[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 61 (Wednesday, April 10, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2695-S2703]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, 
    UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR 
 RELATIONS BOARD RELATING TO ``STANDARD FOR DETERMINING JOINT EMPLOYER 
                          STATUS''--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 623

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I would like to talk for a few moments 
about and I am going to have a motion about the impeachment of 
Secretary Mayorkas.
  As you know, Madam President, our government is one of laws, not 
people--laws, not people. As you also know, the U.S. Senate is built on 
precedent and custom and history and the law, not political expedience.
  We in the Senate are supposed to listen to the American people, not 
ignore them. One of the ways we do that is by playing by the rules we 
have all agreed to--all of the rules, all of the time.
  Now, my Senate Democratic colleagues today or at least very shortly, 
however, may be willing to jeopardize centuries of this stability--the 
stability that this body has wrought and lives by--for short-term 
political advantage.
  We all know what is going on here. We all know exactly what is going 
on here. For the very first time in our Nation's history, my Senate 
Democratic colleagues are seeking to table--maybe even dismiss--an 
impeachment by the United States House of Representatives of a sitting 
Cabinet official without holding a full trial. If my Senate colleagues 
do that, they will be summoning spirits that they won't be able to 
control.
  Let me say that again--the United States House of Representatives. We 
are not talking here about some ``snow bro'' who lives off Chicken 
McNuggets and weed and happens to have an opinion. The United States 
House of Representatives, elected by all of the American people, spent 
months investigating our border policy and Secretary Mayorkas's role in 
it, and then they thoughtfully crafted and they passed with a majority 
vote two Articles of Impeachment. Now my Senate Democratic colleagues 
want to toss them out in the trash like a week-old tuna salad sandwich 
without hearing from either side.
  In the more than two centuries that this body has existed, we have 
never once tabled an impeachment--not once. The Senate has never 
dismissed impeachment articles under these circumstances either--
neither tabled nor dismissed.
  If the Senate dismisses these charges without a full trial, it will 
be the first time in the Senate's long history that it has dismissed 
impeachment charges against an official it has jurisdiction over 
without the official first resigning, and that is just a fact of 
history.

  The Senate has the responsibility to hold this trial, and everybody 
in this body knows it. Yet my Senate Democratic colleagues seem willing 
to forfeit our constitutional authority in order to bury the evidence 
of how bad the border crisis is.
  Now, I, for one, want to hear the House's evidence, and Senate 
Republicans are offering our colleagues across the aisle--all of whom I 
respect, by the way--a menu of options for how to hear that evidence 
and listen to Secretary Mayorkas's defense without eroding democratic 
institutions.
  If Democrats set a new precedent by making an impeachment trial 
impossible, as I am afraid they are going to try to do, they will be 
silencing the voices of the Americans who elected them, and they will 
have to own the decisions they will be making and bear the consequences 
tomorrow, and tomorrow may come sooner than they can imagine.
  Apparently, my Democratic colleagues are really leaning in on their 
double standards. Whenever protecting democracy--have you heard that 
expression?--or upholding ``the rule of law''--have you heard my 
Democratic colleagues talk about the rule of law? I

[[Page S2696]]

have. I agree with them. Whenever they use those expressions but it 
becomes politically challenging, they seem happy to ignore the rule of 
law and the will of the people, and their political expedience is in 
full view today. I regret to say that.
  We will see what my Democratic colleagues do with respect to my 
resolution and Senator Lee's resolution.
  Senate Democrats, I am afraid, are silencing the American people who 
want their country's secure border back. The truth is that the American 
people are tired of the drug trafficking. They are tired of the human 
trafficking. They are tired of the sexual abuse of women and children. 
They are tired of the widespread illnesses. They are tired of the 
death. They are tired of the behavior of President Biden and Secretary 
Mayorkas with respect to the border. They are tired of the chaos. They 
believe it is chaotic by design, and they believe it is undermining 
their national security. And they are right. Now, the American people 
may be poorer under President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas, but they 
are not stupid. They are not stupid.
  In total, more than 9 million people, foreign nationals, have crossed 
the southern border under President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas--9 
million. That is four Nebraskas. Secretary Mayorkas doesn't have any 
idea who they are. He doesn't have any idea where they are. Customs and 
Border Protection also seized 53,000 pounds of fentanyl from 2021 to 
2023. That is enough to kill every man, woman, and child on this 
planet, for God's sake--not the United States, this planet.
  The southern border is an open, bleeding wound. Now, the majority of 
the House of Representatives reached that conclusion. That is why they 
voted to impeach Secretary Mayorkas. They have sent us their evidence, 
and that evidence alleges that Secretary Mayorkas's policies have made 
our immigration system septic. If I were Secretary Mayorkas, I would 
want to answer those allegations. As a Senator, I want to hear the 
evidence, and I know the American people want to hear the evidence.
  These are serious charges. By tabling or dismissing the Articles of 
Impeachment without so much as a trial, like it was just spam in their 
inbox, my Senate Democratic colleagues are endorsing the Biden 
administration's lawless approach to the southern border. They are 
setting a precedent that the next administration can ignore the laws of 
Congress and the will of the American people as long as it advances the 
majority party's agenda. That is what they are saying.
  Now, my resolution will give the procedures we need to set up the 
procedures we need to conduct this trial fairly and efficiently.
  My resolution is modeled on the procedures that this body used during 
the second impeachment trial of President Trump. When President Trump's 
first impeachment came to the U.S. Senate, Senate Republicans were in 
the majority. You didn't see us trying to table that impeachment. You 
didn't see us trying to dismiss that impeachment because we believe in 
the rule of law all the time, not just when it is politically 
expedient. We heard the evidence. We did our job. And that is what we 
ought to do right now.
  The proceedings set forth in my resolution are efficient; they are 
fair; they are honest. They will not uproot the longstanding precedent 
that we have given to Articles of Impeachment in the past. It will give 
the Articles of Impeachment serious consideration, as we have always 
done.
  Here is my final point. If my Senate Democratic colleagues--let me 
say it again, each and every one of whom I respect--if they choose to 
ignore this impeachment, they will have placed their seal of approval 
on the lawlessness at the border and the chaos it has brought to so 
many American communities, and they will have ignored 200 years of 
Senate precedent--200 years. A charitable interpretation based on 
policy does not exist for what my Democratic colleagues are going to 
try to do. It is all based on raw, gut politics and they know it and I 
know it and everybody in this room knows it. Please don't do it. 
Please, my friends, don't do it. Please don't allow the Senate to rot 
from within. The American people deserve better.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules 
and Administration be discharged from further consideration and the 
Senate now proceed to S. Res. 623, my resolution that I just talked 
about; further, that the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, Madam President. The 
Senator from Louisiana is my friend. We throw that term around here in 
the Senate, but it is true. I think he would say the same. We both 
serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee. We have worked on issues 
together. We have been adversaries, but we have done it respectfully, 
and it will continue, I hope, to this day.
  But the gentleman, the Senator from Louisiana, brings to the floor of 
the Senate and to this debate special qualities. He sounds many times 
like a homespun backwoods lawyer. Don't be fooled. He is a graduate 
from a famous university in England--I have forgotten which one--
Oxford, Cambridge, one of those. They are not in the Big 10, I am sure 
of that, but I know they are in England. I congratulate him. I was 
never even considered for a university of that stature. He is a 
brilliant lawyer and Senator and raises important questions, not just 
for the moment but for history.
  The question before us today that he is raising is about the 
purported impeachment--I should say actual impeachment--of a member of 
President Biden's Cabinet, Mr. Mayorkas, the Secretary of Homeland 
Security. That is now about to be reported to the Senate, and we have 
constitutional responsibilities when it is reported.
  In this situation, we are waiting for the actual report to arrive. I 
think it will be momentarily, perhaps this week or next, and we will 
take up this matter as we are required to do.
  The House Homeland Committee engaged in a yearlong investigation of 
Secretary Mayorkas and his alleged maladministration of the border of 
the United States. This committee in the House held 12 hearings, 
testimony from more than two dozen witnesses, producing nearly 400 
pages of reports.
  The Senate, when sitting as a Court of Impeachment, is not 
responsible for making the case on behalf of the impeachment managers. 
We are the jury. We are the ones who will decide the impeachment. Our 
duty is to make the determination based on the Articles of Impeachment 
and the facts at hand. We are not a factfinding operation.
  My friend from Utah is also on the floor. During the first Trump 
impeachment, he said that ``the Senate--here sitting as a court of 
impeachment--has both the authority and the obligation to decline to 
hold a full trial where the material facts in the case are not in 
dispute.''
  The facts are not in dispute here. This is the first time that the 
House has successfully impeached a sitting Cabinet-level official 
without providing any evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor. None. 
All those hearings, all those pages, all those witnesses--no evidence 
of high crimes or misdemeanors. And that is a requirement in the 
Constitution. The Articles of Impeachment that will be before us 
contain zero evidence that Secretary Mayorkas has committed high crimes 
and misdemeanors. Instead, it can be read as a summary of Republican 
grievances with this administration's approach to border policy, 
immigration, detention, and methods of removal and parole--all of which 
is conduct that falls squarely within the executive branch's 
constitutional prerogative. Fortunately, the Constitution was designed 
to prevent this type of partisan politics driving this effort from 
contaminating the extraordinary process of impeachment.
  The delegates to the Constitutional Convention considered and 
rejected the concept of maladministration as an impeachable offense, in 
part, because they feared the misuse of impeachment for purely 
political retribution.
  The Constitution empowers the Senate to have the sole power to try 
all impeachments and to determine the rules of its proceedings, but the 
Senate

[[Page S2697]]

only has the power to convict, remove, and disqualify officers whose 
conduct meets the constitutional standard. That standard is well known 
to all Members of Congress and to the Senate particularly.

  Given that the Senate only has the power to convict, remove, and 
disqualify officers who have committed ``Treason, Bribery, or other 
high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' the appropriate Senate response to 
impeachment articles that do not articulate those charges is obvious.
  If congressional Republicans were genuinely interested in addressing 
concerns about our border, they should be willing to work on a 
bipartisan basis to pass legislation fixing our broken immigration 
system and give this President and Secretary Mayorkas the tools they 
have asked for to address the situation at the southern border.
  I want to make sure this is clear on the record. The border is 
broken. It needs to be fixed and what we should do and what we did do 
was to establish a bipartisan committee. The Republicans said: We 
insist that James Lankford, a respected Senator from the State of 
Oklahoma, speak for us and negotiate for us when it comes to changing 
the rules at the border. We agreed with that.
  Senators worked with Senator Lankford, whom I respect, and came up 
with a bipartisan proposal that gave new authority to the President and 
to the executive branch to deal with the crisis at the border. What 
happened on the Republican side of the aisle when James Lankford, the 
Republican Senator from Oklahoma, came up with this proposal? All but 
seven of them--I believe that was the number--walked away and said they 
wouldn't even support it.
  Why did they do it? You know why they did it--because Donald Trump 
announced he wanted no part of any agreement, any bipartisan effort to 
solve the problem. Then, former President Trump said: And blame me.
  Well, I am blaming him. We had an opportunity to actually do 
something on the floor of the Senate when it came to the border. He 
stopped it. And so many of the Republican Senators who begged us to 
work with Senator Lankford turned their backs on him after the yeoman's 
effort he put into this undertaking. That is the reality.
  We had our chance, on a bipartisan basis--and still do--to solve this 
problem rather than engage in any political stunt. Instead, the vast 
majority of Republicans, including the Senator from Utah and others on 
the floor, recently blocked the bipartisan border reform bill that was 
written by the Republicans' designated negotiator, Senator Lankford. 
They had their chance. It didn't work; neither will this. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I will respond, briefly.
  The U.S. House of Representatives--the U.S. House of 
Representatives--has found, after lengthy investigation, that the chaos 
at the southern border is manmade, and the U.S. House of 
Representatives has alleged that that man's name is Secretary Mayorkas.
  We need to hold a trial.
  Now, Senator Durbin is my good friend and, as usual, he is eloquent, 
and he sounds very confident that the evidence will exonerate Secretary 
Mayorkas.
  How does he know? He hasn't heard the evidence, and he doesn't want 
to hear the evidence because he is scared that the American people 
might disagree.
  That is what this is all about--raw, gut politics.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 624

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, the House impeached Secretary Alejandro 
Mayorkas. He is the second Cabinet official to be impeached in all 
American history. The last Cabinet member to be impeached was William 
W. Belknap in 1876.
  The Senate held trials in virtually all previous impeachments, except 
for those in which the impeached officer no longer held office. 
However, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer now wants to effectively pardon 
Secretary Mayorkas--pardon him from this impeachable offense, pardon 
him from the impeachment itself--without letting us even examine the 
evidence.
  No, the facts are not in dispute in this case. They are not in 
dispute in the least. If they were, there wouldn't be a need for a full 
trial. There would however, still, at a minimum, be a need to reach a 
verdict of guilty or not guilty because in literally every other 
circumstance in the history of the Republic--unless circumstances have 
arisen that have rendered the case moot--the U.S. Senate, sitting as a 
Court of Impeachment, adjudicates the matter, whether through short 
proceedings or long ones, whether through a trial conducted on the 
Senate floor or by delegation to a select committee. It does, in fact, 
reach a verdict of guilty or not guilty, as is the Senate's 
constitutional obligation. But when the Articles of Impeachment arrive, 
we have to remember that we have a constitutional duty to hold a trial.
  Again, what that trial consists of may depend on the circumstances, 
but we still have to hold a trial sufficient to get to the point, in 
the absence of the case being rendered moot or something of that 
nature, to reach a verdict of guilty or not guilty.
  Now, I am so grateful to House Speaker   Mike Johnson for delaying 
delivery of these so that we can give our full consideration. Ignoring 
the evidence before us betrays the trust of those who sent us here.
  In this spirit, I have introduced a resolution, a resolution to 
ensure that we are prepared to consider the impeachment articles in a 
manner befitting our responsibilities. You see, the Senate has three 
states of being. It is always either sitting in a legislative capacity, 
where we pass bills, we debate and amend and ultimately pass or decline 
to pass legislation; the Executive Calendar, where we consider 
Presidential nominations and consider ratification of treaties; or a 
third state of being, of course, consists of a Senate sitting as a 
Court of Impeachment. We are always in one of those three states.
  We have a separate set of rules governing our impeachment 
proceedings, but those rules aren't so specific as to define the 
precise details of each and every impeachment proceeding. Those have to 
be negotiated independently through resolutions.

  It is to that end that I offer this resolution to put meat on the 
bones of the Standing Rules of the Senate on impeachment trials.
  This resolution mandates that the Senate begin deliberations on the 
impeachment articles no later than 7 session days after the House of 
Representatives transmits them to the Senate. This timeline is not just 
for the Senate but so that the American people can hear from Secretary 
Mayorkas himself. He is afforded up to 7 session days to respond to the 
charges that will be presented to us by the House.
  Both parties in this debate would be permitted to submit trial briefs 
within specific deadlines, ensuring that all arguments are heard and 
considered with the gravity they deserve.
  It requires the House to file its records, including materials from 
the Judiciary Committee and documents related to Secretary Mayorkas's 
impeachment. These records, which are subject to scrutiny and objection 
by Mayorkas, are crucial evidence in our proceedings.
  My resolution lays out how motions and arguments will be carefully 
managed. Motions, except those to subpoena witnesses or documents, 
would be required to be filed before the proceedings start.
  The structure of the presentations and questioning would be designed 
to allow Secretary Mayorkas to comprehensively present his case.
  After the questioning period, we would proceed to final arguments and 
decide whether Secretary Mayorkas is guilty or not guilty.
  With my resolution, we would be ready to conduct a fair and 
legitimate trial.
  So, to my colleagues, if you are confident that the charges against 
Secretary Mayorkas are baseless, then why object to organizing a fair 
and legitimate trial? Why try to sweep this under the rug? Why pardon 
someone before they are even afforded the opportunity to prove their 
innocence?
  If you trust that Secretary Mayorkas didn't authorize millions of 
individuals to enter illegally into our country for swift and 
precursory release into the interior, don't object to my resolution; 
just hold a trial.

[[Page S2698]]

  If you are certain that Secretary Mayorkas hasn't, in fact, increased 
the pull factors incentivizing parents across the globe to send some 
430,000 unaccompanied children into the United States--in many cases, 
to end up in the hands of traffickers--then, by all means, don't 
object; hold a trial.
  If you are confident that Secretary Mayorkas hasn't created at least 
13 illegal immigration parole programs designed to increase the flow of 
people into this country by the hundreds of thousands, in violation of 
the very law invoked to facilitate their admission, then don't object; 
hold a trial.
  If you are so sure, so confident, so certain that, under Secretary 
Mayorkas, Customs and Border Protection hasn't dramatically decreased 
its vetting processes for allowing Chinese immigrants to cross our 
border with military-age Chinese males, don't object; hold a trial.
  If you believe that we haven't seen a dramatic increase in the known 
terrorist encounters at our southern border, don't object; hold a 
trial.
  If you are confident that Secretary Mayorkas hasn't allowed enough 
fentanyl to flow across the southern border to kill every man, woman, 
and child in the United States of America, don't object; hold a trial.
  An invasion, Madam President, is taking place on American soil. At 
least 8 million people--that is at the low end--have illegally crossed 
our border since Mayorkas became the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
and the numbers just keep rising. This unprecedented influx includes 
gang members. It includes drug traffickers, human traffickers, 
dangerous individuals from every single country in the world, including 
the thousands of military-age males from China. In December alone, the 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security reported 302,000 encounters. That 
is in 1 month--the highest number ever recorded in a 1-month period. 
These are not the kinds of records he should try to break, but he has 
broken them again and again and again.
  Now, to be clear, Secretary Mayorkas has the tools to stop this 
invasion--to halt it in its tracks--and he has the tools to do it 
today. Not only does he have the tools, but he has the obligation and 
the sworn responsibility under the laws of the United States to do so. 
He doesn't need legislative action from Congress.
  These aren't victimless crimes. The tragic case of Laken Riley--a 
life cut short by an illegal alien, one of the millions whom Secretary 
Mayorkas has allowed to enter our country unchecked--is a reminder of 
the human cost of this prolonged, severe, and deliberate malicious 
abdication of duty. Laken isn't alone. Her case represents hundreds of 
thousands of families across the Nation whose lives have been upended 
by the invasion that our leaders willfully allowed to happen and, 
indeed, invited. In fact, they encouraged them to happen.
  Should Secretary Mayorkas be found guilty, these are impeachable 
offenses of the highest order. Make no mistake, this is not mere 
maladministration. This is a deliberate, willful, malicious 
determination to break the law in order to bring in millions of people 
who do not belong here.
  There is no doubt, at this point, that the invasion of our southern 
border has inflicted pain and suffering on countless Americans. So we 
are obligated to figure out who is responsible and to make sure that 
they are held responsible. That is exactly why we are here.
  To that end, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and 
Administration be discharged from further consideration and the Senate 
now proceed to S. Res. 624; further, that the resolution be agreed to 
and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. It is, indeed, unfortunate that this has happened. We have 
followed the model of previous resolutions that have been used in order 
to set up impeachment debates. This one was based off of one of the 
impeachment trials of the 45th President of the United States. These 
terms were agreeable under previous impeachment proceedings, and now 
they are not.
  This is not the kind of case in which the material facts are 
undisputed nor is this the kind of case in which the office held by the 
person impeached has been vacated either by death or resignation. And 
so, in order to comport with, comply with, to follow the precedents 
that we have consistently followed in this country that have been in 
place for some two and a half centuries--to say nothing of the 
constitutional obligation behind those precedents and those customs--we 
need to hold a trial.

  It is not enough simply to stand up and say: We are choosing not to 
address these. We don't feel like addressing these. We are going to 
decline to address them without a finding of guilt or innocence.
  This is not appropriate. So, if they don't like these particular 
terms, then perhaps we can find another resolution that will allow us 
to approach these proceedings with dignity and fairness as an 
institution, showing dignity and fairness to the accused and to the 
American people alike, including and especially those Americans who 
have been victimized by the acts of lawlessness carried out by this 
administration under the leadership of Secretary Mayorkas.
  We have an obligation to do this. Absent one of the circumstances not 
present in this case, where the case becomes moot--this one is not. We 
have an obligation, regardless of what the precise procedures look 
like, to reach a verdict, to make findings, to convict or acquit, to 
reach a verdict of guilty or not guilty. It is wrong for us to ignore 
this duty, and it is also phenomenally dangerous.
  This precedent having been set will suggest that, from this moment 
henceforth, insofar as the party of the President of the United States 
is the same party that controls a majority of the seats in the U.S. 
Senate, Articles of Impeachment passed by the House of Representatives 
will be essentially dead letter, to be dismissed without a verdict--
without a finding of guilt or innocence, of guilty or not guilty. It 
would be a shame, and it would be a derogation of our constitutional 
responsibility.
  My hope, my expectation is that we can find some other means. If this 
one is not acceptable to the body, to my friend and colleague from 
Illinois, then perhaps another will, but we must keep trying. We can't 
pretend that we can simply table these. That is not what we are 
required to do here, and it is a derogation of our responsibility.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 622

  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, there are times when the eyes of history 
are upon the U.S. Senate. This is one of those times. We are facing 
today an existential crisis at our southern border. It is qualitatively 
different than anything we have ever faced at our southern border in 
the history of our Nation.
  A few moments ago, the Senator from Illinois acknowledged the border 
was broken, although he acknowledged it in the classic Washington way 
of using the passive voice--``the border is broken''--that is designed 
to hide and obscure who broke the border.
  He is correct that the border is broken, but it was broken 
deliberately by the President of the United States, Joe Biden; by the 
Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris; by the Secretary of 
Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas; and by every single Senate 
Democrat who repeatedly has rubber-stamped and embraced this open 
border policy.
  The Senator from Illinois said the border is broken. He is also the 
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, on which 
Senator Lee serves, and on which Senator Kennedy serves. In the past 3 
years, we have held precisely zero hearings on the crisis on our 
southern border. The Senate Judiciary Committee cannot be bothered to 
inquire as to the cause of this crisis.
  Understand why Alejandro Mayorkas became the second Cabinet Secretary 
in the history of the United States to be impeached. The last one was 
in 1876--the Secretary of War--and now, 148 years later, Alejandro 
Mayorkas joins him. It is not because Alejandro Mayorkas is 
incompetent. It is not because he is negligent. It is not because he is 
bad at his job. Rather, unfortunately, Alejandro Mayorkas is very,

[[Page S2699]]

very good at his job. However, he does not view his job as securing the 
border. He does not view his job as protecting our homeland security.
  Rather, he views his job as openly and directly violating--flouting--
Federal law and aiding and abetting the criminal invasion of this 
United States. He is not trying to secure the border. He is trying to 
accelerate the invasion that is happening. He wants more illegal aliens 
and more criminal illegal aliens released into this country. Under the 
Biden administration, 10.4 million illegal immigrants have been 
released into this country.
  Senate Democrats are desperate to avoid the misery and suffering and 
death that their radical policies have produced. At a hearing before 
the Judiciary Committee, I asked Secretary Mayorkas how many migrants 
died last year crossing illegally into this country.
  He said: I don't know. I have no idea.
  I said: Of course, you don't. The number is 853. That is a number 
from your own Department, but you don't care about the dead bodies that 
Texas farmers and ranchers are finding--nearly three a day.
  When I brought 19 Senators down to the border to see firsthand what 
was happening, we went out on a boat on the Rio Grande River, and we 
saw a man floating dead in the river, who had drowned that day. By the 
way, those 19 Senators were only Republicans. I have invited my 
Democrat colleagues. I have invited the Senator from Illinois: Come to 
the southern border and see the people who are dying because of the 
policies you support. None of them have any interest in seeing 
firsthand the deaths they are producing.
  I have looked in the eyes of children--of little boys and little 
girls--who have been brutalized by human traffickers day after day 
after day. None of the Senate Democrats want to take responsibility for 
the little girls and little boys to whom unspeakable evils are being 
done.
  I have looked in the eyes of women who have been repeatedly and 
violently raped by human traffickers. None of the Senate Democrats want 
to take responsibility for the horrific violence and suffering their 
open border policies have produced.
  When I asked Secretary Mayorkas about colored wristbands on a poster 
I displayed at the Senate Judiciary Committee, he responded by saying 
he had no idea what those wristbands are.
  Those colored wristbands are worn by just about every illegal alien 
coming to this country. The colors correspond to how many thousands of 
dollars they owe the cartels. Understand, the cartels don't view them 
as human beings. They don't even view them as livestock. They are 
cargo. The colors show how many thousands of dollars they owe.
  If you stand on the banks of the Rio Grande River, you will see 
hundreds or even thousands of those colored wristbands laying there in 
the grass. And what Alejandro Mayorkas was saying, as I told him--I 
said: Mr. Secretary, you have just told the American people you are 
utterly incompetent at your job, and you don't even give a damn enough 
to pretend to try.
  When I invited my Democratic colleagues to come to the border and see 
the wristbands, the Democrats don't take us up on it.
  Understand why those wristbands matter. Thousands upon thousands of 
teenage boys, they turn themselves in to the Biden administration. They 
say: Where do you want to go?
  Some will say Chicago; some will say New York; some will say Los 
Angeles. And the Biden administration puts them on an airplane, puts 
them on a bus, and sends them to every city in America.
  The mayor of Chicago, the hometown of the Senator from Illinois, has 
declared it a crisis, the illegal aliens pouring into his city. Yet 
Senate Democrats not only will do nothing about it, they continue the 
policies in place that make it worse and worse and worse.
  Understand, those teenage boys, when they arrive in Chicago or L.A. 
or New York--and, by the way, the Democratic mayor of L.A. has also 
said it is a crisis. The Democratic mayor of New York has said it is a 
crisis. The Democratic mayor of Boston has said it is a crisis. The 
Democratic Mayor of Washington, DC, has said it is a crisis.
  When they arrive, they owe the cartels thousands of dollars. If they 
don't pay the money back, the cartels will murder their families. And 
so they are working for the cartels.
  There are crimes going on in your home State of California today by 
illegal immigrants the Biden administration has released that are 
working for the cartels. There are Californians who are being robbed 
right now, who are being carjacked, who are being assaulted. There are 
people in Chicago who are being robbed, who are being assaulted.
  You want to understand the misery, take a look at Laken Riley. There 
has been a lot of discussion about Laken Riley; although, sadly, only 
on one side of this Chamber. If a Democratic Senator has said the words 
``Laken Riley,'' I have not heard it come from their mouths.
  Laken Riley was a beautiful 22-year-old woman who was murdered 
because of the Democrats' open border policies. How can I say that with 
such certainty? Because her murderer, an illegal immigrant from 
Venezuela, was apprehended in El Paso. We had him. We had him. He was 
arrested. All Joe Biden and all Alejandro Mayorkas had to do was follow 
the law, and we would have put the murderer on a plane and flew him 
back to Venezuela. And he never would have been in Georgia murdering 
Laken Riley.
  But Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas made the decision that politics 
matters more than protecting American citizens, and so they released 
this violent criminal.
  He went from El Paso to New York City, where he was arrested again. 
We had him a second time, this time for endangering the safety of a 
child.
  Unfortunately, New York City is a sanctuary city run by Democratic 
politicians, so what did they do? They let him go a second time, and he 
went down to Georgia. And Laken Riley, 22 years old, was out jogging, a 
nursing student. She is out jogging like millions of people do across 
America, and this murderer took a brick and beat her to death.
  If either Joe Biden or Alejandro Mayorkas had followed the law or if 
New York had kept him in jail, she would still be alive.
  Do you know what I also haven't heard from Senate Democrats? The name 
Jeremy Caceres. Jeremy Caceres is a beautiful 2-year-old boy, murdered 
in Prince George's County, MD, just miles from where we are right now, 
murdered by an illegal alien that Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas 
released.
  Just a few weeks ago, news broke of an illegal alien from Haiti that 
not only did Biden release but flew from Haiti to the United States. 
The Biden administration has had over 300,000 secret flights bringing 
illegal aliens to America. In this case, they brought the Haitian 
illegal immigrant to Boston, MA. And what happened just a couple of 
weeks ago, he was arrested for violently raping a 15-year-old girl who 
is seriously disabled.
  These are the very real consequences of the Democrats' open border 
policies. Yet Democratic Senators don't want to confront the people who 
are dying, who are suffering because of them.
  Alejandro Mayorkas was not impeached because he is negligent; he is 
impeached because he is actively defying the law. By the way, he has 
turned the Mexican drug cartels into decabillionaires.
  According to the New York Times, in 2018, the revenue from human 
trafficking the cartels earned was roughly $500 million. Last year, it 
was $13 billion. Thanks to Joe Biden and Senate Democrats, the drug 
cartels' profits have gone up 2,600 percent. That is why the House has 
impeached Alejandro Mayorkas.
  Now, what is the Senate to do when impeachment occurs? Well, 
fortunately, we have a document that tells us what to do. It is called 
the Constitution of the United States.
  Under the Constitution, it is the sole power of the House to impeach 
and the sole power and responsibility of the Senate to try.
  Twenty-one times in our Nation's history in more than 200 years, the 
House has impeached an individual and sent Articles of Impeachment over 
to the Senate. Here is what has happened in those 21 times:
  In one time, the Senate concluded it had no jurisdiction because the 
individual impeached was a Senator, and

[[Page S2700]]

impeachment only attaches to members of the executive branch or the 
judicial branch. So they dismissed that one for lack of jurisdiction.
  In three of them, the individuals impeached were no longer in office, 
and so the Senate didn't act because it was moot. It was no longer 
necessary to resolve because the individual impeached was out of 
office.
  In the remaining 17 times, all of them--100 percent of the time--the 
Senate conducted a trial, the Senate heard evidence, and the Senate 
adjudicated guilt or innocence. Each Senator stood up and said 
``guilty'' or ``not guilty.''
  Well, next week, when the articles arrive, we are told that Senator 
Schumer intends not to proceed to a trial, not to follow the Senate 
rules of impeachment, not to allow any evidence but simply to move to 
table--to throw it out at the outset.

  Why is Senator Schumer doing so? Three reasons:
  No. 1, he desperately, desperately wants to stop the House managers 
from presenting their evidence.
  The Senator from Illinois says: He knows there is no evidence. It is 
like an ostrich putting his head in the sand. One way to know there is 
no evidence is look at no evidence, hear no evidence, consider no 
evidence, and do everything you can to prevent the American people from 
hearing evidence.
  No. 2, the Senate Democrats want to stop a trial. They don't want the 
American people to know the suffering and misery and dead bodies their 
policies are producing.
  But No. 3, the Senate Democrats desperately want to prevent Democrats 
who are on the ballot right now from casting a vote of guilty or not 
guilty. They want to avoid an adjudication, because, do you know what? 
Senate Democrats are back in their home States saying: Gosh, I am 
really concerned about illegal immigration.
  If they were really concerned, we can decide that next week by voting 
to fulfill our constitutional obligation to hold a trial.
  Now, let me say something. I look and see the Senator from Illinois; 
I see the Senator from West Virginia. All three of us were on the 
Senate floor at another momentous time in 2013, when then-Senate 
Majority Leader Harry Reid exercised the nuclear option and blew up the 
filibuster for nominations. That did enormous damage to the institution 
of the Senate.
  I remember standing in the well of the Senate, 10 feet from where I 
am now, and turning to Senator Amy Klobuchar that day. I told her, I 
said: You are going to regret this day. This is a catastrophic mistake.
  I told her then: The result of this decision from Harry Reid and the 
Democrats will be more judges and Justices on the Court in the mold of 
Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
  If you want to know why Roe v. Wade has been overturned, it is 
because Harry Reid and the Democrats exercised the nuclear option in 
2013. Had they not done so, there is no way this Senate would have 
confirmed all three of the nominees put forward. It was the direct 
consequence of the utter disregard for this institution Senate 
Democrats have.
  I bring that up because we are at a second moment that is equally 
consequential, except instead of nuking the Senate rules as they did in 
2013, Senate Democrats are preparing to nuke the Constitution of the 
United States itself, the impeachment clause, which every single time 
that the Senate has had jurisdiction and the person has been in office, 
the Senate has held a trial. If Senate Democrats proceed next week to 
table that, they will blow up that precedent.
  I am here to make a prediction. Senate Democrats sometimes behave 
like small children with no ability to look to the future and 
anticipate the consequences of their actions. Everyone can recognize 
right now we have got a Presidential election coming up in November. 
None of us knows the outcome. I am going to posit to you right now: 
There is a significant chance Donald Trump will be reelected as 
President. I am also going to posit to you that is an outcome no one on 
the Democratic side wants to see happen.
  There is also a significant chance Republicans will retake the 
Senate. But there is a possibility that Democrats will retake the 
House. That is a very likely scenario in this election.
  If that happens--I turn to my friend from West Virginia because I 
want you to contemplate what will happen. If that happens, I am going 
to make a prediction: One year from today, we are going to be on the 
Senate floor, and if Democrats control the House, they will have 
impeached Donald Trump again, impeached him a third time and maybe a 
fourth time and maybe a fifth time. If they have the House, that is 
what they are going to do.
  And if and when those impeachment articles come over to the Senate, 
if Senate Democrats next week dismiss this impeachment, I am telling 
you right now, Senate Republicans will do the same thing to any 
impeachment that comes over from the House. What Senate Democrats will 
have done is effectively eliminated the Senate's power of impeachment 
anytime the Senate is the same party as the President.
  Many of us were here the last time this scenario happened. It was the 
first Trump impeachment. The first Trump impeachment, he had a 
Democratic House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President. The 
Democrats in the House impeached Donald Trump. They sent Articles of 
Impeachment over. The Senate Republicans could have played these games 
and tried to table the impeachment and said: We are going to shirk our 
constitutional duty; we are not going to have a trial. But we didn't. 
We followed the Constitution.
  My question for my colleagues here is: Is there even one Democrat who 
cares about the institution of the Senate, who cares about the 
Constitution, who cares about democracy?
  Democrats love to pound their chest and say they are defending 
democracy while they are engaging in a relentless assault on democracy.
  I have an organizing resolution that would follow the precedent and 
simply appoint an impeachment committee to hear the trial. The trial 
doesn't have to be on the Senate floor; that is typically done for 
Presidents. Instead, the impeachment committee could hear the evidence, 
which is what the Senate has done over and over and over again.
  By the way, every Democrat who says we have got other things to focus 
on--FISA and other matters--the impeachment committee would proceed 
parallel with the Senate floor considering other business. So it would 
delay nothing on the Senate floor to follow our Constitution and have 
an impeachment committee. But it would avoid destroying the impeachment 
power of the Senate, destroying the Constitution. And it would also 
give the American people a chance to hear the evidence and to hear the 
presentation of the House managers.
  Therefore, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on Rules and Administration be discharged from further 
consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 622; further, that 
the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, the date 
was June 27, 2013, and on the floor of the U.S. Senate we had done 
something that no one believed could be achieved: We had, through the 
Gang of 8, established a comprehensive immigration reform bill.
  I was part of that Gang of 8--eight Senators, four Democrats and four 
Republicans--who labored for months to create that legislation. It was 
comprehensive, as I noted. It covered every aspect, from border all the 
way through the immigration process.
  We brought it to the floor in the hopes that, for the first time in 
decades, we would finally reach an agreement, a bipartisan agreement. 
The people who were involved in it--John McCain on the Republican side, 
Senator Flake from Arizona, Senator Graham from South Carolina, and 
four Democrats--worked hard to bring this to the floor. It was an 
opportunity for us to finally do something together.
  It got 68 votes. We needed 60, but we got 68 votes. There was a lot 
of celebration because business and labor and others were supporting us 
and so happy that we got it done.
  We know what happened to that bill. It went over and died in the 
House of

[[Page S2701]]

Representatives. The Republican leadership over there refused to even 
call it for consideration. Of the Republican Senators currently on the 
floor, two of them were on the floor on June 27, 2013. They both voted 
no.
  Listen to the speeches and ask yourself the question: If the border 
and immigration policy need to be fixed in America, why weren't you 
there when we had a chance for a bipartisan approach to comprehensive 
immigration reform?
  And to make it even worse, there was an argument made that we would 
not provide defense supplemental spending, asked for by the 
administration, around the world, unless we came up with a border 
reform bill within the last several months. And the Republicans said: 
We have a leader on our side of the aisle whom we want to head up our 
effort to come up with a bipartisan bill to deal with the border. We do 
believe it needs to be fixed; it is in crisis.
  They proffered James Lankford, a conservative Republican Senator from 
Oklahoma, a highly respected Senator. I may disagree with him on many 
issues, but I respect him as a Member of the Senate. He was to be the 
lead negotiator, and we respected that request. Democrats had Chris 
Murphy and Kyrsten Sinema joining in the effort and prepared to bring 
to the floor a major--it was a bipartisan approach to solve this 
problem.
  Why is that necessary? Because in this body you need 60 votes. If you 
don't have 60 votes, you are wasting your time. We needed something 
bipartisan.
  And so this measure was headed to the floor. And at the last minute, 
former President Donald Trump announced that he wanted to stop the 
process; he did not want to even attempt to solve the problem with 
bipartisan legislation. He said: You can blame me if you want to. And I 
blame him again. Yes, he did that.
  And, unfortunately, the Republican Senators were complicit, most of 
them, in that effort instead of respecting what James Lankford had 
achieved and what a bipartisan bill would have made.
  So you can say what you want and make all the speeches about bodies 
and suffering, and I am sure most or some of that is true. But the 
bottom line is, when you had a chance to do something about it with the 
bipartisan Gang of 8 bill, you voted no, and when you had a chance to 
support James Lankford's bipartisan approach to fixing the border, you 
were not there to be seen. You were loyal to Donald Trump and not loyal 
to the situation that we face in the Senate.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 2 
minutes to respond to Senator Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, nowhere in Senator Durbin's remarks did we 
hear any mention of the children being brutalized by traffickers. 
Nowhere did we hear of the women trapped in sex slavery. Nowhere did we 
hear the words ``Laken Riley.'' Nowhere did we hear ``Jeremy Caceres.'' 
Nowhere did we hear a word about the dead bodies--three a day, nearly--
that are being found on Texas properties. Nowhere did we hear a word 
about the suffering.
  Instead, what did he do? He pointed to the Democrats' longstanding 
objection that granted amnesty to as many people as possible so they 
get more Democrat voters.
  The Gang of 8 bill was a terrible bill. And Senator Durbin is unhappy 
that democracy operated and the House of Representatives made the 
decision not to pass it. That is the way our system works.
  That is what led Senate Democrats and Joe Biden to decide to just 
open the border lawlessly because they couldn't actually get the votes 
to pass their bill.
  The Schumer bill he is talking about would have made this situation 
worse. And understand what Senator Durbin is saying. It is the policy 
of Senate Democrats to support these open borders. They don't have any 
arguments on the merits.
  By the way, Joe Biden inherited the lowest rate of illegal 
immigration in 45 years. All he had to do was nothing because we had 
success in securing the border. And Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas 
deliberately broke the border, and they continue the policies in place 
that ensure tomorrow more children will be brutalized and more women 
are going to be raped. They know that, and they are not willing to do 
anything to stop it.
  That is, I believe, immoral and wrong, and the Senate should hold a 
trial as the Constitution requires. We owe that to the American people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BRAUN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following Senators have up to 5 minutes each: myself, Senator Manchin, 
and Senator Marshall and Senator Cassidy for up to 10 minutes before 
the rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                              H.J. Res. 98

  Mr. BRAUN. Madam President, we have had several times recently--and I 
am talking about since the Biden administration came into office--to 
where, when you can't legislate, all of a sudden you use Executive 
orders and rulings.
  You have heard of the deep state. That is what happens when you can't 
get your way legislatively, which means you have got to get 60 Senators 
corralled here to do it, and you start doing things--in many cases, 
pushing legal limits administratively. That is when government has gone 
wild.
  I want to take you back to about a little over a year and a half ago 
when COVID was in the rearview mirror. If you remember, there was the 
effort to try to force vaccinations on every individual in the country 
working for an employer with 100 employees or more. That would have 
been almost everyone. You had folks in Indiana that owned businesses 
wondering, now that this was all in the rearview mirror: Why would you 
do it? It is government gone wild.

  It was our office that dusted off the Congressional Review Act that 
said enough is enough. Of course, Speaker of the House Pelosi wasn't 
going to take it up there. We did pass it in the Senate. And thank 
goodness the Supreme Court came in about 2 weeks later and said: Enough 
is enough; that is unconstitutional.
  We had to do it another time on all your hard-earned money you put 
into your investment accounts. You heard of ESG--environment, social, 
and governance--that that should be of equal value as return on 
investment. You know it shouldn't be. That is when you are trying to 
weave in ideology along with investment returns. We had to dust it off 
again. And that passed in the Senate and the House and generated 
President Biden's first veto.
  The number of times we have had to do it since then--too many to 
count. We are doing it again here this evening.
  I have led bipartisan letters to the NLRB, National Labor Relations 
Board, raising concerns about its proposed rule regarding joint 
employer status over the past couple years to no avail.
  And what they are wanting to do--again, this is getting into Main 
Street, into small business, and leveraging that Executive power to do 
something that would mess up what has worked well for a long time.
  This rule replaced the 2020 joint employer rule that focused on 
``direct and immediate control'' as the criterion and replaced it with 
an ``indirect, reserved'' control standard, which means it is 
subjective; you can do whatever you want because you don't want that 
particular rule that would have kept it where it has always been and 
where it has worked.
  It has caused confusion for franchise owners for years; in fact, 
franchisees just as bad. Those are the Main Street business owners. It 
would have immediate and long-term negative effects on millions of 
workers in thousands of businesses when the economy is already reeling 
from the inflation and the sugar-high economy based upon borrowed money 
spent to help few parts of it. That is what they have given us, and 
then they want to do this. Franchisors and franchisees, Main Street 
America, gets impacted by it.

[[Page S2702]]

  Moving forward with this misguided rule, the NLRB would hurt 
entrepreneurs. That is the backbone of our economy. They are the ones 
who start things that someday may become a larger business. Thirty-two 
percent of small business owners say they would not have a business if 
it were not for franchising. The NLRB should not move forward with this 
joint employer rule because it will have a negative economic impact. It 
is actually inconsistent with common law. The Board should maintain the 
2020 rule. It wasn't broken. It was working. They seem to be doing 
everything to try to fix it when it is not broken.
  I yield the floor to the Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I rise today, and I agree with my 
friend and my colleague from Indiana Senator Braun, my friend and my 
colleague from Louisiana Senator Cassidy, and my friend and my 
colleague from Kansas Senator Marshall.
  I rise today in support of the joint resolution of congressional 
disapproval to overturn the National Labor Relations Board's new joint 
employer rule.
  This rule is just another example of Executive overreach and the 
partisan politics that we deal with all too often.
  Small businesses are the heart of our economy, from the States like 
myself in West Virginia--small, rural States. This is the backbone of 
our business society. And especially, we have 98 percent of our 
businesses are small in West Virginia. I don't have one city in my 
State with a population greater than 50,000. So I am 1.7 million of 
small towns and cities. This is who we are.
  The COVID-19 pandemic was hard on small businesses and franchises, 
with an estimated 32,700 franchise businesses closing during the first 
6 months of the pandemic. The last thing they need is greater 
uncertainty caused by this rule.
  And the joint employer rule has caused confusion for franchise owners 
for years--telling them they could be held liable for actions taken by 
businesses with their brand, potentially subjecting them to corporate 
control.
  Franchising is a pathway to entrepreneurship for Americans across the 
country, and it helps build generational growth. By providing access to 
capital, training, managerial assistance, and a system of support, 
which is so needed in small rural areas, the franchise model helps many 
Americans overcome the numerous barriers to owning their own business--
for the first time, the dream coming true of having your own business 
and controlling your destiny.
  One out of every three franchise owners say they wouldn't own a small 
business without the franchise business model that they buy into. The 
unique model is used by over 5,000 independent businesses in my State 
of West Virginia, providing over 45,000 jobs.
  This new rule has further confused the issue and put the franchise 
model at risk. Under this rule, businesses are liable for entities they 
do not control. I repeat: Under this rule, businesses will be liable 
for entities that they do not control. And it makes no sense.
  Let me give you an example. If under this brand there are uniform 
standards for their products or they would require hair nets to be 
worn, they would then be found as a joint employer. It is as simple as 
that, if that is part of the model that you buy into, part of the 
franchise you bought has certain requirements to deliver products 
safely and healthfully.
  This is despite the fact that they have no responsibility--no 
responsibility--or role in hiring, firing, or wage decisions for the 
employees in any way, shape, or form.
  Does that make any sense? It just doesn't.
  Franchisees, for years, have enjoyed the independence of running 
their own businesses and making their own decisions about their 
employees, working with their employees in joint relationships. If a 
franchisor is now held responsible for these decisions, the franchise 
model will essentially no longer exist. The guidelines won't be there 
because they are totally liable and responsible.
  The bottom line is, this rule will shut the door on thousands of 
Americans who want to start--or maybe already have--a business and 
fulfill the American dream. That is why I introduced the Congressional 
Review Act with the Senators whom I just mentioned and our colleagues 
to make clear this rule does not work.
  Businesses should not be liable for entities they do not control. The 
National Labor Relations Board moved forward on this rule without 
bipartisan support, and I can assure you they did not have my partisan 
support.
  A member of the Board even found that this rule would be ``even more 
catastrophic'' than previous attempts to change the standard and 
potentially ``harmful to our economy.'' We know previous attempts to 
change the joint employer standard resulted in a 93-percent--I repeat 
again, 93-percent--increase in litigation, a loss of over 376,000 job 
opportunities, and were eventually struck down by the courts.
  This doesn't work. The courts have already ruled it doesn't work. And 
it will happen again, but here we go. Here we go.
  We should be focused on bolstering our economic growth and protecting 
Main Street businesses, not obstructing them.
  I am standing here today for the thousands of small businesses not 
only in my State but across the country. There are hard-working 
employees in the surrounding communities who are going to be harmed by 
this rule.
  I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, my friends on 
both sides, Democrat and Republican, basically to vote yes on this 
resolution and allow us to continue to work towards a bipartisan, 
commonsense solution instead of a more partisan, political position.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, the Senate will soon vote on the 
Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval, hoping to overturn 
the Biden administration's new joint employer rule. This policy 
threatens the viability of the American franchise model in favor of 
coerced unionization.
  There are 800,000 franchise businesses operating in our communities. 
They employ over 9 million Americans. The franchise model has 
particularly empowered underrepresented groups in the business 
community, such as women and people of color. This allows them to 
become a successful business owner, to live the American dream, and to 
create an opportunity for their own family and for their employees.
  President Biden's new joint employer rule threatens this critical 
business model. It forces legal liability onto franchisers for the 
labor decisions of individual franchise owners despite the franchiser 
having no operational authority over the business's employees.
  Saddling franchisers with liability for thousands of franchise owners 
that operate as small businesses is a sure way to destroy the system of 
franchising. According to the International Franchise Association, when 
the Obama administration imposed a similar policy, small businesses 
lost $33 billion per year collectively due to increased liability 
costs.
  The Biden administration's policy has strong opposition from 
Republicans and Democrats. It is also opposed by over 100 
organizations, including those representing small businesses and 
workers who will be severely impacted.
  It is not surprising that the joint employer rule is a major priority 
for large labor unions. It is easier for unions when they only have to 
negotiate with one major entity rather than with each individual small 
business. This allows the union to wield more influence in the 
collective bargaining process.
  President Biden promised to have the most pro-union administration in 
history. This priority should not be making it easier to forcibly and 
coercively unionize workers while undermining the business model of the 
establishments they work for. It should be supporting workers and 
increasing economic opportunity. Unfortunately, this policy does the 
opposite. It threatens the jobs of the over 9 million American workers 
employed by and earning a living from the franchise business model.

[[Page S2703]]

  I close by encouraging all my colleagues to pass this bipartisan CRA 
resolution and support those Americans who otherwise would not be able 
to own a business without the franchise model. Let's stop this harmful 
overreach that only hurts jobs and economic development in our 
communities and denies opportunities for Americans seeking a better 
life.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Madam President, I want to thank also the Senator from 
the great State of Louisiana for his leadership on this very important 
issue.
  The joint employer rule from the NLRB will crush the franchise model 
as we know it. It is going to crash the model of business that brought 
financial freedom to millions of Americans.
  What I love about the franchise models everywhere I go, visiting with 
these owners--it has been so helpful for minorities, for veterans, for 
women. These franchises provide a model, the framework on how to be 
successful, but this new rule from the NLRB would destroy the model as 
we know it.
  Now, I am not sure that Kansas had the first franchise, but in my 
mind, they did. I remember when Pizza Hut started. It was started by 
some students out of Wichita State University delivering pizzas to 
their fellow students. Not long after that came Rent-A-Center, Freddy's 
Frozen Custard, Goodcents subs, and many, many more. And that story has 
been repeated all across the country. These businesses started off 
small but through franchising were able to grow into national 
successes. Today, there are 7,500 franchises employing 75,000 employees 
across the State.
  Now, again, everywhere I go across the State of Kansas, people want 
to talk about inflation, but what is becoming more prominent, 
especially to a business owner, is regulations, just this overburden of 
regulations that is keeping us all down and driving up the cost of 
doing business. More regulations means more money, more cost to that 
owner.
  The question I get from folks is, Why does the White House want to 
fix something that is not broken? Listen, the system is working just 
fine right now. So why are we trying to fix it?
  I remember President Reagan talking about the 10 words every American 
hates to hear: ``I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you.'' 
We need less regulations, not more regulations.
  This definition is overly broad, and this rule threatens the success 
stories for all those happy endings, for all those American dreams that 
have become true. Instead of being independent business owners, 
franchisees will be reduced to middle managers--killing jobs, killing 
income as well. This rule attempts to trigger joint employer status if 
two employers share the essential terms and conditions of employment 
but then talks about indirect control as one of these terms and 
conditions. So instead of making overly broad and burdensome rules, we 
should pass bills like our own Save Local Business Act, which provides 
clear and consistent standards for treating joint employment status.
  I ask my colleagues to join us in supporting this CRA. This rule from 
the Federal Government is a solution in search of a problem.
  I yield the floor. The joint resolution was ordered to a third 
reading and was read the third time.


                         Vote on H. J. Res. 98

  PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the third 
time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  Mr. MARSHALL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Lee).
  Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) would 
have voted ``yea.''
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 122 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Vance
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--48

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Butler
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Lee
     Menendez
       
  The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 98) was passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). The Senator from New Hampshire.

                          ____________________