[inaudible conversations]

on this vote the gays are 49, the nazar 51. the motion the motion is not agree to. the republican leader is recognized. >> the senate just sworn oath to do impartial justice.

according to the constitution and the laws of our country. ..

[roll call] [roll call]

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

to table the order and the point of order with the article one of the impeachment article against alejandro mayorkas was unconstitutional because no high crimes or misdemeanors were

alleged. that is about the democrats are coming to this is the third motion by senate republicans to try to delay that low or a closed session or delay the trial and more debate senators cannot debate as they sitting court impeachment. here we are watching the various most injured between that even offer by the party line vote or waiting results of the latest vote again on senate minority leader mitch mcconnell to table senator chuck schumer's point order when it comes to the articles of impeachment. live coverage on c-span2.

>> the gays are 49 the names are 51 the table is not agreed to the motion before the senate is a point of order the question on the point of order is taken. is there 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]

>> the latest vote on the original port of order, article one of the impeachment article against alejandro mayorkas is unconstitutional say no high crime or misdemeanor were alleged in the article reminder article about alejandro mayorkas saying he refused to comply with the laws willfully and systemically not upholding the nation's immigration laws that's what's being voted on now. if that is sustainable effectively dismiss article one of the impeachment of alejandro mayorkas it's a two-part impeachment of the previous books that have been held to try to delay this trial or defeat chuck schumer's point of order and of all been defeated on partyline votes. we'll see what happens with the

vote counts in case you missed live coverage here on c-span2

>> the yahs 61 and the trendier for 38. one saturday responded present the point of order is present in the article falls. >> the majority leader is recognize. >> i raise the point of order that impeachment article two is not alleged conduct that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor as required under article two section 4 of the united states constitution and therefore unconstitutional. >> madam president. >> under the president and practice of the senate the chair

has no power or authority to pass on point of order the chair under the president of the senate submits the question to the senate is the point of order well taken senator from utah is recognized. >> as long as the majority leader was moments ago making this particular point of order of the impeachment article article one refers to the willful defiance by secretary mayorkas of the law and making that to article one and the reasons articulated by the senate entrance editors. he is far wrong with respect to article two article two accuses him of making false statements this is a violation of section 1001. a felony offense. if this is not a high crime and misdemeanor what is. if this is not teachable what

is. what precedents will be -- we need to address this and discuss it. >> in closed session. i move that the senate proceed closed session to allow for deliberation on the very consequential point of order that he just made which violates under them years of american legal precedent and understanding. >> and we enter into motion. >> rule 24. >> the question is on the motion is there a sufficient second? there is, the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

[roll call]

[roll call]

[roll call]

>> senators voting whether to proceed to close session so they would be able to debate whether article two of the impeachment article against alejandro mayorkas rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. if you been watching along with us with a similar vote to the motion that was raised when senator ted cruz stood up regarding article one and chuck schumer's efforts to move the article one did not rise to the level of high crime and misdemeanor. these motions continue by republicans as they've now moved to the second article of impeachment. that article a breach of trust that secretary mayorkas told congress that the us-mexico border was secure and made a

record in migrants, this is article being discussed right now and voted on right now and we will see what happens as we walked along. live coverage here on c-span2. >> on this vote the yays 59, the nays are 51, attending business the majority leader. >> madam president. >> senator from florida. >> as yours we've not had the time to review whether this point of order is contrary to the constitution therefore i moved to adjourn the court of impeachment until 12:00 p.m. noon on tuesday april 30 as for the nays and yays. >> is there a sufficient second.

>> there is a sufficient second, the clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote]

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

[roll call vote]

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

[roll call vote] >> so far when it comes articles against alejandro mayorkas, repeat of the back-and-forth of what happened with article one

republicans trying to call for a closed session to debate the articles and then delay the impeachment trial by about two weeks, those two efforts defeated when it came to article one of the first ever defeated so far when it comes to article two and were waiting to result of the second vote a reminder after article and after the delay of two weeks was defeated on the first article it was mitch mcconnell who stood up and made the motion to table senator schumer's point of order of the constitutionality of article one. we'll see if he does the same when it comes to article two. live coverage of the impeachment proceedings against alejandro

>> on this vote the yays 49. nays are 51. the president will state his -- >> i appreciate my friend from new york is eager to get this done with but are we about to set a precedent that the obligation of a felony is not a high crime and misdemeanor.

>> that is not appropriate for an inquiry. >> madam president i understand there's other ways for the majority to move this off the floor of the senate but i would urge my colleagues. >> this is senator have a motion. >> the question by the majority leader. >> the senator from louisiana. >> i have a motion and it takes precedent. i appreciate the majority leader's allegation, lying to the united states congress is not a high crime and misdemeanor, you do not have to be mensa material to know that a high crime and misdemeanor is a felony. >> will this editor please state is motion. >> i will. >> sense we are not allowed to talk among ourselves about the

absurdity of this in my democratic colleagues will not allowed us to go into closed session to talk about this. >> i move that we adjourn until 12:00 o'clock noon on may the first 2004 and i asked for the nays and yays'. is there a sufficient second? >> will the senator modify his motion. >> i asked the senator to modify his motion. >> in 2004 will probably be preferable but i will accept the friendly amendment that would make it 2024. >> the question is on the motion is there sufficient second?

there is a sufficient second, the clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote] [roll call vote]

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

[roll call vote]

[roll call vote]

>> on this vote the yays are 49 and the nays are 50 when the motion is not agreed to, depending motion is the point of order by the senate majority leader. >> madam president. >> senator from kansas is recognized. >> madam president i have a motion and it takes precedence. before this body disrespects the constitution any further, before we endanger our republic

anymore, before we harm the reputation of this body anymore, i moved to adjourn until 7:00 a.m. on november 6, 2024 so the american people can at least have about on this impeachment trial. >> the question is on the motion, is there a sufficient second. is there a sufficient second the clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote]

[roll call vote]

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

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

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

[roll call vote] vote on the motion by republican senator roger marshall. >> the nays are 51 pending by

the majority leader. >> madam president. >> senator from alaska. territory several parliamentary and inquiry. >> madam president has there been a successfully invoked point of order to dispose of an article of impeachment prior to opening arguments by the house managers. >> the chair is not aware of any such thing. >> thank you, madam president. >> pending business is the point of order by the majority leader. >> the yays and nays. >> madam president. >> a parliamentary inquiry. >> madam president.

>> the senator from louisiana will use state. >> i cannot hear you. >> the senator from louisiana is recognized. >> thank you, madam president, i had a motion and it takes precedent. >> state your motion please. >> before we establish a precedent that aligned to the united states congress is not a felony. >> the senator from louisiana will stay is motion. >> before we add a new chapter to the movie pulp fiction, i move that we go into executive session to at least allow west to talk about the breath taking precedent were about to establish here.

>> i asked for the nays and yays. >> the question is on the motion to proceed to executive session. the nays and yays have been requested. is there physician second. >> there is a physician second. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote]

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

[roll call vote] [roll call vote]

[roll call vote]

will. this is republican motion that has been offered the previous senate and arthur engoron in the third motion by senator john kennedy of louisiana to delay or postpone this impeachment trial this one would look to postpone the trial by going into executive session that was the latest offer by republicans live coverage of the impeachment trial alejandro mayorkas on

we have a responsibility to hear these articles and therefore the table. >> is there a sufficient second? oracle, role. [roll call vote] [roll call vote]

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

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

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

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

[roll call vote] [roll call vote] >> the night off work by senate republicans. his order earlier that article to from the articles of impeachment against alejandro mayorkas is unconstitutional because they don't rise to the levels of pipe crimes and misdemeanors, a reminder earlier

this afternoon first articles of impeachment was ruled unconstitutional by the same process by senate majority leader chuck work on the vote of 51, democrats and independents caucus democrat 48 republicans voting no. one republican voting, lisa murkowski of alaska. >> the motion is not agreed to. -- offered by the senate majority leader. >> the parliamentary court. >> i inquired whether the actions today on impeachment solid apply to all actions in the senate.

>> would imply impeachment hearing. >> the question on the order what is there a sufficient second? the clerk will call the world. [roll call vote] [roll call vote]

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

[roll call vote] all. [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote]

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

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

the article unconstitutional by the senate already deemed unconstitutional on an earlier vote. live coverage here on the schedule.

fungus vote for geiser 51, no denied. article two. >> bottom president. i moved to turn the impeachment trial of alejandro mayorkas and i asked for the yeas and nays remark is there a sufficient second? the clerk will call the rope. [roll call vote]

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

[roll call vote] training. [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote]

el. [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] the. [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote]

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

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

[roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] >> awaiting final votes to end the treatment trial of home and security alejandro mayorkas.

the t articles filed sent over from the housework concluded, the level of impeachment direct cross addition bus final vote on ending trial. live coverage on c-span2.

on the boat, 51 -- 49. the motion is agreed to.

the senate stand adjourned. >> the information of members, there are no further votes today are mind all members we have serious business ahead of us in the next two days informed as things are scheduled. >> republican leader is recognized. >> the senate will be in take your conversations -- >> we set an important presidency or. it seems that the senate can ignore that causes judgment. it doesn't make any difference for our friends on the other side thought that he should be impeached or not by doing what we just, we have, in effect the

direction of the house which are going to have a trial. no evidence of note procedure modified based history of the senate. [applause] >> senator from utah. >> unanimous to enter into with mike public and garlic. >> up objection, so ordered. >> we do not have order in the senate on ask all senators to take their conversations to the program. let's have order, please. senator from utah. >> thank you madam president. but we have witnessed today is

truly historic. nothing like this has ever occurred. under article one section three across six, we been given the duty, sole exclusive power to try all impeachment. try all impeachment. not those which we happen to agree, not just those that are happy house of representatives undertook but all. work try it is also significant. it reverses the work trial. it is a proceeding in which laws and facts presented. in order to reach this position criminal proceeding would be an ultimate disposition culminating a verdict of guilty or not guilty. we work precluded from doing

that today and from doing so in a way that's not only a historic and unprecedented counter constitutional. nothing could be further from the text and history so let's look at the arguments we could have hurt and should have heard today had things as they were supposed to. i think unfolding in the senate versus when we were sworn in, we are all required to take the same most but also the oath we took just a few hours ago in this very chamber. what would we have hurt? first, regardless of what you think about what i trial of or how people might define the term, a trial will always at minimum, involve lawyers must

the person that you will always have lawyers there. at least one cycle always be represented by lawyers and and 99% of the cases, sites will. we do here from committee of individuals for the house impeachment managers or prosecutors. what else would you expect? evidence broughton sometimes it pulse bringing in evidence and documentary form and other times you might have witnesses. we didn't have any witnesses or documentary evidence other than what was charged. let's talk about what evidence should have, what happened could have heard today. the accusation is it a trial two categories. category one alleges secretary

mayorkas repeatedly and defiantly did the exact opposite of what federal law requires namely underarm area circumstances, eight or nine different positions, he was required detain people whom he did not detain is not just what he required, he did the exact opposite. instead of as they could be moved or adjudicated whether under the conduct of work? , she just released it in many cases, a work permit. about the fact that tooth i secretary mayorkas within the department of homeland security didn't just tolerate, they

instructed this result. we would of heard evidence of the outside of the biden administration. secretary mayorkas probably caravan thousands of dollars they had. international drug cartels. the set of calling them don't do it, he said maybe don't do it yet. intention to facilitate violation of federal law of heard evidence about department. he would have heard evidence for how contrary in his own duty. as for article one from the

senate chose to dispose of the static by doing something that never has context anyone close to this.

to this case. we work denied that opportunity so while we explore what we would have heard, what would have happened in a real trial at they made it an actual motion that had been to our job. first, this is absurd to argue a willful to obey the law is a sworn solemn obligation and is somehow not impeachable. we don't have to look too far to find report.

the conclusion that this is a legitimate, unwarranted unsubstantiated claim, one directly contrary to law. we don't want to look further than president biden's own lawyer. solicitor general of the united states and special position performs functions many stately associate with attorney general mark united states government chief appellate advocate advocate before all proceedings the u.s. green court. in exchange in a case argued last term in the supreme court of united states and united states versus texas. in that case, the supreme court heard arguments about whether or not this administration's approach toward the same provisions of law is acceptable whether or not they could

challenge them. the supreme court reached a conclusion of which i strongly disagree supreme court concluded effects the standing federal policy along for we are discussing today, conduct that substantial harm. the important part we should have been able to argue today is the exchange that occurred between justice capital and elizabeth, solicitor general of the united states in her capacity in the biden administration appellate advocate before the united states supreme court. justice capital asked for a number of questions. the argument transmits some of the argument.

if a new administration comes in, we are not going to enforce environmental law labor laws. a blanket, just not enforce those laws, correct but that is direct but the framers intended political check. if an administration did something that extreme we're not going to enforce the law, being held to account by voters in congress has an addict disposal as well so the argument continues on to the next page in which justice capital says they are the exact make sure the laws are enforced and she says i

think congress has the power of the% explains how it's relevant and goes on until page 53 and page 53 justice capital faxon it's as set of traditional review, congress has to resort down to shutting down dramatic steps of something sort or another. respond by saying dramatic steps wanted if it were in the face of statutory response ability so she just acknowledged what is happening in acknowledged that is the moment in which the impeachment trial becomes relevant. this was settled not just in 17891 adopting the constitution

and when the framers used the language, members were not operating in a vacuum, they were cooperating terminology can use for centuries. a story on the constitution discusses this kind of thing that explains 7098 written not so long after that we got this from england the british knew what impeachment meant and understood what would constitute a high crime or misdemeanor. section 98, it acknowledges there was an understanding that recognized you don't have an impeachable offense lord admiral

neglected the safeguard. they don't have : security, not in america but this is the exact same thing, somebody who had a certain think hard about law refused to do so. those are arguments we should have and could have and would have had we been permitted or even a closed session. we don't want to have to do it in closed session, the rules of impeachment with this kind debate. when jordi tumor made this, he wouldn't let us do that that's article one. article two box ozark interesting.

statements, knowingly false statements repeatedly made by alejandro mayorkas presence performing, he lied to congress of the articles of impeachment and article two. she did wrong as to article one but he was dead wrong, it was deader than a doornail whatever that means. the alleged and article two secretary mayorkas knowingly made false statements. it is punishable as a crime, a federal offense among other things. it is prosecuted and has lots of conviction and go to prison for

very long time. for chuck schumer to argue -- [inaudible] >> i asked if you would yield to the question. senator schumer argued today flying to the united states congress was not high crime or misdemeanor and therefore could not be the basis for article of impeachment. did i say that correctly? >> that's exactly what he said, exactly when he made this motion is that are impeachment article, alleged conduct to level of high

crime or estimator. >> so even though flying to the united states congress is a felony front of the president majority leader and democrat colleagues established, it's not a misdemeanor, is that what team? that's what the president established that effectively. the democrat forced to document allowing the, we go into closed session because it is arguably from impeachment making a false statement to come. >> me i asked one more?

i'm trying to follow the senate majorities eyes. what you have to do to get impeached? a felony not sufficient. >> what they deem is information from i suppose that -- >> as i understand, you are legal, it takes minimal felony. i don't understand any of this, i am very worried about the president are democrat colleagues in their haste under the rug.

>> yield for the question. >> the law says lying to congress is a felony as we are no longer using impeachment as a means to address someone lying to congress, how does congress prosecute for address someone who deliberately lied to congress now that the senate has swept this presidential action today the opportunity patient for that purpose? >> what we have done this effectively immunized impeached ability. going back to your original question mark maybe aggravated

first-degree murder, maybe that is a high crime or misdemeanor but in mind, the fact that they set aside article one four impeached ability, it is important nobody is standing to address that, what are we left with? this is a phenomenally dangerous precedent here with regard statements. what does that do to our oversight? like routinely under oath by cabinet secretaries and other administration officials. what does that?

what does that create? >> are you aware of the fact that president clinton was impeached? one of the charges against him was lying under oath. >> could be impeached but currently you can't for lying to congress about how to do your job the benefit of the doubt, he saying it does not rise to demeanor we don't -- it's a policy disagreement, a policy disagreement of the house tried to turn it into appeasement. are you aware of the fact that days ago secretary mayorkas was

asked about the parole of the man alleged to kill laken riley how high this is plural's. >> under 125, there's to ways it could be branded. humanitarian circumstances. need to get into the country a temporary basis for benefit the united states that means you are a witness in the cartel trial. those are the only two reasons. two days ago he did not know when oral the same time that i didn't know, it says the end of

the fall didn't have the dates for it. senator schumer, secretary of home and security cannot just that a condition the statue. they ran out of space because more illegal immigrants in the handle and the rest is history. it seems to be something we

should argue whether or not to lose your job because you got statutory requirement limiting your authority to parole people and in your own file exhibit a it was full. this happened two days ago. are you telling me an individual analysis on all the people? in february 2023, i asked him from acute do a case by case analysis so you're telling me to 40000 determine they meet the humanitarian need.

this was under oath when i question, i don't believe your. i don't believe in individual analysis on this. it turns out he gave money to congress whether he lied or doesn't know what he's doing, i don't know. 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 you're talking about is the one charged with murdering his young lady going on a job. find out how that happened somebody should be held responsible. how there during his job not

important to the american people. there carried out for illegal, the man charged would be legally released into this country by dhs. let's. it's been swept under the rug. in november, it's the only chance you have to get to the american people. we have a chance today. somebody more? before somebody is held

accountable? we had a chance and they are more concerned is a sad day. >> an entire marsupial -- make of this, every person who voted, it was 150,000 families of a member lost to fentanyl.

if you like the senate was good and we lost part of our hours. the checks and balances and learned of the legislative branches in the impeachment process. whether the entire senate a power impeachment going forward, m i wrote? >> i'm sorry to say in the 237 years of our nation's history, i don't that there is a more

shameful day in the united states senate and today. we just witnessed a tragedy, a travesty united states constitution travesty to the american people. it's important to understand why the democrats did what they did. we are here on the senate for but i'm going to do -- that would be zero other than the presiding officer. not a single democrat senate can come to this court and listen to one word of evidence when it comes to the constitution. federal law during the statute

deliberately over and over again and it's hunky-dory for that. ignore the law they can ignore the law, it's no longer impeachable. democrat wonderland every democrat voted that way in the majority leader stand up and say this is the reason. they didn't care enough about the biden department of justice went in front of the supreme

court and said the answer is impeachment. lately hypocritical in the biden justice department says no, you can't import when we the biden administration provided below, the answer is impeachment. the answer is not impeachment, i don't what it is. i do know what it is, there's only one answer left which is everyone unhappy shows up in november, if you're not willing to do your job is are not one senator who cares enough?

it's not teachable. bill clinton was for lying under oath. he was ultimately acquitted but after a full trial where they have the other evidence. the impeachment manager who presented the evidence right here on the floor. walter nixon was a federal judge convicted of perjury and process impeached and went to the senate and they removed him from the bench. you commit a crime lying under oath, it is a high crime or misdemeanor impeachable no more. understand the democrats will

hear. none of them care, they have. and forth think did, they don't care because not about the constitution, it's not about the law. it's about political expedience. what they did to the american people. last year 853 migrant got cross dealing with the end of this country, that's almost three effect. you cut out to texas, but democrat don't bother because i don't care about the people dying. ...

next week more migrants are going to die and we brought 19 centers down to the border. we went out to the rio grande and saw dead people in the water. senator kennedy was there senator reed was there but 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 has been abused by traffickers and you see it, you see the pain and you see the agony of children trapped in sex trafficking, the democrats just said they don't care. they will hear the evidence and they don't care that it will happen next week, that will happen tomorrow. tomorrow they will be children brutalized because of the democrats open border policy and not a one of them cares. they don't care about the women who are purportedly sexually assaulted. again when you look in the eyes of these women coming over, it's heartbreaking. and the democrats just said we don't care. and they don't care about the more than 100,000 americans that died last year from drug

overdoses. the highest in our nations history. 70% of that is from chinese fentanyl coming across our southern border and the democrats said we don't want to hear about it. we are not interested in the americans dying and you know what else they don't care about quick sale care about the criminals that are being released day after day after day. the bike administration is releasing murderers and rapist and chat musters in every week we see another story of somebody being killed and somebody being raped and another child being assaulted by illegal immigrants released by alejandro mayorkas and joe biden. how shocking is it there wasn't one democrat who says you know massive human suffering matters. we ought to hear the evidence. how shocking is it that it wasn't one democrat, one, the 51

of them on that side and not a single one could stir up the courage to say let's do our job. how shocking is it that not a democrat cares about the terrorists who are streaming across our southern border. the nation of iran has called for jihad against america. abbas has called for jihad against america, hezbollah has called for jihad against american joe biden in the democrats have put out a red carpet and said if you murder americans come across our southern border and we will put out the welcome. like many of us on this for i was in washington to d.c. on december of 2001. i remember the. i lost a good friend barbara olson in the plane that crashed into the pentagon. i remember the smell of smoke and sulfur in burning.

i remember the agony and i remember the national human -- they came after 9/11 as democrats or republicans came together. i don't know if i've ever been more proud of the present than when president george w. bush stood in a pile of rubble with a bullhorn, talking to firefighters and new yorkers and called up and said we can't hear you and he responded well i can hear you and soon the whole world is going to hear you as well. we were as one. today that a single democrat was able to mount the courage to tell the majority leader you know what, i don't want another 9/11 to happen. the house releasing terrace after terrace after terrace. we ought to hear the evidence. i believe today we have a greater risk than the terrorist attack on u.s. soil than at any point since september 11.

every democrats just told the american people it doesn't matter to them to hear the evidence. i appreciate my republican colleagues who are willing to hear the evidence, willing to engage, willing to stand up and defend the american people. but do you know what the democrats who aren't here, they aren't here because do you know who's also not here? if you look up at the gallery reporters are all gone. a couple folks in the back. but the reporters are absent. that's the democrats plan. what is fascinating we are presenting arguments and many of us particularly those those of us in the judiciary but many of us have presented those arguments over and over again at hearings.

not a democrat argues on the other side. the issue unlike any other issue i know of in politics listen as republicans we say we should cut taxes it's good for the american people and do you know what democrats do? they say taxes are -- okay finally have a debate. were talking about almost every issue that democrats will argue on the other side what is fascinating where's big german chairman of the judiciary committee standing up and saying no, no it's not right? that migrants are dying every day no it's not right that children are being assaulted every every day that's not right that women are being sexually assaulted every day and it's not right that they are releasing terrorists. not a democrat is there. why? because you cannot defend them. south texas for 100 plus years has been a democratic region of our state. it is turning red with the speed of the freight locomotive.

because nobody can see the suffering that is unfolding and defend it as a democrat by their silence and by the complicity of the press corps. they are counting on the press corps to write stories. they prefer the democrats. they got rid of the impeachment trial. that's the headline. understand they don't have a substantive defense. none of them disputed a word we are saying. not a single democrat has stood up and said you know, it's wrong that lincoln riley would still be along if joe biden hadn't let her murderer go. they know it's right. the reason they didn't want a trial is they don't want the american people to hear about it. and it's our obligation to make sure the american people know. >> the former governor of

nebraska at that to get your perspective. >> thank you very much and i appreciate my colleague for organizing this. my, my, my, what has our majority leader and the democrats in the senate brought? they have overturned 227 years of precedent. 21 previous impeachments, all scheduled for trial, 17 trials and the ones they denied because first it was dfp was either expelled or -- prior to trial. my colleague from texas point about the media being complicit, what are the headlines in politico that i was told about says the trial lasted only three hours. there was no trial. there was no trial. the majority leader decided that

he can determine who is unconstitutional in get every single one of his democrats on a partisan line. the senate was unconstitutional. it does rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. let me briefly examine this. article one cent sent over to us by the house willful and systematic systematic refusal to comply with the law. that's article i. let me tell you about complying with the law. prior administration the trump administration have brought illegal crossings down to a 45 year low. what we have seen since then is an explosion of illegal crossings. over 1.7 in the first year the buy in nearly 2.4 in the second and nearly 2.5 for the third and now if you count of the people who are trying to cross the

border including the awaits its 9.4 million people larger than the population of new york city. 300000 inches december alone. that is larger than our capital city nebraska, lincoln. the evidence is right there that we are not doing a good job at the southern border. why would that be? well, because alejandro mayorkas is complicit in not following the law. in a memorandum immigration and customs enforcement officials in 2021, he said and then i'm going to "back here, the affected individual is a removal noncitizen he doesn't even say illegal alien which is what it says in the law, he says the fact that an individual's removal therefore should not alone be the basis for enforcement or action against them. basically saying just because

you broke the law doesn't mean we have to enforce the law. that right there should tell you he is willfully disregarding the law. absolutely. how about the case of parole? the losses it's only supposed be used on a case-by-case basis in situations where the person has an extreme humanitarian need. under the obama and the trump administration it was used an average of 156 times between the obama and trump the obama intrepid administrations on's on an annual basis. last year alone mayorkas used -- 1.2 million for whole classes of people. it's clearly against the law. folks when you see instances where the secretary of homeland security is not following the law, doesn't that raise the question?

should we have a trial and should we examined whether or not he should be convicted of this and yet as my colleagues have pointed out not a single democrat, partisan line said no, that's not willful disregard of the law. article ii, article ii and it just going to read the title of it, sent over says breach of public trust. breach of public trust. well what does that mean? how about misleading congress? would that be a breach of public trust? on april 28, 2022 repeatedly in front of the house judiciary committee said that dhs the operation is controlled as of as porter including statutory definition. but i just told you how the number of people crossing the border had exploded. my colleagues did a great job of

talking about the human suffering that was created. if we had been allowed to have a trial we would have heard reports from border patrol agents who would have testified personally that the border was not secure. i have been down to the border as well for times. i have seen the people coming across. that border is not secure. the last trip down there there was a couple from the russian 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 has changed between 2019 and 2020 and today. well a course we know what changed for chuck schumer. because he was desperate to hold onto the majority of this house and he did not want some of the senators who are highly

contested and their races to have to take a vote on the mayorkas impeachment. why is that madam president? it is because the number one issue with the american people is that open southern border and who is it that has regularly to this chamber, to the house and to the american people about what's going on at the southern border? it is secretary alejandro mayorkas. repeatedly, repeatedly stood before the american people, stood before us in hearings and committees and said the border is secure. anyone who was watching, anyone who has ever been to that border knows the border is not secure.

they know that on the side of that border it is being run by the cartel. you can spend an hour with the border patrol and you will find out. last year there were people from 170 different countries that came to that southern border seeking entry and not one of them got here on their own. they paid the cartel and the cartel bring them over. the cartel are making a fortune. we are paying the price. and we are paying this price because of the dereliction of duty carried out by secretary mayorkas. in the way he's not standing up for the border patrol and not standing up for the american people. that is an issue and yes a

responsibility, did we have 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 coming across that border and moving into communities across this state, this country. every state, border state and every town of border town, every single family affected are worried about the consequences of the border. thousands of americans dead from fentanyl poisoning. other americans that have become angel parents because their children, their spouses have been killed in auto accidents by criminals, illegal aliens.

what they have done to this country by opening that border and you know the thing about this? it is really intentional. this is their border policy. they intend to do this. so looking at the drugs, looking at the crime and the gangs and then of course looking at the human trafficking. on mallorca' watch a madam president this is something that is so important for the american people. in tennessee we have several groups that work on human trafficking and seek to rescue women and girls and children that are being trafficked, trafficked. the exploitation of these children and we know that it's driven by the cartel. the cartel's have turned human

trafficking in this country from a 500 million-dollar a year industry over the last 3.5 years it's become a 13 billion-dollar with the p. people are being trafficked and children are being used as aids for these traffickers. they are being recycled. these precious children have the contact name and phone number in indelible inc. written on their backs, written on their arms because the cartel uses these children to get cartel members across the border and families and then once that cartel members in the u.s. they turn that child over and then the child gets sent back.

that is disgusting. but because of biden and mayorkas in the open border that is what is happening. even worse we have an issue that secretary mayorkas knew nothing about. it was the loss law of 85,000 migrant children. now we have got 400,000 migrant children turn it over to the federal government under secretary mayorkas. out of this, 85,000 of those children cannot be accounted for. we have asked secretary becerra and the vast secretary mayorkas, where these children? they do not know. they do not know if the 85,000 children are dead or alive. they do not know if they have been attached to drug mules are

drug traffickers or if they have been putting to gangs labor groups. 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. after we found out. by the way that was from a "new york times" reporter. the situation at the southern border is a humanitarian crisis. the trafficking of human beings is a crisis. using human beings as chattel, that is a crisis, putting people into indentured servitude and, that is a crisis and who has about this repeatedly? to the senate, to the house secretary alejandro mayorkas

into voted for a yet? every democrat on that side of the aisle. they refused to let the crowd 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 to make certain that the american people know what has happened today. >> thank you senator blackburn. another great mind from the senate is their friend and colleague the jr. senator from florida. before he became a senator from

florida senator scott was previously governor scott. the governor of one of the most heavily populated states in america and prior to that he was famous in the business world. personally and playing hundreds of thousands of people per the department of homeland security is an enormous organization. nobody understands how best to run an enormous organization and to do so with the exceptional skill better than senator scott and nobody understands better than him how the buck stops with the person running that organization. we'd love to hear from him now. >> i want to thank my colleague from utah for his commitment to the rule of law and his commitment to the constitution and all of his efforts and every

day he's here to make sure the senate follows the constitution. it doesn't set precedence that doesn't make any sense in today's that day but i want to thank my colleague from wisconsin for being such a voice on making sure the public knows what's going on here. the information he puts out and the targets he uses information he has gives everybody an idea what's actually going on. democrats had a banner day. democrats in the senate today said impeachment of representatives don't matter anymore. according to the what democrats did say we don't need to hold impeachment trials in the senate ever to hold the precedence. it's not what the constitution envisioned. it doesn't matter for example your cabinet secretary and your

agency to ignore the law of the united states. it doesn't matter if i ignore the laws of the united states of america. it doesn't matter ignoring the laws of the state to deadly fentanyl poisoning to art committees and their children and our grandchildren. doesn't matter if laws of law -- ignore selected states. my plans with known gang affiliation stream the entire country. to such an extent they fbi director testified sitting right next to secretary mayorkas before congress this is the most dangerous time in america since 9/11. stop and think about your family for a second. think about your mom or your dad your spouse your brother or your sister or child or grandchild

niece or nephew just think of one of them. pick one of them. future simina about them and use think wonderful things about them. for thousands of american families that person that you are thinking about today is dead. let me state again. the thousands of american families the person you're thinking about today is dead. taken too soon by the deadly fentanyl crisis that ravaged our nation because of the wide open southern border. every one of us knows some family that's been ripped apart by the deadly fentanyl crisis. everybody knows one. some of us have been -- fentanyl of killing 70,000 people a year. out of the 70,000 families that are part was because of an open southern border. it's happening in part because it instead a wedding or bury

border patrol doing their jobs and stopping deadly drug secretary mayorkas intensely seizing them to let more people it illegally cross the border and come to our country and get all sorts of services but they get phones and they get lawyers hotel rooms all paid for by your taxpayer dollar. every victim for his agency has a name. if think about that family member. i've heard a lot of heartbreaking stories from people in my home state. families that felt the impact of this border crisis every single day criminals terrorists human traffickers picked a poor cross biden's open border. there are 1145 children between 14 and 19 years old who died from fentanyl and 2021.

that's every week but in 2022 i heard from a mom in kissimmee where her son was in the air force had a bright future in the air force, he came to so price her on mother's day weekend. he visited an old friend who didn't know. the friend convinces the young man's take a xanax which was unknowingly laced with fentanyl and the mom found him dead. he came home to surprise her for her birthday. put yourself in the position about mom. what is she thinking about today? what was she thinking about when she watches the senate and every democrat said the guy that made the decision to open the southern border will not be held accountable.

26-year-old ashley dunn is another american who was lost to fentanyl poisoning. the mother said her daughter did not overdose but was poisoned by 1/2 of one tablet that was counterfeit. her daughter was murdered or products made in according to her mom for that were welcomed to this country than the mayorkas administration. democrats make certain that secretary mayorkas will never have to answer to that. he'll never have to answer for ashley's death. he'll never have to answer for any other death but you know what people know. they will never ever get away with this. america's the morgue dangerous place because mayorkas let

criminals drugs terrorists and other dangerous people into our communities all over the country. americans with families are being killed. american families are being torn apart by crimes and deadly drugs because we have a wide open southern border. we have i.d.s everywhere because they don't want the people to meet them on the other 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 be impeached. now he'll forever be known for being acquitted of that charge. he will never get the chance to be acquitted because of what the senate democrats did today. a question for my senate

colleagues, would you silence mayorkas today because democrats are terrified of this or did an unable to defend him? or because you don't trust tim? whatever the answer is the thing that every american needs to understand is this democrats put politics over the safety of american families and the security of our great nation today. i fear the consequences of that unprecedented failure will be devastating beyond her fears but i think it will take decades to rid the criminals from this country and in the meantime how many people like ashley are going to lose their lives? how many people are going to be and how many people we have be put into? i hope it doesn't happen to your family. thank you. and the comments made by so many

colleagues today in this colloquy and from the insight that they have shared each comes from a different state bringing a different set of perspectives to the table, different set of political and professional perspectives that help them shed light on this important issue and provide insights and warnings about the grave implications that we so cavalierly overlooked today. we meaning the senate as a whole. with 49 of us standing in the way and raising a word of warning about what we are doing and what implications that might have on the future. the warning signs are

everywhere. tragically we have seen just in the last few days the news breaking in the recent hours that the consequences of our open border policy can touch all of us in one of their dear respected colleagues up all of the staff member within the last few days. we lost that staff members a consequence of the actions taken by an immigrant in this country who is here a lot -- unlawfully they should have been here. it's a troubling thing but at a human level that has so many ramifications. there are so many thousands of families hundreds of thousands and in fact millions and depending on how you slice it

hundreds of millions of americans who have been impacted in real meaningful ways by the open borders policy that has been so prominently featured by these articles of impeachment. over three decades ago i two years along the u.s.-mexico border in the mcallen texas region. it's a missionary where one lives and works among people of all backgrounds who spend a lot of time with people of modest means and in my case i spend most of my time with people of such humble means and humble

means that i've never quite witnessing united states and conditions i didn't know existed on a widespread basis in the united states. including some people with dirt floors and no indoor plumbing budding countless cases some a little bit more rare that they exist or least they existed in the early 1990s. even though those were more rare those extreme cases almost all the people i interacted with on a database -- day-to-day basis were people of humble means living paycheck to paycheck just trying to get by in many of these people were recent immigrants. some i suspect were here illegally and others i suspect were here illegally. it wasn't standard practice at the time were missionaries talking to people to find out their immigration status or if

they were there for a different reason. you get to know people and people and he people and you get to know their background. you get background. you get to know their concerns. one of the things that stands out in my memory of those two years that i interacted as i interacted with these people and learned their customs and their language most of them didn't speak english but some of them didn't speak english themselves and lived in the united states most or all of their lives and some in the older generation whose families had been in texas were very long time for generations. some of those older generations of people raised speaking largely not exclusively spanish. regardless of their migration background or where there had family had been in texas for generations or for days or weeks and whether they came legally or illegally something i learned about them and no one fears

uncontrolled waves of illegal immigration. it's quite the same degree as recent immigrants especially of humble means living on or near the u.s.-mexico border. it's their schools, it's their job, to neighborhoods their homes for children and their families who are most directly affected by these uncontrolled waves of illegal immigration. it's those things mr. president that are at their doorstep. they know every one of those things are placed in grave jeopardy every time the floodgates open and people pour across our border into the united states without legal authority to be here. every single time that happens that has adverse consequences. we talk a lot about the more

newsworthy more news covered implications of all open borders in situations like lincoln riley hitting the news that we don't always talk about how it affects other people in more mundane pedestrian ways. i think we have to be mindful of that and watch out for the tendency of those of us who are privileged enough to serve in this body. two other eyes immigrants, two other eyes anyone anyone by among other things assuming those groups of people speak monolithically or that we speak for them insofar as we are seen as advocating a position that is

tolerant or eager to embrace open borders. not the full picture. and one of the more blatantly that we bring about in our society someone who may be hispanic or recent immigrants themselves would necessarily want an open border. it's simply not true. and it speaks profound to the plight of these individuals when we claim that they speak monolithically especially insofar as we are suggesting even indirectly for open borders just because it's their first language for how recent they arrived in the states or where they lived relative to the border.

getting back to the bigger picture here and what specifically happened today when i think about going on 13.5 years that i've been in the united states senate i don't think i can remember another day when something of such profoundly disastrous consequences was done in this body to shatter norms rules precedence legal tradition and in this case constitutional principals quite like this decision here today. remember just before thanksgiving in 2013 i had been in the senate not yet for three

years, just days before thanksgiving, just before we broke for the thanksgiving recess when a group of my colleagues all of 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 but changing the rules themselves take 67 votes. instead by a simple majority vote they created new precedence to undercut and flipped the meaning of one of the senate rules getting rid of the cloture rule with regard to the

executive calendar. he spoke to a lot of people after that happened of both political parties including some political parties within this body who served in this body who expressed regret over that day and concerns particularly when i heard from people not serving in this body of people of all walks in life including people of all political persuasions who acknowledge the profound consequences that could happen would have on the united states senate. again it involves a rather shameless maneuver whereby the senate broke the rules to the senate in order to change the rules of the senate without changing the rules. pretending that the rules said a

not b when in fact they said b and not a. it may have been abraham lincoln who once said he asked rhetorically if you count the dog's tail by the legs how many legs does a dog have? whenever he asked us to an individual they tended to say understandably accepting the framework of this hypothetical five legs and they would respond by saying it's not five legs but even if you call the tail of the dog leg it's still not a leg. that's what we did when we on that fateful day in november of 2013 but in countless ways what happened today is far worse than that.

what was at stake today was not just the rules tradition precedent and norms of this body. rules precedence traditions and norms that i would adhere to have at no moment in our 2.5 century existed countenance of a result of what we achieved today. we have never had something like this where we have had articles of impeachment by the house of representatives. transmitted to the united states senate at a moment when the person impeached was neither dead nor a person who had left the office that person held nor a person ineligible for impeachment of the member of the house or the senate where the

senate could be expelled by the respective body by two-thirds super and majority vote and they are not subject to impeachment per se. we carve out those narrow rear sections where was cast in a way where was wrong were subject matter jurisdictions was lacking either at the time of the article of the past and a house in the time they arrived in the senate. it could be fairly characterized as a perfect record consistent record in that way we tell the trial. we least held the bear of a trial. in which we had arguments presented by lawyers at a minimum by lawyers representing the house of representatives and

impeachment managers. described colloquially as house prosecutors and we heard arguments by them. normally that involves a presentation of evidence by them by the house impeachment manager. normally it involves both sides having lawyers not just the house impeachment managers but also defense council representing the impeached individual. normally there has been evidence presented an argument made about why the articles of impeachment either were or were not meritorious. and every one of those circumstances with a narrow exception that i described as the sole exception there has been the least some of those

articles in every single case culminating in a verdict of guilty or not guilty. in the tradition instead of rules and that we have run roughshod right over them. but there's something much more concerning about this. i find it so troubling and that is under article i, section 3, clause six the senate is given the sole power and with it the sacred responsible and the duty to try. as i've just described in every circumstance where it wasn't some jurisdictional defect and

by that means a bona fide subject matter jurisdictional defect where we the jurisdiction to move forward. we have proceeded in reach some kind of verdict and every one of those cases. but not today. mr. president i think concern for weeks and i've heard rumors for weeks and what was going to happen today was the majority leader was going to approach these articles with a certain degree of cavalier difference. i immediately became convinced after looking at the rules and the precedent on this at a motion to table would be an up or pick here. it would be inappropriate because of reasons i've just explained never done that in never done anything close to that. the closest precedent for

something like that was so far off course it could even be relied upon. the only president that even sounded like the same thing was in fact different from that enduring the trial of the impeachment of president andrew johnson, one senator had made a particular motion to do a particular thing during that trial and another senator made a motion to table that motion. there was no motion to table any articles of impeachment. in any event i became convinced that emotion to table would be contrary to everything i thought i knew about our rule constitutionally and otherwise to conduct impeachment trials.

i also became convinced that this would be precedent and set a certain precedent suggesting it's okay if the party occupying the majority position in the united states senate didn't want to conduct a trial he didn't have to because it would sweep them aside. channeling the immortal words of russia's own free will if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. and it's a one if you choose the impeachment articles without rendering a verdict of guilty or not guilty. whether pursuant on a motion to table or otherwise in a motion to table would be a place in especially strategy for disposing of and otherwise addressing articles of impeachment.

it's 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 legislators and legislative session in executive session where we consider presidential nomination and also on occasion treaties for ratification both executive functions carried out under executive 30 and there's third state of being exists in this context where we are to operate as a court of impeachment. it's solely in our capacity as

senator sitting in a court of impeachment that we are administered a second separate oath, different from the oath that we all take between -- each time we are reelected or elected to the senate. different capacity that requires us to decide the case and to do so on the merits of the case and it's also unique in that it's the only mode in which there is a solid expectation unblemished until today in which if we do in fact have articles of impeachment over which we have subject matter jurisdiction that the aid has not been rendered moot and where there's an expectation backed up by history tradition of precedence that we will do the job and in fact

according to the precedence up until today we will reach a verdict of guilty or not guilty by the time we are done. those things don't exist in the other two states and their legislative calendar there's no expectation or position are precedent or implication from the constitution that we will affirmatively act upon and alternately dispose of every piece of legislation presented to the united states senate. we have never taken that approach and if we did it would the place to a hault. i don't think it would physically be possible. nor has that ever been expectation on the executive calendar.

sure we tend to eventually get to most of them but there is an understanding that unless or until we confirm a particular nominee that nominee is not confirmed such that if we get to the end of the road even the session that person needs to be confirmed that person is to be renominated for something considered by the senate but even then there's no guarantee on in a final vote disclosing of that nomination. this is different in the context of an impeachment where we sit as a court of impeachment. it is a court of impeachment and the become to things. in any trial in ordinary courts there to functions that the trial involves. you got to have finders of fact

the role typically played by a jury in our system both in civil courts in civil cases pending criminal cases. you have got to have charges of legal issues, simply performed by a judge. in some cases the most commonly if the parties agree to have issues in fact decided by judge rather than a jury you could have the issues of fact in the issues of law decided by judge. we serve both functions. we are finders of the facts and judges of a lot relevant to the impeachment case before us. i think mr. president s. the whole reason we are given a separate oath to take a separate oath every time we bring up a bill or get a presidential nomination are we are asked to consider a treaty for

ratification. but we do take a separate oath every time we receive articles of impeachment. it's not just because these things are more rare than bills as they are introduced and nominations that are received or treaties presented to us for ramification. it's because it's a sacred responsibility in which there is an expectation backed up by centuries of tradition custom precedent and the standing of our constitutional text. we will dispose of the case in a way that culminates in a body of guilty or not guilty except in these rare instances where we lacked subject matter jurisdiction if the case has been rendered moot which it is so not in this case. the particular way in which we went about this today was

impossible to defend. .. of either of their asylum claimy might be entitled to some other form of relief. including immigration parole. the 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 the opposite of what the statute required. and that by doing that facilitate invasion in our southern border that is unprecedented in american history that has been dangerous that has resulted in all kinds of heinous crimes being committed. loss of life. loss of benefits. loss of property. many, many harms occurring as a result of this period occurring as a result of these deliberate decision

not doing your job well. it is not a valid basis for an impeachable offense. i am not at all sure that argument stated in the abstract is accurate. in fact i tend to think it is not. the constitution itself, i signed that job to this branch of government. to the house as it assesses whether to charge something as impeachable and the senate as it

assesses whether an impeachment pass presented by the house warrants conviction. removal. from office. that really is our job and as justice and noted it includes a political character regardless of whether they would amount to independently prosecutable offenses in a criminal court of law sense of that word. but, and in the event even if you buy into that reasoning that there are those scholars who believe that i seem to recall professor alan dershowitz respected harvard law professor from whom we have heard in past impeachment proceedings. he believes in this approach even under the professors

approach he someone for whom i have great respect even when i disagree with him. even if you were to accept that premise this goes far beyond maladministration. not just secretary mayorkas didn't do as good of a job as he could have and should have and we wish you would've. it is that he will fully subvert it with the lot required and did the exact opposite of what the law required. that is impeachable. that has got to be impeachable. and yet the majority leader stood up today and set a raise a point of order impeachment article one, again impeachment article one 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 as required under article two section four of the united states constitution which is therefore as a constitutional. i don't how he gets there. can't get there except by sheer force the wages and by sheer force produced simple majority votes from senators. declaring the impeachment equivalent of defining a tale of a dog to be a leg. what i found even more stunning as stunning as the first move was, and as disappointing as it

was a simple majority of united states senators often the same political party i would add, not my own is somehow managed to outdo that one. bite later making the same port of order with respect to article two. arguing a point of order impeachment article two that arises not to the of high crime is misdemeanor. it is therefore unconstitutional. let's remember what article two was about. charge secretary mayorkas knowingly making false statements to congress as congress was carrying out its

oversight responsibilities to testify under oath to congress. now, unfortunately we never got to see or hear evidence on this. we were not presented with the opportunity to make a final determination on this. but, we instead have the majority simply rolled 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 it has been alleged. in the house impeachment managers, the house prosecutors we sometimes call them were denied 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 now established a precedent in that state senate if you occupy a high position of trust within the united states government a cabinet member by this instance, and you knowingly will fully make false statements to congress congress is trying to to the truth about what you're doing in your job whether or not you are faithfully executing, implementing and enforcing the law. lying to congress in that sense, even under oath isn't an

impeachable offense. that precedent could suggest we have immunized from impeachment during that very thing. how are we to conduct adequate oversight? if even the theoretical threat the 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.

james mattis expressed in the federalist papers among other places and federalist 51 that government is an experiment. it is an exhibit it is a display of human nature. they are and other federal papers he explains things like he continued and federalist 51 we as human beings were in angels event access to angels to run our government we would not need these rules. got pretty responsible we have access to angels madison because we are not angels we don't have

access. we set up each branch to guard against abuses of power i've wondered over time as i've seen the united states senate gradually very steadily over many decades voluntarily relinquish power. much of it started with our work on the legislative calendar starting in earnest in the 1930s and continuing until the present day gradually, steadily been outsourced unelected unaccountable bureaucrats. it has all sorts of laws and saying essentially we shall have good law with respect to issue x

and hereby delegate to department or commission or agency or functionary wide the promulgate rules carry the force of federal law. as to issue x. little by little you start to see this diminishes the overall accountability of the united states government. when agency or department promulgates particular people understandably, predictably very consistently come to us to complain. saying this is killing us in. this rule made by unaccountable bureaucrats is going to shut down my business.

i'm going to be deprived of life, liberty, property or some combination of the three. whether i choose to comply or not it is going to harm me in material ways. article one section one clause one says all legislative power should invest in the congress of united states which shall consist of the house of representatives article seven makes abundantly clear what article one section one sets up which is to say you cannot make eight federal law without the assent of both the house of representatives and the senate. the same bill that passed the same bill tax and presented to the chief executive, the president of the united states for signature acquisitions if you don't know that formula you're not supposed bill to make federal law. one of the more influential political philosophers and the founding generation observe the

lawmaking power is it self none delegate. the task of lawmaking involves the power to make laws. not other lawmakers. people come back to complain to us the administrative regulation of applicable law. when it causes problems, people come and complain to us and members of congress predictably enforce and beat their chests id set yes, those barbarians over it agency commission, department why, we did not be to authorize this. we said make a good law as to issue x. we did not say to make bad law

and then predictably the senators, representatives say something like the following. you know i'm going to do? for you constituent, i'm going to write them a harshly worded letter pray that's what i'm going to do. as if that were our job that were sworn in to do. the suit right harshly worded letters for that's not bad it's to make laws not other lawmakers. we keep these two stacks of documents behind my desk. one stack is small a few inches, no more than a foot or so. consists of law passed by congress in the preceding year. it's a few thousand pages long. the other stack is 13 feet tall a typical year it will reach about 100,000 pages stacked up even on very thin paper double

sided small print about 13 feet tall consistent with lester's federal register. and if you have a cumulative index of these federal regulations promulgated further, later as they are finalized. those rules carry the force of generally applicable failure law for failing to abide by those can shut down your business. and result in enormous fines. many cases can result in your imprisonment if you don't follow them. and yet they are not enacted themselves through the formula prescribed by article one section seven. no, and that instance we have authorize the making not of laws but of other lawmakers, not ourselves for this other lawmakers normally given this assignment while perhaps however well educated and well

intentioned specialized, well-trained they might be, they do not stand accountable to the american people, ever. their name will never appear on a ballot. in fact their name will stand essentially as a secret to nearly every american. including this will stand accountable to those laws life, liberty and property as a result of those things. it is not right for we know down deep it is not right. we know every time we were presented with one of these complaints by our constituents. and we all have them. and my office is nearly a constant refrain.

precipitate the predictable harshly worded letter and not a lot else. in other instances they might culminate in the filing the dissolution of approval under the act. as fun as those can be at least they gives an opportunity to debate them. those are resolutions. you follow the rules of the back to you can pretty much always get one of those voted on. i have an opportunity to present those in the night state senate vote up or down as to whether or not you want to disapprove of the regulation in question. ultimately however those prove dissatisfying from a constitutional standpoint. in a sense without narrow

exceptions they don't do any good. nearly any administration whose and bureaucratic structures will bureaucratic structures will promulgate the administrative rule in question will like for policy reasons and political reasons and a policy choice embodied in those regulation. and consequently the president whose administration promulgated the regulation being challenged and the cra legislation of disapproval will almost always in veto any resolution of disapproval passed by both houses of congress. it's very rare that doesn't happen. with only one exception i can think of from a few decades ago.

the only time that works other than that one exception that i am thinking of occurs when you've got a new administration and you have regulations that event promulgated toward the tail end 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 a ripe port cr eight resolutions were able to get them passed by both houses of congress and signed by president trump. those circumstances are pretty rare every other circumstance the voters of this great country are subject to the administrative regulations that are in fact laws.

those things leave us without redress. it is one of the reasons i have long advocated for us to pass a measure called the raines act. if a genie appeared and said you could pass any bill pending in for the united states congress it will be the rains act, why? it would requires by statute to do what i believe the constitution already requires. what it does contemplate. which is it is fine for administrative regulation to be promulgated, to be proposed. unless or until they are permanently enacted into law both houses of congress and signed into law or acquiesce to buy the sitting president in the event of a veto that veto was overridden by two thirds houses of congress and it can take effect. short of that, no dice you don't

get the law. these do have far-reaching effects including member of the judiciary committee i and a few of my colleagues try to figure out a few years ago how many criminal offenses are on the books. how many different provisions of federal law prescribed criminal penalties that could result in a criminal conviction. we ask this question at a congressional research service. to which we turn regularly in order to get answers to questions like those. the answer came back to us in a way i found absolutely stunning. the answer that can't back to us in the congressional research service very talented people and

convince a gives the answer that was possible to achieve this. unknown and unknowable. at least 300,000 separate defined criminal offenses on the books. on through the thousand plus occasions both houses of congress passed into law a separate statute defining a criminal offense. many instances one of the reasons the numbers are difficult to tie down is because a lot of these are defined administratively. one area united states senate has been deliberately shirking its responsibilities and handing them off to someone else. refusing to do the job we have been given to do. we have done that time and time

again. also on the executive calendar where we change the law so as to limit spirit or in some cases adopted standing orders that have been embraced in subsequent iterations of the senate. limiting the number of presidential nominees requiring confirmation to which it narrowed our playing field thereto. shirking our responsibility even as the size of the federal government is increased. we have narrowed our job. and now we have seen it done again today. and our third state of being. in our third or we can operate as impeachment for even hear a job is really limited, we have one job in this area to conduct impeachment trials but there are a thousand ways you can conduct an impeachment property can conduct an impeachment throughout the whole senate.

you can specialize the impeachment trials so that it is heard in the first instance. by a select committee with members of both political parties who hear the evidence and after doing that, some of the whole matter for a final vote to the whole senate. you can hear evidence that individual witnesses. you can receive evidence in documentary form. there are 1000 different ways to conduct a trial. some of which allow the child to be conducted pretty quickly. others it might take more time. but there 1000 ways we can do it. and here, as of the other two states of being in the legislative calendar and then on the executive calendar. now as we sit as a court of impeachment