currently and equally divided on the motion to dismiss and points the order, and that following the use or yielding of that time, the senate vote in relation to the points of order in the order raised and the motion to dismiss. following, further disposition

of article 2, the senate vote on the motion to adjourn the court of impeachment sine die. finally, up to four minutes of debate equally divided between the two leaders or designees, prior to each roll call vote, all without intervening action or debate. is there objection? mr. schmitt: madam president. reserving my right to object. to dismiss articles against secretary mayorkas without a trial, here today or in committee, is unprecedented move by senator schumer. never before in the history of our republic has the senate dismissed or tabled articles of impeachment when the impeached individual was alive and not res resigned. as senator schumer said in 2020, a fair trial has witnesses, relevant documents as part of the record, a fair trial seeks the truth, nothing more, nothing less. i will not assist senator schumer in setting our

constitution ablaze and bulldozing 200 years of precedents. therefore, i object. mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. schumer: madam president, i raise a point of order that impeachment article 1 does not allege conduct that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor as required under article 2, section 4 of the united states constitution and is therefore unconstitutional. the presiding officer: under the press depths and -- precedents and practices of the senate, the chair has no power or authority to pass on such a point of order. the chair therefore under the precedence of the senate submits the question to the senate. is the point of order well taken? the republican leader is recognized. clerk will call the roll. snail the clerk: ms. baldwin.

mr. barrasso. quorum call:

>> host: towards the homeland security secretary, alejandro mayorkas, then senator schumer, majority leader, responding about raising the constitutionality of article i. and you'll remember that article i is the refusal to comply with the law, going further saying that house republicans accuse

secretary alejandro mayorkas of willful and systematic refusal to uphold the nation's immigration laws. now, to get a sense of the senate, that's the vote taking place now. we may expect more of this as the afternoon goes on. those beginning processes already being done by senator patty murray taking the oath of office as presiding officer, the swearing in of senators as judges, the signing of the both book and the proclamation by the sergeant at arms. that's what's happening now as this vote takes place, stay on c-span2 for more coverage.

on few and other republicans as well for the need of a full trial when it comes to the homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas. just remind what article and section three says about the role of the senate in this processing. the senate shall of the full trial and mr. shelby on oath orf affirmation. when the president was tried chief justice show preside. judgment in case of impeachment shall not extend for the removal of process and disqualification to hold manager in the office of honor trust or profit under the united states but the party convicted shall be liable and subject to indictment trial judgment and punishment according to the law. those are the technicality in the constitution. senators debate these articles of impeachment against homeland

security secretary alejandro mayorkas. stay on c-span2, c-span.org and her c-span now out for full coverage

on on a point of order made by senate majority leader chuck schumer that the first article of impeachment against homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas is unconstitutional. he said because it doesn't allege an impeachable offense. here's what that first article of impeachment says. house republicans accuse alejandro mayorkas of will find schismatic refusal to uphold the nation's immigration laws. that's where we are at this time in the impeachment trial of the homeland security secretary. it was majority leader chuck schumer who has laid out a plan

that included some two hours of debate and then a vote on dismissal charges of this impeachment that an objection raised by snort eric schmitt of missouri, the republican saying that he wanted a full trial held when it comes to the homeland security secretary and then senator schumer racing this point of order. that's for we are so far in this impeachment trial. awaiting the results of this vote. live coverage here on c-span2.

quorum call:

>> the senate is officially in a quorum call as senators are regrouping on the floor as

political congressional bureau chief put it on twitter, a lot of confusion both sides of the aisle right now. he noted senator joe manchin called over to the top democratic floor staff are asking for help as they figure out what to do. here's how we got here. it was senator chuck schumer who laid out a plan for how the proceedings would go, , includig two hours of debate and an eventual vote on dismissal, a speedy impeachment trial, as democrats have hoped to end this today. but it was senator eric schmitt a republican of missouri who raise an objection calling for a full impeachment trial of alejandro n. mayorkas, and then it was senator majority leader chuck schumer for raised the point of order to dismiss the articles of impeachment because he said they were

unconstitutional, saying there was no high crime or misdemeanor alleged in the articles that came over from the house, and that led to this current quorum call. let's show you that exchange between senator chuck schumer and senator eric schmitt just a few minutes ago in the senate. >> in the moment i will ask unanimous consent to allow for debate time to allow for republicans to offer and of votes on trial resolutions and allow for republicans to offer and have votes on points of order. so i ask unanimous consent that senator lee be recognized to offer a resolution, the full senate trial. that senator cruze be recognized to offer resolution of text 62 the trial committee. that there then be up to 60 minutes of debate on the resolutions concurrently and

equally divided between the two leaders or the designees. and following the use or yielded back at that time the senate vote on or in relation to the resolutions in order listed with though with the amendments to the resolutions in order. further, the following the disposition of the trial resolution if they are not agree to senator schumer or his designee be recognized to make up motion to dismiss the first article of impeachment, that the motion be subject to only seven points of order, after the up to 60 minutes of debate concurrently and equally divide on the motion to dismiss and the points of order. and at following views or yielding back of that time the senate vote in relation to the point of order in the order raised and the motion to dismiss. further, that senator schumer or designee makes motion to dismiss the second article of impeachment, that the motion be subject to only one point of order that the b of the six minutes for debate concurrently and equally divided on the

motion to dismiss and the points of order it following the use yielding back of that time the senate vote in relation to the points of order in the order raised in the motion to dismiss. following that further disposition of article ii the senate vote on the motion to adjourn the court of impeachment sendai. finally to be at the four-minute for debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to each roll call vote all without anything action or debate. >> user an objection? >> madam president? >> senator senate from zu. >> reserving the right to object. object. to dismiss or table articles of impeachment from secretary my work is without a trial here today or in committee is an unprecedented move by senator schumer. never before in history of our republic has the senate dismissed or table articles of impeachment when impeached individual was alive and had not reside. as senator schumer said in 2020

quote a fair trial as witnesses, fair trial has relevant documents, as part of the record. fair trial seeks the truth, nothing more, nothing less. i will not assist senator schumer in setting our constitution ablaze and bulldozing 200 years of precedent. therefore, i object. >> madam president? >> objection is heard. madam president? i raise a point of order that impeachment article one does not allege conduct that rises to the level of the high crime or misdemeanor as required under article ii, section four of the united states constitution and is therefore unconstitutional. >> under the president's and practices of the said it the chair has no power or authority to pass on such a point of order. order. the chair therefore under the precedents of the senate submits the question to the senate. it is a point of well taken?

the republican leader is recognized. the clerk will call the roll. >> that was a few minutes ago on the floor of the united states senate, now we are in a quorum call waiting for a senator to speak and we'll see what happens together as the impeachment trial of homeland security secretary alejandro n. mayorkas continues this afternoon. you are watching live on c-span2.

the clerk: mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt.

mr. brown. mr. budd. quorum call: >> this quorum call continues. we're waiting for center speaker you are hearing the roll call of the names of the united states senators as they go through this quorum call, even though there's obviously a quorum on the floor due to earlier productions of

impeachment trial. sey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. >> explained we are and why this is a quorum call despite what we heard from senator schumer not too long ago. >> basically to buy time on the senate floor some republican senators can figure out how to respond to this move right here. schumer is raising a point of order that the first article of impeachment is unconstitutional. because it does not allege a high crime or misdemeanor. that's this data set by the constitution. patty murray as you just showed says she doesn't have the power to decide the question. she's going to ask for the senatens to vote on whether the

point of ordern. is valid. if the senate votes to sustain schumer's point of order it to eat it effectively dismisses the first article of impeachment, then schumer will move forward with the point of order similar point of order against the second article of impeachment. if that is sustained by separate vote, both charges will be dismissed and the senate trial will be effectively over. >> this could essentially become and even speedier trial in what senator schumer was offering in that original statement that he made? >> well, what schumer offered which is set aside debate time to give republicans an opportunity to vote on some trial resolutions sponsored by mike lee and ted cruz to basically either hold a full senate trial or to refer the impeachment to the special committee. but as you saw on the floor freshman senator eric schmitt republican of missouri objected to that unanimous to agreement. so because of that there is no structure for the trial and

schumer is moving ahead with a point of order basically to declare the articles of impeachment unconstitutional. what's interesting is schumer is raising a point of order to dismiss the charges. by doing so republicans don't have an opportunity to offer their own points of order. he is preempting them here so they really can't do much in way of protest or to drag the proceedings out if, in fact, this point of order is sustained. >> and our point of orders a simple majority vote in the senate? >> yes. under senate impeachment rules all matters are decided by majority vote except for conviction or acquittal. as you know that requires two-thirds vote of the senate to convict or remove a federal officer from office. >> come back to eric schmitt objection, was at expected, do you know? >> well, you know, they've been trying to work out a deal on debate and vote on trial resolutions since yesterday.

it looks like almost everyone was in board except for schmidt, and schmidt told reporters downstairs shortly before the vote that he would not agree to the uc. at the time he objected it wasn't a surprise that there was something that was revealed by schmitt only a short time before he objected. >> as you know the cameras controlled by the senate and we have a high shot of the dice here. did you get a sense of what the reaction was to the objection and chuck schumer's response and offering this motion and response to that objection? >> well, i mean, from my colleague who is in the chamber he sent me some color and said after that happened senators immediately started to huddle and figure out next steps. there was a huddle on the floor between senate republican whip john thune, ted cruz, mike lee, john kennedy and mcconnell's chief of staff, john cornyn who

was hoping to become the next republican majority leader. he was part of those conversations. so there was, there were certainly some frenzied huddling on the floor, you know, and so in the meantime jon tester who is a critical vote here over and snuck a bag of peanut butter m&ms out of cory booker subtest. at some of the floor activity. the outcome is a foregone conclusion. huckabee senate trial so i think senators are waiting for this be over with. >> hill.com as we can go to read his reporting and out of his colleague. always great comfort in the hill. thanks for filling us in, alex bolton. >> thanks for having me on. mr. wicker. mr. wyden.

..

i got from with the to proceed to close session to allow for deliberation on the question as required by impeachment rule 24. >> madam president? >> majority leader in a previous consent request we get your site a chance for debate in public the way it should be, and your side objected. we're moving forward.

>> the question is on the motion to ask for the yeas and nays. >> is a sufficient second? there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll.

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] >> the senate croley l doug lute on senator ted cruz his motion to proceed to a close session to consider senate majority leader chuck schumer's impeachment articles are unconstitutional, deciding whether to go to close session and then after that we

expect senate majority leader chuck schumer's to continue with his push to make this a speedy trial. we are here on c-span2 watching [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call]

>> the motion is not agree to. the pending order is the motion made by the majority leader on the point of order. >> madam president? >> the senator from louisiana. >> madam president, i have a motion. i think my motion takes

precedent. having heard senator schumer serious allegations which in my judgment are specious about the constitutionality of these impeachment proceedings, we find ourselves in the awkward position because we're in impeachment proceedings and being able, unable to discuss in public the merits of senator schumer claim, and at the same time my democratic friends have refused to go into closed session so we can't discuss it. for that reason, madam, madam president, i move we adjourn this court of impeachment immediately until 12:00 noon on tuesday april 30, and ask for the yeas and nays. >> is a sufficient second? there is a sufficient second.

the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call]

>> waiting for the final vote count, the republican of indiana to adjourn the impeachment trial for news two weeks until april 30 at noon and effort to possibly prolong these . a motion by senator ted cruz of texas republican to proceed to a closed session, debate option today was defeated just a few minutes ago. 51-49 51-49 along party lin. we are waiting for the vote count here on this latest motion by senator john kennedy. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]