[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 66 (Tuesday, April 16, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2765-S2781]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  REFORMING INTELLIGENCE AND SECURING AMERICA ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--
                               Continued


                 National Security Supplemental Funding

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, in light of the unprecedented attacks by 
Iranian forces on Israel over the weekend and on the 64th day since the 
Senate passed a bipartisan national security supplemental bill, I come 
to the floor to once again call on the House to pass critical funding 
for Ukraine, for Israel, for the Indo-Pacific, and, importantly, for 
our own national security needs here at home.
  Over the past 6 months, I have worked with Senators from both sides 
of the aisle to urge the passage of supplemental funding to support our 
national security, and I am beyond disappointed that Speaker Johnson 
and

[[Page S2766]]

House Republicans have delayed much needed critical aid, especially 
given the Senate bill that passed here with 70 bipartisan votes. I 
believe and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle believe that that 
would pass the House if only the Speaker would bring the bill to the 
floor. Now, we hear this week that House Republicans may be nearing a 
vote on this aid, and while I am encouraged by that, it is way past 
time for us to help the courageous Ukrainians who are fighting, 
literally, for the life of their country.
  As chair of the European Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations 
Committee, like so many in this Chamber, I have met with President 
Zelenskyy, traveled to Ukraine, and met with the women and men who are 
on the frontlines of this war. I know the dire state of affairs right 
now against Russia. We have heard from our Nation's top four-star 
generals and every single combatant commander. They have stressed the 
importance of what happens in Ukraine to operations elsewhere around 
the world.
  Fortunately, Ukrainians remain fearless in the face of the brutality 
and aggression from Russia, but what the United States and our allies 
must do at this critical juncture is provide the military and economic 
support to help Ukraine win and define victory on its own terms. We 
must act now to ensure Ukraine's continued survival. We have heard 
testimony that, right now, for every shell that is being fired by the 
Ukrainians, five are being fired by Russia; and if we wait another 
month or more, it will be 10 for every shell that Ukrainians are 
firing.
  Ensuring Ukraine's survival is not just about Ukraine; it is about 
pushing back on Vladimir Putin's campaign to return to the days of 
Soviet occupation and aggression. We have seen this movie before with 
Vladimir Putin. In 2008, he invaded Georgia. In 2014, he illegally 
annexed Crimea and parts of the Donbas in Ukraine. Then, of course, 2 
years ago, he launched his full-scale, unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. 
If he wins--if the West fails to support Ukraine--we know that Vladimir 
Putin is not going to stop.
  We have heard from the leaders of the Baltic nations of Poland, of 
other states in Eastern Europe, their fears for what happens if 
Vladimir Putin is successful in Ukraine.
  Instead of letting Putin rewrite the rules of the road, we should put 
an end to his thinking that he can do as he pleases without 
consequences.
  Delays by the House of Representatives to pass this supplemental have 
enabled Putin's delusional agenda. We have already heard from the 
Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee,  Mike Turner, 
and Chairman  Mike McCaul from the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who 
have already said that a third of the Republican caucus is listing and 
spouting Russian disinformation.
  This isn't just about Ukraine; American aid and support deters other 
bad actors from initiating conflict in other parts of the world.
  Six months of inaction by Congress has enabled our adversaries. We 
saw it as recently as this weekend, when Iranian forces fired off 
hundreds of drones and rockets toward Israel. Now there is the 
potential for a broader war in the Middle East that could imperil more 
innocent lives and make the world more dangerous.
  It is more important than ever that we take action in Congress 
because these episodes--Ukraine, the attack in Israel, what is 
happening in the Indo-Pacific--they don't happen in silos. Our 
adversaries are connected. They are sharing weapons and reveling in our 
inability to act. Iran is currently supplying more than 70 percent of 
Russia's drone capabilities. A top Chinese official was just in North 
Korea for the highest level talks in years. The Secretary General of 
NATO branded this partnership as a ``dangerous authoritarian 
alliance,'' and he is right. This group of dictators, autocrats, and 
adversaries threatens democracy. It is a threat that is very much like 
what we saw in the lead-up to World War II.
  If we don't pass this supplemental, our adversaries, like Iran, will 
expand their own campaigns of aggression. If you are concerned about 
what China is doing, if you are concerned about what Iran is doing, the 
best way to deal a blow to these authoritarians is to support the 
Ukrainians in their effort to defeat Putin.
  We have a chance to take a stand for freedom and democracy, if only 
our House colleagues would finally pass the national security 
supplemental.
  I just got back from the Indo-Pacific with a congressional delegation 
that included six Members of the Senate and one Member of the House. It 
was bipartisan and bicameral. What we heard in the nations that we 
visited in the Indo-Pacific was that they understand the connection 
between what is going on in Ukraine and what is happening with China, 
with great power competition, with the aggression in the Indo-Pacific 
and the South China Sea, and against Taiwan.
  If the House would pass the national security supplemental, we could 
degrade Russia, we could degrade the Iranian military capabilities, and 
we could do it without costing American lives. We could boost our 
economy through our defense industrial base.
  Support for Ukraine and our allies isn't a blank check. It is not 
charity. The United States is providing Ukraine with critical equipment 
to defend itself and its territory. This equipment is pulled from U.S. 
stocks, which also means that it is putting people to work back at 
home.
  Despite misinformation from too many House Republicans, a majority of 
the funding in the bill the Senate sent over more than 60 days ago is 
spent in the United States. It would be spent to replenish our own 
military stocks so that we can continue to meet our military 
requirements. It would shore up our military readiness and ensure that 
the U.S. industrial base can keep up with demand.
  A destabilized Europe as a result of Ukraine losing this war would be 
a disaster for the U.S. economy. In my home State of New Hampshire 
alone, we export about $3 billion each year to Europe, which is our 
largest trading partner.
  Putin poses a serious threat to our security and a peaceful, 
prosperous future. Our allies know this, and that is why, by the end of 
this year, 18 NATO countries will meet the 2-percent defense spending 
goal set by the alliance. This historic investment in our collective 
security shows that the United States is not shouldering this burden 
alone.
  We can depend on our allies, and they must be able to depend on us. 
Let's remind ourselves that our NATO allies stood by our side after 
September 11. Right now, leaders from around the world are looking for 
the United States to step up and pass this bill. What message does it 
send to our allies if we ignore their pleas for support to save lives 
and ensure our collective security? What message does it send to our 
grandchildren if we tell them that we are willing to gamble sending 
them to fight in another war in Europe? There is one thing we know--
that Putin is not going to stop in Ukraine.
  America doesn't back down when it is called upon to defend freedom--
at least we never have. Ukraine is now on the frontlines of the fight 
for democracy and freedom. We have the resources to act here. We have 
the ability to act. Now it is time for everyone in the House to find 
the courage to act because failure is not an option.
  I yield the floor.
  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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    National Flood Insurance Program

  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, last week, we saw terrible flooding in 
parts of Louisiana. Here, as the charts will show--water shouldn't be 
up to the bottom of a vehicle. Here you see people getting on a bus, 
wearing waders. So people's lives were disrupted, just like with any 
serious flood. Now families are turning to FEMA, the National Flood 
Insurance Program, to help lift them out of the hole that last week's 
storms have left them in.
  Moments like these are why people buy insurance. But what about after 
we have recovered and the Sun shines once more? There is increasing 
concern among Americans that they will not be able to afford their 
flood insurance for when the next storm hits.
  A house is the biggest purchase most people make in their lifetime. 
Unless

[[Page S2767]]

you are among the wealthiest, you are taking out a mortgage to make 
that purchase. After you have bought your home, imagine if FEMA changes 
the rules and your flood insurance now costs more than that mortgage? 
No American should have to pay more in flood insurance than their 
mortgage, but that is the story I am hearing frequently from people in 
Louisiana.
  There is a cost-of-living crisis being fueled by the inflation 
created by this administration. Inflation is costing Louisiana families 
$884 more a month compared to 2021. Everywhere they turn, they are 
frustrated with the fact that they are paying more and getting less.
  When I speak to folks back home, they are not only worried about how 
to put food on their table but also how to pay for gas. They are 
worried about how they are going to be able to afford to stay in their 
homes and about how they can afford a good education for their 
children.
  I would like to do something about some small part of it. Congress 
has the power to do something about it, and that is to make flood 
insurance affordable.
  The National Flood Insurance Program was created as a safety net for 
the most vulnerable Americans. It covers 4.7 million American homes, 
but those millions of homes are at risk of losing their protection 
because of skyrocketing premiums caused by FEMA's new risk assessment 
system, Risk Rating 2.0.
  Let's briefly talk about the history of NFIP Risk Rating 2.0 and how 
we got here. FEMA introduced Risk Rating 2.0 in October of 2021. It was 
slated to take effect in 2022 for new policies and in 2023 for existing 
policyholders.
  Since then, Americans who rely on flood insurance have been held in a 
state of uncertainty. Before they were hit with that first bill, many 
families didn't know if their premiums would jump up; if they did, how 
much; and when the rate hikes would end.
  FEMA told us that 77 percent of policyholders would see a premium 
hike but refused to publicly disclose how the Agency calculates 
individual policy rates. So now FEMA is sending Americans a bill and 
won't tell them how they came up with the price. If you were the 
American getting that bill, you would be incredibly frustrated. You 
wouldn't accept it if your mechanic stuck you with a crazy bill but 
didn't tell you what was wrong with the car. Why should we just accept 
from a government Agency that same kind of model? Theoretically, the 
government Agency is here to serve us.
  Louisiana is one of the States getting hit the hardest. NFIP premiums 
in Louisiana are expected to go up by 234 percent, with some ZIP Codes 
seeing as much as an 1,100-percent increase--that is 1,100 percent. In 
real terms, some ZIP Codes will see an increase from around $600 to 
more than $8,000 annually. Couple that with the homeowner's insurance 
crisis. Couple that with inflation across the country. Couple that with 
the cost to heat your home. Couple that with the cost to go to the 
grocery store. It is clear why Americans feel they cannot keep their 
heads above water.
  Insurance, just like everything else, has become less affordable. 
When folks can't afford flood insurance, they begin to drop that 
coverage, and the pool of policyholders shrink. The amount of risk is 
then placed on a smaller number of policyholders, which increases their 
premiums, which makes them drop their policies, and then we enter what 
is called an actuarial death spiral.
  FEMA itself forecasted that over 20 percent of policyholders will 
leave the program because of higher premiums within the next 10 years. 
We are setting the program up for collapse and leaving Americans and 
American taxpayers holding the bucket.
  Some groups will be hit even harder than others. FEMA won't tell us 
how they came up with the numbers of what they expect Americans to pay, 
but we do know they do not factor in income or the ability to pay. 
There is no discount or consideration for an elderly couple who is 
retired and living on a fixed income, bought their home in 1957, never 
had it flooded, and now their insurance premiums are rising. This is a 
real human condition.
  Congress has the power to address it, and we need to step up now. If 
my colleagues and our friends in the House of Representatives wish to 
honor the people we serve, let's start with the 4.7 million 
policyholders being--I don't know if the word is ``mistreated''--
mishandled by the National Flood Insurance Program, certainly poorly 
served.
  I urge my colleagues to read our NFIP Reauthorization and Reform Act. 
Come talk to us about it. It is something which is bipartisan, which is 
reasonable and sensible, and which will actually address this need. Our 
goal is to make the National Flood Insurance Program more affordable 
for the homeowner, more accountable to the taxpayer, and more 
sustainable for society. Our bill does that, but we can only do so by 
working together.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  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. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Mayorkas Impeachment

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with me today is one of my colleagues 
from my office, Mr. Matt Turner.
  I want to talk about the woolly mammoth in the room: impeachment. I 
want my colleagues to just put aside for a second the legal aspect of 
this. Let's stop thinking for a second about how many lawyers can dance 
on the head of a pin, and let's just think for a moment what is about 
to happen over the next 2 days.
  A few moments ago, the managers from the U.S. House of 
Representatives came over--every Member of the Senate was here and 
seated--and read their Articles of Impeachment, their charges, about 
Secretary Mayorkas. The U.S. House of Representatives--did you notice I 
said that? Representatives of the U.S. House of Representatives came 
over to us.
  As I said the other day, we are not talking about some snow bro who 
likes chicken McNuggets and weed and has an opinion. We are not talking 
about some game boy who is living in his parents' basement and has an 
opinion--though both of them are entitled to their opinion because this 
is America.
  We are talking about the U.S. House of Representatives. For months, 
they investigated the open, bleeding wound that is the southern border 
and why it is open and why it is bleeding. And after investigating it--
not for days, not for weeks--for months, the U.S. House of 
Representatives voted two articles, two charges, in an impeachment of 
Secretary Mayorkas.
  And those are serious charges. They are as serious as four heart 
attacks and a stroke. The first one is willful and systemic refusal to 
comply with the law--not negligence--willful and systemic refusal to 
comply with the law. The second charge is breach of the public trust--
breach of the public trust. Serious, serious charges.
  Now, this doesn't happen every day or every week or every month or 
even every year around here. Our country is almost 250 years old. This 
has only happened 22 times. Twenty-two times has the U.S. House of 
Representatives impeached a public official. And every single time--
check it. Go Google it. Every single time--you can write this down, 
take it home to mama. Every single time, except when the public 
official has quit, the U.S. Senate has done its job, through thick and 
thin, whether the Democrats were in the majority or the Republicans 
were in the majority. It didn't matter who the President was. We did 
our job because we respect the institution of the Constitution; we 
respect the three branches of government; we respect the U.S. House of 
Representatives. We respect them enough to do our job. We held a trial 
every single time, except when the public official quit.
  Now, in the next 2 days, you are going to hear one of my colleagues--
the majority leader--say we don't need to hold a trial. He is going to 
say the evidence is insufficient, that it is not worth our time. I want 
you to think for a moment. Just ask yourself this question: How does he 
know the evidence isn't sufficient? How does he know? He hasn't heard 
the evidence.
  What you are about to see, folks--it breaks my heart to say this. 
Over the next 2 days, what you are going to see is not about the 
evidence. It is not

[[Page S2768]]

about the law. It is not about the process. It is not about what should 
be 250 years of precedent in history. It is about raw, gut politics--
raw, gut politics.
  Some of my colleagues in this body do not want us to talk about the 
border in an election year, and we all know that. You know that. I know 
that. Everybody watching knows that. The American people know that. 
They may be poorer under President Biden, but they are not stupid. They 
can see that. And that is not right. It is vacuous. It is fraudulent. 
Regardless of what you think or you may think you think without having 
heard the evidence, the U.S. Senate should do its job. We should hold a 
trial.
  Now, my Democratic friends have the votes. They can do pretty much 
what they want to. When you have got the votes, you know, you can--what 
is the old expression? You can make a koala bear eat hot peppers and 
like it if you have the votes. They have the majority, and I believe in 
the rule of law, and the rules are the rules. But sometimes--sometimes 
the majority just means a lot of the fools are on the same side. That 
is why we have a Bill of Rights in our Constitution: to protect our 
rights that the majority can't take away.
  And I want to say this as respectfully as I can because I understand 
politics. I have been in this business for a while. The Presiding 
Officer has too. I have seen the dark side of it too. I have seen the 
good side, but I have seen the dark side. And what I am seeing right 
now is the dark side. I am seeing the dark side.
  This is a political decision, and it is an insult to the Senate. And 
it is one more step of the U.S. Senate rotting from within, where we 
don't do our job for political reasons. So I am asking my Democratic 
colleagues--I say this gently, with as much respect as I can muster: 
Pretty please, pretty please, pretty please with sugar on top, let's do 
our job. Just because you have the votes, don't dismiss these 
impeachment proceedings summarily, like it is spam in your inbox. The 
U.S. Senate needs to do its job.
  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. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Healthy Kids Act

  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, tens of millions of kids in America are 
anxious, depressed, angry, lonely, sedentary, sometimes insecure, and 
sometimes suicidal. And just about everybody--whether they are parents, 
teachers, mental health professionals, or even the kids themselves--
points the finger at the same culprit: social media.

  We do not need more data to tell us what is so painfully obvious in 
schools and homes across the country. Social media platforms, with 
their wildly powerful, covert, and addictive algorithms are driving our 
kids deeper and deeper into a sea of despair that they can't find their 
way out of. Kids are being unwittingly sucked into rabbit holes that 
leave them in a constant state of panic and outrage--ashamed of their 
own bodies, lacking meaningful friendships and connections.
  The idea that a young kid--a kid--can feel so unhappy and so 
unfulfilled at the tender age of 8 or 9--so much so that they seriously 
contemplate self-harm--is appalling. And it is a uniquely modern crisis 
created over the past decades by profit-chasing tech companies for whom 
nothing and no one is off-limits, not even very young kids. The math 
for them is very simple: Attention means money. And the best way to 
hold people's attention is to make them upset and keep them upset.
  You talk to any parent--whether they are raising a toddler or a 
teenager, whether they are a voter or nonvoter, a Democrat or a 
Republican--they are worried and they are frustrated about all the ways 
that social media is harming kids, but they don't know what to do about 
it or if they can do anything at all. Some might work two jobs and not 
have the time to monitor what their kids are up to online. Others might 
lack the technical literacy to operate parental controls and set limits 
on screen time.
  All they really want is for their young kids to be off social media 
altogether, because there is no good reason that a 9-year-old should be 
spending hours every day scrolling through TikTok that has been 
programmed with no concern for whether the content is age-appropriate 
or not. There is no First Amendment right for an 11-year-old to be on 
Instagram while algorithm targets them with content glorifying 
starvation and fueling insecurities.
  By the company's own admission, social media was never meant to be 
used by young kids. Yet any parent, or anyone who knows a parent, knows 
that young kids are on these platforms anyway. And the only way that it 
will stop is if the Federal law finally mandates that companies keep 
young kids off of their services.
  Over the past year, my team and I have worked extensively with a 
broad range of advocates and stakeholders, as well as the Senate 
Commerce Committee leadership, to update my bill to protect kids on 
social media. Our updated bill, called the Healthy Kids Act, would do 
two simple things: It would prevent kids under 13 from being on social 
media at all; and it would ban algorithmic targeting on these platforms 
for kids under 17.
  Delaying the onset of social media use is a straightforward and 
commonsense way to protect our youngest kids from the very worst of the 
internet's ills. Let them have a normal childhood in the real world--
play a sport, learn an instrument, read a book, go to the park, walk 
around with friends. And once kids are on social media at 13 or 14 or 
whenever, they need protection, particularly from the algorithmic 
targeting.
  Just last year alone, social media companies made $11 billion from 
ads targeted at kids under 18 in the United States--$11 billion. So it 
is no wonder that they have no appetite to change their business model 
without a Federal law. It is working great for them--just not for the 
millions of young kids who are sad and lonely and angry because of it. 
Kids need help, and they need protection. And because the companies 
have shown time and time again that they will not step up, Congress 
must.
  I am glad that we are seeing renewed momentum and urgency right now 
with a number of different proposals on this issue in the U.S. Senate. 
All of them, my bill included, share the same goal of keeping our kids 
healthy. But at the heart of this effort is an essential question of 
when our kids ought to be allowed to be on social media. At what age is 
it appropriate to use? If we are going to protect these kids online and 
act as a counterweight to the rich and powerful tech companies, 
answering that question and establishing an age minimum is essential. 
And that is what the Healthy Kids Act does.
  It is our job here in the Senate to consider any number of difficult 
challenges facing the country and the world and to debate what to do 
about them. What is more fundamental to the role of the Federal 
Government than to protect the most vulnerable Americans, especially 
our children?
  If you think what is happening to kids online is unclear, look at the 
data. The percentage of high school students surveyed who experienced 
persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness in the past year is 36 
percent to 57 percent females; 21 percent to 29 percent males in 10 
years--in 10 years.
  It might be the phones. It might be the phones. You can consult the 
data. You can ask the Surgeon General of the United States. You can ask 
all of the people who have studied this. And they know it is early use 
of social media where--look, we all use social media, and our adult 
brains are not powerful enough to overcome the negative impacts. You 
are 13, you are 9, you are 7, you are going to be overpowered by these 
algorithms. We have to protect these kids.
  And if you don't believe the data, talk to any parent--Democrat, 
Republican, parent of a 2-year-old, parent of a 12-year-old--everybody 
wants this tool in their toolkit. And the idea that we should pass a 
Federal law mandating that all the social media companies have to do is 
have a little thing in settings where you can turn the dials on all the 
different aspects of your social media account is ignorant. It is 
ignorant. The idea that all we really

[[Page S2769]]

need to do is precipitate a conversation between a parent and child 
about social media use--no. What parents need is to be able to say: I 
am sorry. That is illegal. I am sorry. You may not use these social 
media platforms.

  I think it gets really tricky and really complicated once a kid is 
13, 14, 15, 16, 17. I understand that. And we narrowed the bill to be 
more precise because there is no First Amendment right, there is no 
public policy upside for a 9-year-old to be on TikTok. Nobody can make 
that argument with a straight face.
  And so as we consider our options going forward on tech policy--but 
specifically protecting children online--the threshold question is, At 
what age is it appropriate for a child to use social media? If I had my 
druthers, I would have set it at 16, honestly. But, certainly, we can 
all agree that there is no advantage to a child's life, a prepubescent 
child's life--a 9-year-old, a 4-year-old, an 11-year-old--being on 
social media.
  I am confident we will get this done. I am confident that if this 
ever received a Senate floor vote, that it would be a resounding 
bipartisan majority. And I am confident that the American people 
support us in this.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Tennessee.


                          Mayorkas Impeachment

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, we gathered just a couple of hours ago 
to receive the impeachment articles on Alejandro Mayorkas, who is the 
Secretary of Homeland Security. How interesting that, as we look at 
going through this impeachment, we have Senator Schumer, who is the 
majority leader, who has decided he wants to change his tune when it 
comes to dealing with impeachment.
  Now, in 2019, right before the Democrats started in on President 
Trump and an impeachment trial for President Trump, Leader Schumer 
stood right here in this Chamber, and he said:

       We have a responsibility to let all the facts come out.
       We [have] to remember our constitutional duty to act as 
     judges and jurors in a potential trial.

  Now, those were his comments at that point in time. He was all for an 
impeachment trial, and it is our constitutional duty. You can look at 
article I, section 2 and section 3. Section 2 lays out the 
responsibility of the House in impeachment. Section 3 pertains to the 
Senate and how we are to proceed with a trial of impeachment.
  But, as I said, Leader Schumer has decided that he wants to change 
his tune, and all of a sudden, he is not wanting this even though we 
actually have a public officeholder who deserves to stand for an 
impeachment trial, and that is Secretary Mayorkas. Now that the shoe is 
on the other foot, if you will, and now that it is about a Democrat, 
Leader Schumer wants to change the rules and say no. He is even willing 
to take unprecedented actions that this Chamber has never taken when it 
comes to the issue of impeachment.
  I believe this should incense every single American. I know it 
incenses the people of Tennessee because what we have learned in the 
last 3 years about Secretary Mayorkas--even though his title is 
``Secretary of Homeland Security,'' he does not believe in securing the 
homeland, and he has refused to fulfill his duty of securing the 
homeland.
  I know that Secretary Mayorkas is doing the bidding of Joe Biden and 
the Biden administration. He is just doing what they tell him he has to 
do. That in and of itself tells you a lot about what this 
administration thinks about the security and sovereignty of this 
country. Here is why: On the Biden-Mayorkas watch, you have more than 
9.4 million illegal aliens coming into this country. That is in less 
than 3 years--9.4 million.
  We know that there are between 1.7 and 2.5 million ``got-aways.'' 
Some of those ``got-aways'' are included in that 9.4 million number, 
and others are not because they didn't see them as they were coming 
through and couldn't get to them. They found things they left on the 
roadside or in the woods, in the brush, later on.
  Out of this 10 million or so who have illegally come into the 
country--by the way, just to help everyone have the right context, that 
number of 10 million is greater than the population of 38 of our 
States--38. That is how many people are coming in who are illegally 
entering the country.
  Out of this number, you have thousands who are from countries of 
interest. That would be places like Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Iraq, Iran. 
And look at China. Look at what is happening there. You also have 300 
known terrorists. As we heard in the impeachment articles today, under 
President Trump, you had no more than a dozen total over 4 years who 
were coming into the country. What do you have under Joe Biden? You 
have over 300 suspected terrorists. Even last week, we had an issue 
where DOJ and DHS and FBI and the other Agencies were admitting they 
had lost track of a terrorist from Afghanistan, and he was free-roaming 
the country for a year.
  In addition to the terrorists and the people from countries of 
interest, fentanyl is coming across our borders. It is being smuggled 
in by the cartels. Fentanyl is the leading cause of death of Americans 
age 18 to 45. Fentanyl is a drug that--China has the precursor 
chemicals, and they are manufacturing this in labs that they have set 
up with, oh, by the way, the cartels in Mexico, and the cartels are the 
distribution hub for fentanyl. I talk to parents regularly who have a 
child who has lost a life or become addicted because of fentanyl.
  In addition to all the fentanyl, you have the human trafficking. What 
is really so sad to me when you look at human trafficking--and for the 
cartels, human trafficking is a business. It has grown from a business 
that was $500 million a year in this country in 2018, and today it is a 
$13 billion-a-year business.
  If you don't think the cartels are big business, if you don't think 
they are global entities, look at this. Globally, human trafficking is 
a $150 billion-a-year business. Where do these people want to come? 
Right here. They want to come into our country.

  On top of this, there are more than 400,000 migrant children. Many of 
them have been recycled and abused by the cartels. Yes, indeed, the 
cartels are so into this human trafficking now that they have devised a 
scheme. It is child abuse. They take a little child. They write their 
name and the phone number to contact on that child's back. They put 
that child with a cartel member they are trying to get into the 
country. They pose as a family for the purpose of claiming asylum. Once 
the cartel member is across the border, what does he do? He lets the 
child go--lets the child go--and the child is sent back to Mexico.
  So we add to all of these issues with the terrorists, with the people 
from countries of interest, with the drugs, with the human trafficking, 
with the sex trafficking, you look at what is happening to these 
children. Tens of thousands of these 400,000 children have been forced 
into really horrific, exploitative situations, including child labor 
and sex trafficking.
  Across the country, you have dangerous, illegal alien criminals--they 
are called criminal aliens--who should never have been able to come 
into this country in the first place. They have harmed and they have 
murdered innocent Americans.
  So all of these reasons as to why we should move forward with this 
impeachment, and on top of it you add that Secretary Mayorkas has 
repeatedly lied to Congress about our border being secure. He likes to 
say he has done everything to prevent this, but we know he has done 
everything to allow it and to allow the flow to continue.
  Last year, DHS, his Agency, deported less than 5 percent of all 
migrant encounters at the border. In 2022, only 10 percent of all 
criminal illegal aliens in the United States were arrested.
  While a border wall would do so much to help end the border crisis, 
Secretary Mayorkas stated:

       From day one, this Administration has made clear that a 
     border wall is not the answer.

  His words. From day one, they have made clear that a border wall is 
not the answer. Well, let me tell you something: Walls work. Throughout 
history,

[[Page S2770]]

walls have worked. The evidence is overwhelming.
  Secretary Mayorkas has refused to uphold his constitutional duty of 
securing the homeland, and the American people are suffering the 
consequences.
  Five years ago, Leader Schumer was all too happy to lead a partisan, 
baseless impeachment trial against President Trump. Yet, today, when 
faced with a Secretary who is unfit for office, Leader Schumer is 
trying to prevent a Senate trial and dismiss the House's Articles of 
Impeachment.
  (Mr. WYDEN assumed the Chair.)
  Never before has the Senate dismissed impeachment charges without 
holding a trial.
  When I talk to Tennesseans, they talk about their frustration with 
Washington, DC, and their frustration with two tiers of justice. It 
seems there is a tier for the Democrats and the elites and illegals and 
another for Republicans and President Trump and people who are 
conservative.
  It is important that Secretary Mayorkas be held to account. For 3 
years, he has done President Biden's bidding by opening the border to 
millions of illegal aliens. If this Chamber upholds its constitutional 
duty to hold a trial, I will vote to convict Secretary Mayorkas and 
remove him from office.
  While the Biden administration is working to make illegal immigration 
legal, border States such as Texas are stepping up to do what this 
administration will not do, and that is to secure the border.
  Over recess, I spent time in El Paso, TX, to see firsthand how 
Governor Abbott and authorities in the Lone Star State are working to 
keep communities safe. Now, it is a part of the efforts in Texas to 
deter illegal immigration, and Texas is taking this seriously to make 
certain that they secure property there along the Rio Grande.
  What they have done is to place buoys in the river, shipping 
containers on the embankment, razor wire behind that, and fences behind 
that. They did this along the Rio Grande there in El Paso to prevent 
illegal aliens from coming in through El Paso.
  Texas has bolstered its barriers, and what you are seeing now is that 
the illegal aliens are traveling farther to the west. They are going to 
New Mexico. They are going to Arizona. They are going to California. 
Why? Because they are looking for somewhere easier that they can get 
into the country illegally.
  (Mr. WELCH assumed the Chair.)
  Bear in mind, the coyotes, they are working hard for all of these 
groups and for the cartels, and nobody enters without paying a coyote.
  Now, when you look at what Texas is doing, taking this into their own 
hands--and you have got the State, you have got local counties--they 
are spending billions at the State level and millions in these 
counties. And as a result, illegal immigration in Texas dropped by 54 
percent between December and January. And in the Del Rio Sector, which 
includes Eagle Pass, illegal entries fell by 76 percent.
  This shows you border walls work. The Border Patrol has been telling 
us for decades: We need a barrier; we need better technology where we 
cannot have a barrier; and we need more officers and agents. So while 
the Biden administration pretends otherwise, knowing that walls work 
should not be a surprise. Border walls from ancient Athens to the Great 
Wall of China, they protected cities. They protected nations for 
thousands of years. Border barriers are used on nearly every continent 
on Earth to protect countries from illegal entry, from drug smuggling, 
and from terrorism.
  But instead of supporting Texas and its successful efforts to deter 
illegal immigration, this administration and this Secretary of Homeland 
Security, they think it is a good thing to go sue Texas and try to make 
them remove their border barriers. While Texas has accomplished a lot 
in securing their border, protecting families, and saving American 
lives, President Biden's attack on our border security has placed a 
tremendous burden on our border States and communities. Indeed, every 
town has turned into a border town, every State a border State all 
across this country because of what is happening with the drug 
trafficking, with human trafficking, with sex trafficking, with crime 
in communities.
  While I was in Eagle Pass, I sat down with some ranchers and farmers 
who have had their property destroyed, stolen, broken into by illegal 
aliens crossing into our country from Mexico. In one instance, two 
migrants broke into a rancher's home while his 16-year-old daughter was 
studying at home alone.
  Texas law enforcement also warned about the ways cartels are using 
new technology to aid their smuggling operations, including by using 
Chinese-owned TikTok to recruit Americans into their human trafficking 
rings. At the same time, cartels are flying drones into the United 
States to scope out the location of border agents and redirect their 
smuggling routes.
  More than anything else, authorities in Texas told me that they need 
more border wall construction, better technology, and more agents.
  So if Secretary Mayorkas and President Biden refuse to help them, 
Congress has to step in. That is why I introduced legislation called 
the CONTAINER Act, which would empower border States such as Texas to 
place temporary barriers on Federal land to protect their communities.
  No State or locality should face lawsuits from the Federal Government 
for trying to secure our border and to protect the sovereignty of the 
United States of America.
  I also introduced the CLEAR Act, which would reaffirm the authority 
of State and local governments to enforce Federal immigration laws by 
apprehending, detaining, and then transferring illegal aliens to 
Federal custody. Among its important measures, this legislation would 
require the Department of Homeland Security to provide grants to State 
and local governments to help them enforce immigration law and 
construct detention facilities. It would also require DHS to take 
illegal aliens into custody within 48 hours after receiving a request 
from a State or locality and provide the Justice Department with 
essential information about illegal aliens who have overstayed their 
period of stay in this country.
  After my visit to Eagle Pass, I know these pieces of legislation 
would do so much to support our border security along these border 
States, and I am hopeful that this President and his Department of 
Homeland Security will have a change of heart and will move forward 
with securing our southern border, just as this Chamber should move 
forward with an impeachment trial on Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                                  FISA

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this FISA 
bill. And, to begin, there is a central question before the U.S. 
Senate, and that is: Who should be forced to help their government spy?
  The legislation coming from the other body gives the government 
unchecked authority to order Americans to spy on behalf of their 
government. This was slipped in, Mr. President, in the last minutes in 
the House of Representatives' bill, and this is the first time this 
language has ever been considered here in the U.S. Senate.
  Under current law--section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act--the government can order the phone companies and 
email and internet service providers to hand over communications. This 
bill expands that existing power dramatically. It says: The government 
can force cooperation from ``any other service provider who has access 
to equipment that is being or may be used to transmit or store wire or 
electronic communications.''
  Now, the language I just read to the Senate means that, if you have 
access to any communications, the government can force you to help it 
spy. That means anybody with access to a server, a wire, a cable box, a 
WiFi router, a phone, or a computer.
  So think for a moment about the millions of Americans who work in 
buildings and offices in which communications are stored or passed 
through. After all, every office building in America has data cables 
running through it.
  These people are not just the engineers who install, maintain, and 
repair our communications infrastructure. There are countless others 
who could be forced to help the government spy, including those who 
clean offices and guard buildings. If this provision is enacted, the 
government could deputize

[[Page S2771]]

any of these people against their will and force them, in effect, to 
become what amounts to an agent for Big Brother--for example, by 
forcing an employee to insert a USB thumb drive into a server at an 
office they clean or guard at night.
  This can all happen without any oversight whatsoever. The FISA Court 
won't know about it. The Congress won't know about it. Americans who 
are handed these directives will be forbidden from talking about it. 
Unless they can afford high-priced lawyers with security clearances who 
know their way around the FISA Court, they will have no recourse at 
all.
  Now, importantly, Mr. President--and you and I have talked about 
this--supporters of this provision will say that this doesn't change 
the fact that section 702 only targets foreigners overseas. But if the 
government thinks that those targets are communicating with people in 
the United States, they can go right to the source: the WiFi, the phone 
lines, the servers, the transmitters that store those communications.
  If the government has an interest in those foreign targets, well, the 
Americans whose communications get collected are just plain out of 
luck.
  Supporters of this provision will also say this was necessary because 
of a FISA Court opinion. I disagree. That opinion didn't gut section 
702. This provision is not necessary, and there certainly is no 
justification for this vast expansion of surveillance authorities.
  Supporters also claim that the provision has a narrow purpose and 
that the government doesn't intend to start tapping into everybody's 
phone line or WiFi, but that is not how this provision is written. It 
is not reflected in the actual legislation.
  And I would say, respectfully, that anybody who votes to give the 
government vast powers under the premise that intelligence Agencies 
won't actually use them is being pretty darn naive.
  Supporters also point to a handful of exceptions that were tacked 
onto this provision, excluding things like hotels and coffee shops. 
Anybody who reads the text will see that these provisions clearly are 
not designed to work. Even the coffee shop exception is meaningless 
because it wouldn't cover a company that maintains the coffee shop's 
WiFi. And the fact that there are a couple of random exceptions further 
proves my point.
  This provision is going to force a huge range of companies and 
individuals to spy for their government.
  Supporters have even argued that the bill had to be broadly written 
because what the government actually wants to do is secret. That is 
some ``Alice in Wonderland'' logic.
  First, the American people deserve to know when the government can 
spy on them and when it can't. If you clearly can't explain to American 
voters why you need new powers, then you shouldn't have them.
  And the distinguished Presiding officer of the Senate from Vermont, 
he has asked questions about this as well.
  Second, it doesn't matter what the government might be secretly 
intending to do with these authorities at the moment. There is a 
statutory authority that will be in place for years, during which time 
the government may very well decide to dramatically expand its 
surveillance activities.

  Now, some of my colleagues say they aren't worried about President 
Biden abusing these authorities. Well, last time I looked, the law 
applies to Presidents, regardless of their political power--excuse me--
regardless of their position. In that case, how about President Trump? 
Imagine these authorities in his hands. If you are worried about having 
a President who lives to target vulnerable Americans, to pit Americans 
against each other, to find every conceivable way to punish perceived 
enemies, you ought to find this bill terrifying.
  The bill expands 702 authorities in other ways. For example, it 
includes a dramatic increase in the use of 702 in vetting travelers to 
the United States. It requires that the Attorney General enable 
searches on all travelers, tens of millions of people who come to the 
United States annually. This is a dragnet search of every work 
colleague, neighbor, and classmate who is here on a visa; every 
grandparent visiting for a wedding or a funeral.
  So what I have done in the last 10 or 12 minutes is point out that 
these are just some of the ways in which this bill expands warrantless 
surveillance authorities. On top of all of that, it fails to reform 
section 702 in any meaningful way.
  I will start with the warrantless searches of Americans' 
communications swept up in section 702 collection. These searches have 
gone after American protesters, political campaign donors, even people 
who simply reported crimes to the FBI. The abuses have been extensive 
and well documented.
  Now, supporters of this bill are going to argue: Well, the FBI has 
taken care of things. They have cleaned up their act.
  But even after the FBI made changes to its internal policies, abuses 
continued, including searches for a U.S. Senator, State senator, and a 
State judge who had complained to the FBI about police abuses.
  But the broader concern is that, without checks and balances, there 
is nothing preventing a rapid increase of abuses after reauthorization.
  Supporters of this bill will say that it codified the FBI's internal 
changes. But what I would say is: Without real checks and balances 
written into the law, what good are these changes?
  Reformers have put forward extremely modest, commonsense solutions. 
Warrants would not be required for all U.S. person searches. Reform 
proposals allow the government to see whether an American is 
communicating with foreign agents. A warrant is required only when the 
government wants to read the content of these communications--a 
situation that arises less than 2 percent of the time. Our provision 
also allows for emergency searches and has exceptions for imminent 
threats of death or injury, preexisting law enforcement or FISA 
warrants, consent, and access to malware in cyber attacks.
  This modest reform should be debated and voted on in the Senate.
  There are other commonsense reforms to section 702 that also are not 
in this bill. For example, it doesn't protect Americans against reverse 
targeting, and it doesn't prohibit the collection of domestic 
communications.
  Finally, the bill should have been an opportunity to pass meaningful 
protections for Americans' privacy from abusive government subpoenas 
targeted at the most vulnerable groups in our society, including women, 
religious and racial minorities, and LGBTQ people.
  Mr. President, 15 States have now banned abortion, with more on the 
way. When States enforce bans on reproductive health access, they will 
use everything from location data generated by connected cars and the 
smartphone in the patient's pocket to the Google search that the 
patient used to find the reproductive health facility or online 
telemedicine service. All of that can be obtained without a court 
order.
  Congress needs to safeguard Americans' privacy, not give the 
President new surveillance powers. Congress has the time to draft 
comprehensive privacy and cybersecurity legislation, including a 702 
reauthorization. My own view is that Chairman Durbin's SAFE Act and my 
bipartisan, bicameral Government Surveillance Reform Act are both bills 
that have support across the aisle, across the Capitol, and they are 
ready for consideration.
  I am going to close with this: This Chamber has the time to do the 
right thing. Senators do not need to rubberstamp a disastrous 
surveillance bill just because the Senate is, once again, considering 
it at the last possible moment. Once again--you can set your clock by 
it--the Senate considers FISA at the last possible moment.
  The FISA Court recently renewed the court's annual 702 
certifications, which authorize surveillance until April 2025. Let me 
repeat that. The FISA Court recently renewed the court's annual 702 
certifications, which authorize surveillance until April 2025. That 
means there is no need for Congress to offer up a rush job. But under 
no circumstances should the U.S. Senate be cowed by those who say 
Senators have no choice except to sign off on whatever piece of paper 
the executive branch requests.
  Reformers on both sides of the aisle here in the Senate have been 
ready and willing since last fall to have this debate; yet the status 
quo crowd wouldn't pick up the phone until the last possible minute to 
ensure that this body

[[Page S2772]]

wouldn't have time for anything but a last-second vote on what I 
believe is a dangerous bill. The only way this body is going to have a 
real debate about reforming government surveillance is by rejecting the 
House bill and standing up for the Senate's independence and Americans' 
constitutional rights.
  As I have said on this floor before--and I think I will do it--
throughout my time in public service, Ben Franklin got it right: 
Americans don't have to sacrifice liberty for security. The reality is, 
security and liberty aren't to be mutually exclusive. We can have both. 
The Congress has a duty to deliver a FISA law that does both, and I 
urge my colleagues to pursue exactly that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from North Carolina.


                        Tribute to Debra Jarrett

  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I come here today to commemorate the 
retirement of one of my longest serving staff in my time in the Senate, 
Debra Jarrett.
  She has been my administrative director for the last 9 years. She has 
worked in the Senate for 29 years. I was looking it up on the internet 
earlier today. To give you an idea of how long ago 29 years was, that 
was the year that ladies were getting ``Rachel'' haircuts because 
``Friends'' was one of the most popular shows on. Jennifer Aniston was 
rocking the ``Rachel'' haircut. Boyz II Men was topping the charts. It 
was a long time ago. Debra really quickly demonstrated that this was 
probably the right place for her to start her career; and, today, we 
are looking at her turning another chapter.
  My staff put together some comments that I am being loosely advised 
by. They said it was a bittersweet moment. Well, I personally think it 
is bitter. I am sure it is sweet for Debra, the person who is going to 
be retiring. I think it is probably a violation of the rules to point 
back here where Debra is sitting, so I am not going to do that. But if 
it wasn't a violation of the rules, I would point there. That is Debra, 
sitting here behind me on my wing, which she has been several times 
before.
  When you come to the Senate, the amazing thing about coming to the 
U.S. Senate--I came in 2015--is they say, you know, 
``Congratulations.'' They swear you in. They give you an allocation of 
money to run your operations. North Carolina has got about--almost 11 
million people, so that dictates how much money you have to set up a 
State operation and a DC operation, but that is it. Your personnel 
practices, who you hire, how you provision computers--basically the 
whole running of the business operation; there is not some special 
department there--that is something you have to do. So one thing you 
learn very quickly is to find a highly competent person to do that, and 
I was blessed to have the opportunity to bring Debra in.
  I said she has been in my office for 9 years, and she has been in the 
Senate for 29 years. I should start by saying she was born and raised 
in St. Joe, IN, population 460. Then she started to work for Dan Coats, 
the Senator from Indiana, as his legislative aide back in 1995. Then, 
in 1999, she joined Senator Judd Gregg as a special assistant. She was 
promoted to office administrator a year later, and she worked for 
Senator Gregg for 12 years. Then, when Senator Gregg retired, New 
Hampshire adopted her; and Kelly Ayotte, who was also a Senator from 
New Hampshire, brought her in as the director of administration. She 
did that for 4 years and then finally came to work for me.
  Debra is somebody--and I do mean this. Even as a U.S. Senator, there 
are some people who scare me, and Debra is one of them because she is 
so on point for everything that we do whether it is the efficiency of 
our office or our fiscal conservative policy. We spend just enough, and 
we do return some of our office proceeds to the Treasury every year. We 
don't spend all of the money that we are allocated. Debra oversees all 
of that, but she oversees so much more.
  You will hear--and I don't know. This may be common in other offices, 
but everybody in my State operation, about half my staff--about 30 of 
the 60 staff that I have working full-time are down in North Carolina--
are as likely to have an endearing comment to make about Debra as 
people who see her every day up here in DC. And I mean everything. I 
mean, it could be telling staff, including my chief of staff, to 
understand our retirement system and how you can get the Federal match; 
getting these young people to think about their futures at such a young 
age; making sure that they go through open enrollment and get their 
health plan options renewed. With all the sorts of running of the 
office, Debra is on top of all of that.
  But I think what makes her really interesting or makes it even more 
interesting is how she is, on any given day, likely to come up to me or 
my chief of staff or my legislative director and say: You need to check 
in on--fill in the blanks. You know, this person has just come in. They 
look like they are trying to get used to working in a Senate office--
getting them settled down. She is watching every single aspect of this 
office and the health and hygiene of all the staff.
  She has decided to retire after being vested for--almost 2 years now? 
You are not supposed to talk to me, but thank you for that--for almost 
3 years now.
  So 3 years--I got her to break a rule of the Senate floor, which is 
probably the coolest thing I could have possibly done if you know how 
rules-oriented Debra is. But she has been working with us, having the 
option to leave. She has just continued to work, and thank goodness, 
because we have gotten so much more out of Debra over the last 3 years 
and, certainly, over the last 9 years that she has been in my office.
  I have staff up in the Gallery. I don't think I am supposed to 
recognize them either, but they are here as a testament to how special 
and how important she is to our Senate office.
  Now, Debra is going to retire, but she is young, and I expect that 
she is going to go off and do other things. One thing I hope she does, 
if she decides to go back to Indiana, is to make sure that she is still 
a part of the Tillis family.
  And I thank you for your service.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


                          Mayorkas Impeachment

  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, on February 2, 2021, DHS Secretary 
Alejandro Mayorkas took an oath that all of us in the Chamber have 
taken, an oath that many of us have taken who have served in the 
military--an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United 
States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Yet here we are, 3 
years later, with the worst border crisis our Nation has ever seen.
  I rise today because we find ourselves at a critical moment in our 
Nation's history--a moment when the integrity of this very Chamber and 
its leadership is being tested, a time when we will see if our 
colleagues across the aisle are willing to do the right thing and hold 
Alejandro Mayorkas accountable for his dereliction of duty that has 
left our country a shell of what she once was.
  Now with over 11 million border crossings, including 2 million 
unvetted ``got-aways'' now living here on U.S. soil--and amongst those 
are an unknown number of terrorists, violent gang members and drug 
cartels--Mayorkas has broken his oath, resulting in this dangerous and 
deadly invasion of our country. All you have to do is read your 
hometown news, and you are going to find a person in your community who 
has died from fentanyl or who has been physically abused or murdered by 
one of these unvetted illegal aliens.
  From the moment Secretary Mayorkas took office, he has skirted the 
Constitution and broken the law as outlined in the Secure Fence Act of 
2006, which clearly states he must maintain ``operational control'' and 
``prevent unlawful entries into the United States.''
  In the past 3 years alone, we have had nearly 2 million known ``got-
aways'' successfully evade capture and enter our country--a number that 
includes hundreds of violent gang members and terrorists. To put that 
into perspective, the scale of this issue, today, over 800 ``got-
aways'' illegally crossed into this country; yesterday, over 800 
unvetted ``got-aways'' escaped into our country; and, tomorrow, 800 
more unvetted aliens will end up here on U.S. soil, living in 
communities around the country. Maybe that is why law enforcement 
officers recently told me back home that we cannot arrest ourselves out 
of this crisis; that they are

[[Page S2773]]

so overwhelmed by crime now related to these illegal crossings that we 
cannot arrest ourselves out of this predicament.
  Secretary Mayorkas has given free rein to drug cartels to smuggle in 
illegal aliens and deadly drugs like fentanyl, resulting in the deaths 
of 300 Americans every day, with a total of over 250,000 fentanyl-
related poisoning murders--deaths--occurring under his watch. That is 
three times more than the number of brave soldiers we lost in the 
Vietnam war--three times more.
  The Secretary has turned a blind eye to the exploitation of our 
borders by terrorists, Chinese nationals, and other high-risk 
individuals, causing the largest influx of terrorist border crossings 
in our Nation's history.
  And let us not forget the abuse and weaponization of parole and 
asylum. Secretary Mayorkas has illegally admitted nearly 800,000 aliens 
per year--800,000--under this parole compared to just 5,000 per year 
under President Obama or President Trump--800,000 versus 5,000 a year.
  There is no question that the situation at our borders is dire and 
that the responsibility of this historic crisis lies squarely at the 
feet of those who have failed to address it.
  Instead of fulfilling his obligation to the American people, 
Secretary Mayorkas has unraveled our national security, unleashed our 
border into chaos, and launched an unmitigated disaster and culture of 
lawlessness that has left Lady Liberty vulnerable to exploitation. His 
actions--or lack thereof--have endangered the safety of every American, 
and there must be consequences.
  Congress must step in and do the job that President Biden refuses to 
do and fire Secretary Mayorkas. Enough is enough. Americans deserve 
better.
  We are here today because we take our oath seriously. With the House 
managers delivering the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate Chamber 
today, I hope our colleagues across the aisle, who also took an oath to 
protect and defend our great Nation, will do the right thing. Let's 
bring this to a trial, let's debate his record, and for the sake of 
America's safety and security, let's impeach Alejandro Mayorkas.
  Taking this decisive action will send a clear message to this 
administration: They will be held accountable for orchestrating this 
deadly invasion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, earlier today, we heard a very convincing 
case laid out by the House managers of why the Senate should fill its 
constitutional duty and proceed to a trial on the impeachment of 
Secretary Mayorkas.
  If we were to hold that trial--and we should do so--this chart that I 
have been developing since I became chairman of Homeland Security in 
2015 would basically be the irrefutable DNA evidence of the crime.
  What I have tried to lay out in this chart is the cause and effect of 
an ongoing set of illegal immigration crises faced by the last three 
administrations. What I would like to do briefly here on the Senate 
floor is to go through that history dating back to 2012 and show the 
impact of certain actions, certain court decisions, certainly the lack 
of faithfully executing the law in this administration that has now 
resulted in an invasion of our country.
  Let's go back to 2012. That is where this chart begins. Even before 
that, I had developed a chart just showing on an annual basis the 
number of unaccompanied children coming into this country. It averaged 
for many years somewhere between 2-, 3-, 4,000 a year.
  Then, in June of 2012, President Obama issued his what I would 
consider lawless, unlawful deferred action on childhood arrivals. That 
is what has sparked all the succeeding illegal immigration crises, is 
that unlawful order, which, by the way, was a complete misuse of 
prosecutorial discretion, which is supposed to be meted out or 
administered on a case-by-case basis. For the first time, President 
Obama and his administration granted prosecutorial discretion to 
hundreds of thousands of people, and the world took note.
  What happened over the intervening years is that people realized 
America's law has changed. We have reports. When people come to this 
country illegally, they would get their notice to appear before an 
immigration court. Well, that was used by human traffickers down in 
Central America. They called that their ``permiso''--their permission 
slip--to come to this country.
  A couple of years after that unlawful order--deferred action on 
childhood arrivals--President Obama faced his border crisis. He 
actually called it a humanitarian crisis when, in May and June of 2014, 
they averaged about 2,200 encounters per day--2,200. That seems like 
the good old days. That is that little bump in comparison to President 
Biden's crisis at the border.
  President Obama actually took action. He started detaining family 
units with children who came across the border, and it worked. He 
brought down the number of people crossing into our country illegally 
because there was a consequence to it.
  Unfortunately, in February of 2015, pro-immigration groups--pro-
illegal immigration groups--took the Obama administration to court 
under the Flores settlement, which was basically--back in the 1990s, 
there was a court case with a young immigrant girl named Flores, and 
the result of that settlement said that DHS could not hold an 
unaccompanied child for more than 20 days--again, an unaccompanied 
child.
  The Obama administration interpreted that as, well, we can certainly 
hold a child when they are detained with their family. Again, these 
pro-illegal immigration groups took the Obama administration to court, 
took Secretary Jeh Johnson to court, and they reinterpreted the Flores 
settlement and said: No, you can't detain a child even if they are 
accompanied by their parents.
  So the Obama administration faced a real decision: Should we detain 
the parents and release the child into HHS custody? They chose not to 
do that except in some situations where they felt that wasn't a real 
family unit and those parents may be a danger to that child. You can 
see the result of that. Basically, catch-and-release is what that 
resulted in. You can see the numbers started increasing prior to 
President Trump taking office.
  If you remember, President Trump, during his election, made the open 
border--that catch-and-release--a huge issue in the campaign. When he 
got elected, again the world noticed. They felt there was going to be a 
real crackdown on illegal immigration, and they stopped coming. There 
was a huge reduction from the end of the Obama administration to when 
President Trump first took office.
  Unfortunately, the law didn't change. That Flores reinterpretation 
stood. So President Trump was faced with trying to figure out how he 
could utilize what laws existed, what authority he had, with no help 
from Congress, to address this situation. He wasn't able to address it 
immediately. As a result, you can see the increase of not only single 
adults but family units exploiting that provision, and unaccompanied 
children, to the point where, in May of 2019, he hit his high point: 
almost 5,000 people per day.
  You will notice that President Trump did something about it. He 
enacted the migrant protection program. He instituted safe third 
country agreements with countries in Central America. He had to 
threaten the President of Mexico with tariffs so the President of 
Mexico would cooperate with us in securing our border.
  Over the next 12 months, President Trump by and large secured the 
border, to hit a low point in April of 2020, when a little more than 
500 people per day were trying to come into this country illegally.
  President Trump also had, starting in March of 2020, during the 
pandemic--remember, all of this reduction in illegal immigration 
occurred before the pandemic, but once the pandemic was in full swing 
in March and April of 2020, President Trump used his authority under 
title 42 and used that health emergency to start deporting people 
coming into this country illegally.
  So you see the purple bar is the people expelled using title 42 
authority.
  Even though the number of single adults was rising--by the way, the 
reason it was rising is that during the Presidential debate of 2020, 
every Democrat Presidential candidate said they were going to end 
deportations and

[[Page S2774]]

offer free healthcare. That is a signal. The world listens to what 
elected officials or potential elected officials say, and they believe 
them. They also believe their eyes when, once people start coming in 
here, they are either detained and expelled or they are not detained.
  Anyway, so people started coming into this country again, assuming 
that President Biden was going to win the election and the border would 
be opened up. Of course, that is exactly what happened, because once 
President Biden took office, he used the exact same Executive authority 
that President Trump used.
  Let me just quickly cover that. Even after the Flores 
reinterpretation, the Supreme Court, in a ruling in 2018, said that 
existing law--even though it was weakened by that reinterpreted Flores 
decision or settlement--that the current law exudes deference to the 
executive branch. President Trump used that deference. President Trump 
used that Executive authority and pretty well closed the border.
  President Biden came into office and, with literally hundreds of 
Executive actions, completely reversed President Trump's successful 
border security measures using that exact same Presidential authority, 
all that deference.
  The point that is important to understand is that President Biden 
wanted an open border. He caused this crisis. He could end it if he 
wanted to. He still has the authority. Republicans in the Senate would 
be happy to strengthen that authority, to overturn this Flores 
reinterpretation.
  By the way, Secretary Jeh Johnson opposed that reinterpretation. He 
didn't like that Court decision.
  We would have been happy to strengthen President Biden's authority, 
but he doesn't really need us to to secure the border. That is the 
point.
  Again, here is the DNA, the irrefutable DNA evidence of the crime. 
This didn't have to happen. President Biden didn't have to reverse 
President Trump's successful border security Executive orders, but he 
reversed them, and he opened up the border. The result now is that 
probably more than 6 million people have come into this country 
illegally and stayed. That is a number greater than the population of 
31 States. That is the order of magnitude of the problem.
  The impact of this open border policy is devastating. It is a 
catastrophe. Not only does this open border policy facilitate the 
multibillion-dollar business model of some of the most evil people on 
the planet--the human traffickers, the sex traffickers, the drug 
traffickers--how many hundreds of thousands of Americans have died of 
fentanyl overdoses?
  President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas said that they are reversing 
all of Trump's border security provisions because they said it was 
inhumane. There is nothing humane about facilitating human and sex and 
drug trafficking.
  Of course, the migrants come into this country--it is true, Venezuela 
is emptying their jails, their mental institutions. There are some bad 
people, there are some criminals coming into this country. Of course, 
we see evidence with these migrant crimes, horrific crimes--people who 
no longer are alive because of President Biden's open border policy, 
because of Secretary Mayorkas executing President Biden's open border 
policy.
  I am not a lawyer, and I am not a prosecutor, but I believe it is a 
crime to aid and abet other crimes, so from my standpoint, I think the 
House managers ought to be allowed to make their case. Again, they laid 
out very compelling--very compelling--Articles of Impeachment today. It 
is a pretty simple case. It probably won't take that long for them to 
make their case, to present it for the Senate. Why won't Majority 
Leader Schumer allow the House managers to make their case? Why won't 
he allow the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty to try 
impeachments?
  Listen, impeachments are not that regular. The least we can do is 
fulfill that constitutional duty and listen to the evidence and allow 
the House managers to make their case. I think their case is 
overwhelmingly convincing.
  The repercussions of President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas's open 
border policy will be felt by Americans for years, if not decades, to 
come.
  About the only thing Congress can do when a President or a member of 
the executive branch is not faithfully executing the laws, when they 
are completely derelict in their duty, when their dereliction of duty 
or the lack of faithfully executing the law is resulting in the deaths 
of Americans--again, the open border policy is resulting in the deaths 
of American citizens. It is resulting in young women being forced into 
the sex trafficking trade. It is resulting in higher levels of fentanyl 
overdoses. That evidence needs to be heard. That case needs to be made. 
The Senate should hold a trial.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                                 Israel

  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I will get to the issue of 
Secretary Mayorkas's impeachment in a moment, but I would first like to 
speak to Iran's attack on Israel this weekend.
  We all saw what happened on Saturday evening. Israel is once again 
under attack--this time, under direct attack from Iran--and the United 
States must clearly and strongly stand with our great ally and fully 
support its right and obligation to defend itself by any means 
necessary.
  I was just in Israel, a few weeks ago, to meet with Prime Minister 
Netanyahu and see the terror and devastation that Iran-backed Hamas 
terrorists unleashed on the Jewish State on October 7, firsthand. More 
than 1,200 were murdered, and hundreds are still being held hostage by 
Hamas just for being Jewish. Americans are among the hostages and those 
murdered that day.
  The horrors of that attack are difficult to describe and can never 
ever happen again. Today, I continue to pray for the safety of the 
Israeli people and call on every Republican and every Democrat to stand 
unequivocally with Israel as it fights for its very existence against 
evil terrorism.
  Again and again, Democrats have blocked the passage of aid for 
Israel. Democrats have blocked Israel aid four times in the U.S. 
Senate.
  The House has passed a good bill that is ready for Senate passage 
right now. I urge Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to immediately put the 
House-passed Israel aid bill on the floor, as well as my Stop Taxpayer 
Funding of Hamas Act, tonight. Nothing before the Senate is more 
important, and I will do everything in my power to make sure that vote 
happens as soon as possible.
  Let us all remember who the enemy is here and has always been: the 
evil and terror-supporting regime in Iran.
  Since its first days, the Biden administration has emboldened Iran 
with appeasement, freeing billions upon billions of dollars to fuel 
Iran's support of terrorism and turning its back on Israel.
  Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and one of America's 
strongest allies, but it took President Biden months to meet or speak 
with Prime Minister Netanyahu after he took office. And, unfortunately, 
the world took notice.
  Since October 7, President Biden and Democrats in Washington have 
continued to undermine Israel's fight against Iran-backed Hamas 
terrorists, further isolating our ally in its greatest time of need.
  And here is where what has happened in Israel ties into the 
impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas that we are dealing with here at home 
this week.


                          Mayorkas Impeachment

  America and the freedom-loving nations of the world are less safe and 
secure because of President Biden's weakness and appeasement of evil 
regimes and the terror each support. That is a fact that the FBI 
Director confirmed when I questioned him in the Homeland Security 
Committee, last year.
  And the terrifying truth is that, while President Biden's weakness 
has emboldened our enemies, Secretary Mayorkas has shown that he will 
do absolutely nothing to stop evil people from invading our country 
through our southern border and launching attacks on the U.S. homeland.
  This isn't some hypothetical nightmare. The possibility of an attack 
by terrorists on U.S. soil is something that the FBI and U.S. 
intelligence community are terrified about.
  The threats are all up. We know terrorists are coming into America 
because of the wide-open southern border.

[[Page S2775]]

That is a fact. America is a more dangerous place because Mayorkas and 
Biden have allowed criminals, drugs, terrorists, and other dangerous 
people into our communities.
  There are real consequences to this failure to secure the border, and 
each victim has a name. Real Americans with families are being killed. 
Real American families are being torn apart by vicious crimes and 
deadly drugs because we have a wide-open border. Innocent Americans 
like Laken Riley are paying the ultimate price for Mayorkas's failures.
  Ten million people have illegally crossed, and 6 million have been 
allowed to stay and had the red carpet rolled out for them, courtesy of 
the American taxpayers. There have been sexual assaults and murders 
committed by illegal aliens all across this country--even in my home 
State of Florida, where a young man was recently killed. The man 
charged with his death is an illegal alien.
  Now, because of these failures, the Republican majority in the House 
has voted to impeach Mayorkas for violating his oath of office. They 
took their time. They got the evidence. They made the decision to 
impeach. Whether anyone in this Chamber believes it was right or wrong, 
that happened, and we should now hold a trial to let Mayorkas make his 
case. That is our constitutional duty.
  But unlike what happened in 2019, when Democrats alone voted to 
impeach the President and Republicans controlled the Senate, Majority 
Leader Chuck Schumer is going to deny Secretary Mayorkas the ability to 
defend himself in a trial. He will not have the ability to defend 
himself in a trial.
  It seems to me that the majority leader doesn't want to let Mayorkas 
defend himself in a trial for one of two reasons. The majority leader 
is either acting out of pure political interests to protect his 
incumbent Members who don't want to talk about Mayorkas's record and 
the wide-open border he has created and all the crime, drugs, and 
illegal immigration it is allowing; or the majority leader is just 
terrified of a trial exposing Mayorkas's failure to a degree that 
acquittal would be extremely painful for the Democrats to explain to 
the American people.
  Here is what I don't understand. Democrats voted against a bill to 
stop illegal aliens from getting on a commercial flight with no 
verifiable ID. You have to; they don't. Democrats voted against 
deporting illegal aliens who hurt police. And Democrats voted against 
the Laken Riley Act, which simply requires ICE to take illegal aliens 
who commit crimes into custody before tragedies strike.
  So it seems to me that Democrats have no problem voting to keep this 
border crisis going and blocking every attempt the Republicans make to 
stop the crime and secure the border. But when it comes to Secretary 
Mayorkas, they shut everything down and don't let him speak.
  Secretary Mayorkas is a former prosecutor. Surely, he knows how to 
handle himself and defend his actions. He must believe that he has a 
case to present to the American people on why he should not be found 
guilty, but he is not going to get that chance. And Senate Democrats 
are setting a dangerous precedent and destroying the rules and 
traditions of the Senate to keep Mayorkas silent.
  I have one question: Is Mayorkas being silenced because Democrats are 
terrified of his record and unable to defend him or because they don't 
trust him? Whatever the answer might be, I urge my Democratic 
colleagues to get over the discomfort that it is causing them and do 
what is right for the safety of American families.
  The events of this weekend have shown, once again, that the world is 
a much more dangerous place under President Biden's failed leadership. 
If Democrats put politics over the safety of American families and the 
security of our great Nation, I fear the consequences will be 
devastating beyond our worst fears.
  I want everybody to stop for one moment--just stop and think about 
their families; think about their mom or their dad or their sister or 
brother or their wife; think about their children or their 
grandchildren or their nieces and nephews. Since Biden took office, 
people like that, just like your family that you love and cherish--
people like that--here is what has happened to them: Some have died in 
drug overdoses. Some have been raped. Some have been murdered. Some 
have been sold into slavery, basically.

  It is devastating. I don't know how anybody could sit there and not 
care about people just like their mom, their dad, their brother, their 
sister, their spouse, their children, their grandchildren, or their 
nieces and nephews. But that is exactly what is going on here when we 
do not have the opportunity to hold Mayorkas accountable.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, the House managers have officially 
delivered the letters of impeachment for Department of Homeland 
Security Secretary Mayorkas to the Senate. Now is the time for every 
Senator to go on record.
  Do you think Mayorkas has done a good job at the border? Has Mayorkas 
fulfilled the oath he swore before this body to protect and to defend 
our country against all threats, foreign and domestic? Is our border 
secure?
  The answer is simple. Mayorkas has intentionally failed to do his 
job.
  Now, Senator Schumer and the globalist Democrats have the opportunity 
to conduct a full and a fair trial before the entire Senate and the 
public. Unfortunately, that is not how this is going to play out. 
Democrats are going to try to table the Articles of Impeachment, which 
has never been done in the history of the Senate. They are going to 
attempt to sweep the border crisis that President Biden has created 
under the rug.
  Every single House Democrat voted to save Mayorkas's job. They 
endorsed our wide-open borders that have allowed terrorists, drug 
traffickers, and murderers into our country. The Democrats are lying to 
themselves and risking the lives of every American. Senator Schumer and 
the Democrats can't say they want to fix our border while voting to 
save Mayorkas's job.
  Mayorkas has been derelict in his duty to secure the border in the 3 
years he has been on the job. Our border is the least secure it has 
ever been. In fact, it is almost nonexistent. Our Border Patrol agents 
are so overwhelmed and receive such little support from the Biden 
administration to enforce our laws that they have been forced to 
release millions of illegal immigrants into the United States. And 
those who are released on parole, they are even given work permits.
  The Biden administration is more concerned with taking care of 
illegal aliens than they are about protecting American citizens. We 
might as well start mailing every criminal, drug trafficker, and 
terrorist an open invitation to cross our borders.
  I have spoken numerous times on this floor to highlight stories of 
Americans who have died at the hands of illegal aliens. Their tragic 
deaths are a direct result of Secretary Mayorkas's inaction. Mayorkas 
and Joe Biden have blood on their hands.
  The most important responsibility of any sovereign nation is the 
safety of its citizens. Yet what did the Department of Homeland 
Security announce just last week? They plan on sending another $300 
million to communities receiving illegal aliens from this border 
crisis.
  The top priority of this administration is to let as many people in 
as quickly as possible, regardless of how many American lives are lost 
in the process.
  The number of people crossing into the United States who are on the 
Terrorist Watchlist is unprecedented. Just last week, it was reported 
that an Afghan on the FBI Terror Watchlist has been in the United 
States for almost a year. He is a member of a U.S.-designated terrorist 
group responsible for the deaths of at least nine American soldiers and 
civilians in Afghanistan. ICE arrested him in San Antonio just this 
past February. Unfortunately, this known terrorist has been released on 
bond. He is now roaming our neighborhoods.
  You know, it just isn't terrorists we have to worry about. Fentanyl 
is flowing freely across our borders, and it is killing hundreds of 
thousands of Americans--not thousands but hundreds of thousands. Law 
enforcement officers in my State of Alabama tell me, time and again, 
how their officers must wear heavy equipment and carry Narcan

[[Page S2776]]

spray to protect themselves from the fentanyl that is pouring into our 
communities. And, by the way, most will tell you they never heard of 
fentanyl until this administration came into power.
  Despite the critical need to secure our borders and discourage 
illegal immigration, Mayorkas has been traveling the world--yes, this 
Mayorkas, traveling the world--lecturing other countries about their 
national security, while his refusal to enforce U.S. laws has exposed 
his own country to an invasion. It is embarrassing.
  In February, he traveled to Austria to speak with Chinese officials 
about counter-narcotic efforts. Did he discuss with them the flood of 
Chinese illegal immigrants coming to the United States through the 
southwest border? Since October of last year, 22,000 Chinese nationals 
have been arrested by Border Patrol agents at the southwest border and 
released into our country. Most of these individuals are single adult 
males of military age.
  Yet, the media tries to act like all these people crossing the border 
are innocent women and children. Now, some of them are, but most are 
not.
  This invasion is more than a border crisis; it is a national crisis. 
Yet I seriously doubt Mayorkas even brought up that point in his 
meeting with the Chinese officials.
  In February, he was in Germany for the Munich Security Conference. 
The Munich Security Conference is the largest international security 
meeting in the world. Mayorkas was there giving speeches on 
strengthening global security and partnerships. Meanwhile, the border 
he is responsible for is wide open, and thousands of people are dying. 
Give me a break. Our allies must be laughing at us--absolutely 
laughing.
  The Secretary's priority should be here in our country, securing our 
borders, protecting our citizens. President Biden has made the United 
States a joke around the world.
  Under this administration, nearly 10 million people have invaded our 
country. Every State is now a border State--every State. This is not a 
gray area.
  Secretary Mayorkas has intentionally failed to do his job. He has 
personally lied to me to my face three times in the last 3 years--a 
U.S. Senator. Just tell me the truth. He can't say the truth. He can't 
tell you the truth.
  To my Democratic colleagues, have you read the heartbreaking stories 
of innocent Americans who have been murdered by illegal aliens? Are you 
concerned? Are you concerned about the safety of your spouses, your 
kids, your nieces and nephews? Does it worry you that hundreds of 
terrorists are flooding our country? Does that bother you at all? Do 
you know somebody who has died of fentanyl which was trafficked into 
our country by cartels?
  This isn't about politics, folks. Our national security and our 
country's future are at stake. Americans deserve to know the truth 
about how Secretary Mayorkas has intentionally failed to secure the 
border.
  I will be voting to hold Mayorkas accountable.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, we have a job to do. That job is not 
optional. It is assigned to us by the United States Constitution--a 
document to which we have all sworn an oath under article I, section 3, 
clause 6. The Senate has the power and, I would add here, the duty to 
try all impeachments--not just some impeachments, not just those 
impeachments with which the majority party feels really happy about 
looking into, but all impeachments. It is the way it has always been in 
U.S. history.
  When the House sends over Articles of Impeachment, if we have 
jurisdiction, which we clearly, plainly do here, it is our job to 
conduct a trial. What do I mean by that? Well, it is really a simple 
concept. In Articles of Impeachment, an accusation is made. Our job is 
to just decide whether that accusation is meritorious or not, whether 
the thing that has been accused is legitimate, whether the person who 
has been accused did the thing that was wrong--committed the high crime 
or misdemeanors spoken of in the Constitution.
  We have a job to do, and it is a job that the Senate has always done 
when we have jurisdiction following the adoption of Articles of 
Impeachment.
  Now, let's remember, this is a historic day. This hasn't happened 
very often. It is only the 22nd time in American history in which 
Articles of Impeachment have been adopted by the House. In this 
circumstance where we clearly, plainly have jurisdiction, there is no 
valid basis for us to do anything other than to decide whether the 
accusations are legitimate. We have to do that. We don't have the 
luxury of simply standing back and saying: Ah, we don't want to handle 
it.
  Now, I know, I know, the Senate has found ways of shirking its 
responsibility over and over and over again in all of the operations of 
the Senate's work. Sometimes--most of the time, we sit as a legislative 
body, where we consider legislation. We pass law or decline to do so. 
Other times, we sit in an executive capacity, where we review 
Presidential nominations to consider them, whether we should confirm 
them, and also consider treaties. That is in an executive capacity. We 
also sometimes sit as a Court of Impeachment.
  Now, in other areas, the Senate has found ways of shirking its 
responsibilities. We have handed off a whole lot of the lawmaking power 
to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in the executive branch. In our 
executive capacity, we have whittled down the number of executive 
branch nominees who are subject to Senate confirmation, even as the 
total volume of those individuals has increased. Now it seems we are 
determined yet again to whittle down our responsibilities in the one 
area where we have an affirmative duty, an affirmative obligation, an 
affirmative command within the Constitution requiring us to make a 
decision.
  In the immortal words of Rush, in one of my favorite Rush songs of 
all time, called ``Freewill,'' if you choose not to decide, you still 
have made a choice. Yet that is what Senate Democrats are planning to 
ask us to do within 24 hours--ask us to not decide, ask us to take 
these accusations in these Articles of Impeachment duly passed by a 
majority of the House of Representatives, the body in the Congress that 
has the sole power to impeach--it is not just 218-plus random people 
who decided to make the accusations against Secretary Alejandro 
Mayorkas, who heads the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. No. It is 
those particular 218-plus people in the House of Representatives who 
have that power.

  You see, there is a reason why the impeachment power belongs 
exclusively to the House of Representatives. The House of 
Representatives is within the legislative branch--the branch of the 
Federal Government most accountable to the people at the most regular 
intervals. Within the Congress, within the legislative branch, they are 
the body most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals. 
That is why they call it the People's House. They are the only ones 
entrusted with this power.
  A majority of them, of that 435-Member body, has concluded that 
Alejandro Mayorkas must be impeached. Now, they didn't do it for light 
and transient reasons. They didn't do it because of a policy 
disagreement. No. A majority of the House of Representatives has chosen 
to impeach Secretary Mayorkas for the reason that he has affirmatively 
defied the commands of Federal law--the laws in particular that he is 
charged with administering.
  They have identified at least seven or eight different provisions of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act, including section 235(b)(2)(A) and 
235(b)(1)(B)(ii) and 236(c) and 236(a) and 212(d)(5)(A), just to 
mention a few of them.
  These Articles of Impeachment outline a myriad of instances in which 
Secretary Mayorkas has been commanded decisively, unambiguously to 
detain illegal immigrants pending one action or another, pending one 
determination or another as to their eligibility either for immigration 
parole or for asylum or for something else. He is required to detain 
them, and he didn't detain them.
  These are just a few examples of the many things that he has done in 
direct contravention to a direct command by the law. And it is not just 
that he didn't do the things that he was commanded to do; it is that he 
did the exact opposite of those things. He was commanded, for example, 
not to exercise his immigration parole authority

[[Page S2777]]

under 212(d)(5)(A). He is not allowed to do that categorically. He is 
allowed to do that only for discrete, individualized, particularized 
circumstances in which there is a profound, pronounced humanitarian or 
public need. Yet he issued all these categorical parole orders, 
creating categorical immigration parole programs allowing for literally 
hundreds of thousands of people a year to be brought into this country 
lawlessly, without documentation, without just cause to be brought into 
the United States. He made illegal immigrants legal by violating the 
affirmative command of the law.
  It is not yet clear exactly what form the arguments presented by the 
Democrats tomorrow will take, but we do know this: Whether they call it 
a motion to dismiss or a motion to table, they want to not decide 
something that has to be decided, by order of the Constitution, by the 
Senate.
  These accusations are real. They make a difference. They make a 
difference to the American people. These crimes--or I should say high 
crimes and misdemeanors--of which Secretary Mayorkas has been accused 
are not victimless crimes--far from it. These are offenses that have 
resulted in millions--on the low end, it is maybe 7 or 8 million; on 
the high end, it is more like 12, 13, or 14 million--of people who have 
come into this country unlawfully since January 20, 2021. The 
administration of Joe Biden has willfully, intentionally brought people 
into this country who aren't supposed to be here, who aren't allowed to 
be here. And it is not just the addition of those sheer numbers of 
people; it is the fact that among those people are many thousands of 
military-age Chinese males, many millions of military-age males from 
other countries, including hundreds of suspected terrorists, including 
thousands who come from countries that we pay close attention to 
because we know those countries are full of a lot of people who are 
bent on acts of lawlessness, violence, and terrorism against the United 
States of America.
  This, of course, is just the beginning. This says nothing about the 
countless neighborhoods and schools and communities and jobs and lives 
that have been lost or violated or rendered unsafe or all of the above 
as a result of those who have been brought in not just with the 
acquiescence of but at the invitation of and with the assistance of the 
Secretary of Homeland Security, the very man whose job it is to protect 
us from those very things and who has very specific orders that he 
follows--orders that have been put into law by the Congress of the 
United States.
  He is breaking the law over and over and over again specifically to 
allow for illegal immigration. So the Democrats are expected to come 
along tomorrow and say: Yeah, but we don't want to have to decide this. 
We don't want to have to decide it because, well, it is an election 
year, President Biden is on the ballot, and this is already an area 
where he is not doing well. And we have other Members of this body, 
including, you know, a certain Senator from Montana, for example, or 
maybe a certain Senator from Ohio, for example, or a Senator from 
Pennsylvania, among others, who are going to be up for reelection.
  Sure, they would rather not have to address this. I understand why 
they would rather be doing something else, anything else, other than 
this. They would rather reorganize their sock drawer. Some of them 
would probably much rather have a root canal or another painful 
procedure without anesthesia than focus on this. But, alas, the 
Constitution is agnostic as to your sock-reorganization days. The 
Constitution doesn't care how often you go to the dentist and whether 
you get a root canal with or without anesthesia. But, you know, the 
Constitution does care about one thing in particular and very relevant 
here today, and that is that the Senate is to try all impeachments.
  This is an impeachment. We have to try it, particularly in the 
absence of the case being rendered moot by a vacancy in office or death 
or otherwise--circumstances that are noticeably absent here. We have 
the duty to do this.
  What happens when we don't? What happens if they get their way and 
they choose either to table or to dismiss or use some other fancy word 
to try to avoid doing their job? What happens? Well, more deaths 
occur--deaths like the tragic passing of Laken Riley, who was taken 
from us just a few weeks ago as a result of Secretary Mayorkas's 
lawless conduct along the border. But for his lawless conduct and his 
cavalier treatment of the law--in fact, his defiant refusal to abide by 
the law and, in fact, his dogged determination to break the law--Laken 
Riley would have still been alive. Countless others who have undergone 
horrific events within their families--murders, rapes, sexual assaults, 
robberies, drunk driving--all kinds of horrific trauma that the 
American people have endured. Some of that is going to happen from 
people who live here already. We shouldn't add to that by bringing in 
others who shouldn't be here to begin with. This is exactly the kind of 
thing that our immigration laws are designed to protect against.

  As one who spent 2 years living and working along our southern 
border--living and working among and with the poorest of the poor, 
including many immigrants themselves, recent immigrants, in many 
cases--I can tell you, there is no group of people who has more cause 
to fear uncontrolled waves of illegal immigration than recent 
immigrants themselves, including, and especially, the poor who live on 
or near a border. It is their jobs, it is their families, it is their 
schools, it is their neighborhoods, it is their homes that are most 
directly put in jeopardy every single time we fail or, in the case of 
Secretary Mayorkas, we adamantly refuse to obey and enforce the law and 
we do everything that we can to undermine it as he has done.
  There is no set of arguments I can imagine--I look forward to hearing 
what arguments might be had tomorrow, might be presented tomorrow--that 
could be presented with any kind of a straight face that could say we 
need not address the merits of this accusation--because there are none.
  Perhaps, they will argue that this is an accusation amounting to mere 
maladministration--he didn't do a good job. That is not at all what we 
have here. Even if that is what we have here, that still wouldn't mean 
that they didn't have to try the case and come up with an answer as to 
whether or not he did what they said he did.
  But the impeachment power goes back some, you know, two and a half 
centuries to the dawn of the Republic. Nearly two and a half centuries 
ago, when we became a country, we relied heavily on the legal systems--
a tradition, in some cases--of the terminology used in England. And 
during the early years of the Republic, we had individuals who were 
familiar with our Constitution who were also familiar, having practiced 
in the law at the time of the Revolution and some cases before then--
they knew the meaning of these words.
  Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story is one of those individuals who 
lived, practiced, and wrote at and after the time of the American 
Revolution, during the early decades of our young Republic. And he 
explained that, among other things, an impeachment could be found, high 
crime and misdemeanor could be committed where, for instance, a lord 
admiral who was found to have neglected the safeguard of the sea. It 
is, perhaps, the most directly analogous comparison he makes to the 
Secretary of Homeland Security, that would be, you know, best described 
perhaps as a dereliction of duty, a failure to do one's job. If that--a 
lord admiral neglecting the safeguard of the sea--if that was a high 
crime and misdemeanor, it follows for sure--it is even more certain--
that the Secretary of Homeland Security, having defied more than a half 
dozen direct commands of Federal law and done the exact opposite of 
those things, has also committed a high crime and misdemeanor.
  Now, maybe some in this body disagree. Maybe some in this body 
believe that the facts are different than they have been alleged here. 
Well, that is what a trial is for. That is why we don't just take the 
word of the House of Representatives for it. We do our job over here. 
We have to review the accusation, and we have to review it against the 
backdrop of what arguments and evidence they present to us.
  We will be sworn in tomorrow at 1 p.m. to be finders of fact and to 
be judges of law relevant to the impeachment accusation. If we decide 
not to decide, we still have made a choice. We

[[Page S2778]]

shouldn't do that here. Doing that here would be a dereliction of duty. 
Doing that here would be profoundly disrespectful to the hundreds of 
millions of Americans who elected us and, especially, to the families 
of those--like the family of Laken Riley and countless others--whose 
lives have been permanently and tragically disrupted by the lawlessness 
exhibited by Secretary Mayorkas.
  We must do our job. We must hold a trial. That trial must culminate 
in a finding of guilt or innocence. The Constitution and our commitment 
to it requires nothing less.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). The Senator from Ohio.


                          Tribute to D. Taylor

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise early this evening to recognize D. 
Taylor, a fierce labor advocate, a key partner in our fight for workers 
in this country, a friend who retired from his role as President of 
UNITE HERE earlier this month. Everything D. has done--and I have 
watched him closely; I have worked closely with him. Everything D. has 
done over the course of his career comes back to the dignity of work, 
the idea that hard work should pay off for everyone, whether you punch 
a clock, whether you swipe a badge, whether you work in an office, 
whether you work for tips, whether you are raising children, or whether 
you are caring for an aging parent.
  The dignity of work has guided D. Taylor through his whole career as 
he fought to unionize industries that have long been overlooked with 
workers who have long been underpaid and ignored.
  For the past 12 years, D. served as President of UNITE HERE, a union 
that represents workers across the hospitality industry. Its members 
work in airports, in food service, in hotels. They make textiles; they 
serve on Amtrak trains; they cross the Nation.
  It is not a coincidence we have seen momentum in the labor movement 
while D. has been at the helm of UNITE HERE. So often, where we have 
seen unprecedented union growth, D. and his members have been on the 
frontlines organizing, invigorating, calling for change. This 
generation--this youngest generation now--is quantifiably, certainly, 
the most pro-labor generation of our lifetimes.
  Under D., UNITE HERE has become one of the fastest growing trade 
unions in the country. Despite a pandemic that devastated workers in 
hospitality, D. has actually expanded UNITE HERE. He focused on 
southern States and right-to-work States--much harder States to 
organize than the Presiding Officer's State of Maine or mine in Ohio--
not that it is easy in those States with Federal law but even harder in 
those southern States.

  Workers, traditionally, haven't had a seat at the table. During his 
time as president, D. oversaw the union's organizing of 140,000 service 
and hospitality workers in over 1,000 workplaces across the country. 
Because of D. and UNITE HERE, these workers now have a union card. That 
means higher pay; it means better benefits; it means safer workplaces; 
and it means something that many don't think about: It means more 
control over your schedule.
  I remember being in Nevada at the Culinary Workers Union Local 226, 
which D. built into a powerhouse. That union is an inspiration for 
workers everywhere. They had a massive banner on the wall that said 
``One job should be enough''; that workers should not have to have two 
and three jobs to support their families.
  ``One job should be enough.''
  I remember--this wasn't directly about D., but I will never forget 
this discussion I had in Cincinnati. I was at an AFL-CIO dinner. There 
were a number of people--probably 300 people there. And there was one 
table where there were four or five middle-aged women. I sat down--they 
had an empty seat and said: Join us. And I sat down at the table and 
said: Tell me your story.
  They said: We just organized custodial workers. We had our first 
contract--1,200 custodial workers negotiating with the downtown 
business owners in Cincinnati. They said: We signed our first contract.
  I said: What does that mean to you?
  A woman said: I am 51 years old. It is the first time I have a paid 
one-week vacation.
  Those are the workers so often that D. Taylor organizes--workers who 
are generally low-paid, workers sometimes without healthcare, workers 
often without vacations, workers that have no say over their schedule. 
Those are the people that D. worked with. D. always said: One job 
should be enough. That is what he fought for.
  He first got involved as a college student while working in a local 
restaurant. He joined the union. He eventually became the shop steward 
for that local. After graduation, he moved to Nevada to work on a UNITE 
HERE strike. He quietly moved up through the ranks, eventually leading 
the union in a 7-year--the famous 7-year Frontier Casino strike, one of 
the longest successful strikes in labor history. D. became a key player 
in negotiations with some of the largest casinos on the strip.
  He became an institution at UNITE HERE. As a head of the Culinary 
Union, he built a coalition of service workers. He showed the country 
there is no reason a service job can't be a good job where you are 
respected, make good wages, and build a career.
  As Gaming Division Director, he led casino workers across the country 
to victory, organizing new members and leading new strikes. He went on 
to be the general vice president of UNITE HERE before being elected as 
union president.
  All along the way, he became known for that constant refrain: ``One 
job should be enough.'' Let me say that one more time: One job should 
be enough. For everybody in this institution, that is kind of the way 
it is. But for far too many low-paid workers, they have to work a 
second job or third job to pay the rent, to support their kids, to just 
get along every day.
  He has fought to make that rally cry a reality by transforming 
standards for work in hospitality and services. It has meant securing 
higher pay. It has meant fighting for contracts with affordable, 
quality healthcare that workers have access to and can navigate their 
way through. It has meant standing up to layoffs. It has meant helping 
tens of thousands of workers get their jobs. Because of D., workers 
across the country are in better jobs with better pay and better 
benefits.
  I have had the privilege of working with D. on many issues, including 
fighting for the Senate's dining workers. Believe it or not, the people 
who served us in this institution were making very suboptimal wages--
some, barely enough. One man I met when I was involved in this actually 
lived and worked here all day and lived and worked at a homeless 
shelter all night. Imagine that.
  One job should be enough.
  They served the Senate during a pandemic, during a violent 
insurrection. Every day, they fed Senators and staff and tourists from 
Ohio and Maine and all over the country. Yet fewer than one in five of 
them, at that time, could afford the health insurance plan that was 
offered to them.
  Together, we fought to make sure the new contract honors the dignity 
of work with the pay and the benefits and the respect that Senate 
dining workers deserve and have earned--that all workers deserve and 
have earned. It wouldn't have happened without D., without UNITE HERE, 
without the Senate dining workers who used their voices and their 
collective power to secure a better contract. That is just one example.
  In every role, at every opportunity, D. has fought to turn jobs that 
traditionally have come with low pay and minimal benefits into careers 
where people can build a life and see a future--simply the dignity of 
work, where their work has dignity. For that, we are grateful for D.'s 
tenacity, for his advocacy. And for his leadership, we are grateful.
  In retirement, D., of course, will keep fighting for workers as chair 
of UNITE HERE Health, and he will support the union and gaming 
industry. He will never fully retire.
  I look forward to working with his successor, Gwen Mills, the current 
secretary treasurer of UNITE HERE, the first-ever woman president in 
this union's history to be elected to an international union; the 
first-ever woman in this union's history to ever be elected 
international union president in a union that has a huge number of 
women, as you know.
  If you love this country, you fight for the people who make it work. 
That is

[[Page S2779]]

exactly what D. has done his whole life. It is what UNITE HERE has 
done. It is what I will continue to work with my colleagues to do in 
this body.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                                 Israel

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, it has been just 6 months and a week 
since October 7. The whole world was shaken as a flood, as they 
actually called it, an Al-Aqsa flood of Hamas terrorists came through 
the wall separating Gaza and Israel in multiple places, and over the 
next several hours, they murdered 1,200 Israelis. They took 253 
hostage, including 133 who are still hostage still today--6 months and 
a week.
  Last week--now, I guess, 9 days ago--I was in Israel. I spent time 
with Israelis to meet with multiple different leaders and get a chance 
just to be able to talk to different folks in different parts of the 
country to see what is going on, on the ground.
  This is a painful moment for the entire world but definitely a 
painful moment for Israel and for the entire region. We think back just 
7 months ago and all the conversation was normalization between Saudi 
Arabia and Israel. And then a group of Hamas terrorists stepped in and 
killed as many people as they possibly could in an effort to also kill 
that normalization that is happening around the entire region, to do 
whatever they could to be able to drive a wedge, and so that peace 
could not continue to advance in the region.
  What has happened since then has been painful for the entire world to 
watch, but it has been really painful for the people in that region 
more than anyone else.
  I traveled to the far southern tip of Israel, along the border with 
Egypt, to be able to meet with some of the folks who are in that area, 
to be able to talk about the relationship between Egypt and Israel and 
what is happening day to day. I traveled to the kibbutzes that 
literally are right on the border with Gaza that are now vacant and 
empty and devastated.
  I can't even begin to explain to this body, unless you have seen it 
before, the pain of walking through a large kibbutz where there were 
hundreds of people who lived just a few months ago and now to see every 
building shot up with bullet holes, burned, destroyed, and think at 
6:38 that morning, during a Jewish holiday, on that Saturday morning, 
October 7, many people were still asleep when a group of Hamas 
terrorists came into their homes and murdered many in that village and 
took many hostages from that kibbutz.
  We could literally walk by the doors, and the person who was walking 
with us could say: That family died, that family is a hostage, that 
family died, and go door-to-door as we walked around to be able to see 
it.
  The person who was walking us through could even walk us through his 
own home, which was obliterated, and his son's home right there who 
died, and then he could point to Gaza and say: My other son is over 
there in Gaza right now.
  At the same time, flowers were blooming and the grounds were 
beautiful and you realize the irony of this moment. Hostages being held 
in Gaza, families who are struggling every single day trying to make 
sense of this craziness and trying to figure out why a peaceful 
kibbutz, living their lives, farming, manufacturing, was overrun by a 
group of terrorists.
  Right up the road we stopped by the Nova festival site, which is an 
absolutely beautiful location for outdoor concerts, for venues, for 
gathering, and has been for years. The trees and the setting, it is 
just beautiful. But the day that we were there, there were echoing 
noises of artillery that was being fired off literally within hundreds 
of yards of us as we were meeting with some of the folks who survived 
the Nova festival.
  One person in particular whom we got a chance to be able to chat with 
and to be able to pick her brain about the ``what happens next'' was in 
one of the bomb shelters because there was a launch of missiles coming 
at them, but then those bomb shelters became places where literally 
they were sitting ducks for the terrorists as they came in with 
gunfire.
  We traveled all the way to the north, had the opportunity to be able 
to visit with some of the mayors who are right along the border with 
Syria and with Lebanon, where whole towns are evacuated, whole towns 
where people can't survive the onslaught of artillery coming at them 
constantly.
  We lose track of the fact that there are about a quarter million 
Israelis right now who are internally displaced as well, who live along 
the border with Gaza or live along the border with Lebanon or Syria. 
Those folks have also had to flee because while the world in the last 
several days has talked about 330 drone strikes, missile strikes, 
ballistics and cruise missiles that have come from Iran directly, for 
some reason, the world has lost track of the fact, not about the 330 
bombs and missiles that have come at Israel in the last week, but the 
12,000 rockets that have been fired at Israel since October 7--12,000.
  Mr. President, 9,100 of those rockets have come in from Gaza 
launching at civilians in Israel; 3,100 of those rockets have been 
launched from Lebanon, from Hezbollah, into the north of Israel; and 35 
rockets have been fired from Syria at Israel.

  And I asked people: How many rockets would be fired at your house 
before you would respond in a way to be able to make it stop? Israel 
has had 12,000 fired at them since October 7. The United States has 
never ever put up with that without responding in a forceful way to say 
we are going to make it stop.
  There has been a lot of conversation about Rafah, so I had a lot of 
conversations with Israeli leadership to be able to talk to them about 
the plan and what they are going to do.
  You see there are Hamas brigades. Now, when we think about terrorism, 
often it is just random terrorists who are gathering. But Hamas 
actually has a military structure with brigades that they have actually 
put together of fighting brigades. Most of those brigades have been 
broken up. The remaining brigades of Hamas terrorists are all living 
underground at Rafah.
  And while we need to do everything we can--and I had great 
conversations with Israelis about everything that they are doing to 
protect civilians and protect civilian lives that have nothing to do 
with this onslaught of terrorism, they are also keenly aware that the 
people who are living underground in Rafah are making public statements 
on social media that as soon as this war is over, they are coming again 
to do another October 7. And the Israelis are being very, very clear: 
We are not going to allow that to happen. We are not going to allow our 
Israeli citizens to be slaughtered in their beds early on a Saturday 
morning again.
  So they are doing everything they can to be able to prepare for that 
moment, to be able to stop the group of terrorists who are living 
underground. It is interesting to me when I think about the Hamas 
terrorist organization. In the United States, our military trains and 
prepares itself to get between violence and civilians. Hamas does the 
opposite. Hamas actually trains and equips to put civilians between its 
military and violence.
  They put the civilians on the top layer while the safe shelters 
underground are occupied by the terrorist armies. It is stunning to me 
just the mental difference between the two and how jarring that that 
really is.
  Interesting conversations I had with some of the Israeli leadership, 
as well, just to be able to chat with them, to say: You can't eliminate 
Hamas by trying to be able to attack them over and over again to be 
able to eliminate all people who think like Hamas and who are actually 
a part of Hamas.
  And their response was interesting to me. Their response was that we 
fully understand we are not going to obliterate everyone who is in 
Hamas. We want to stop the threat that is coming at us, but we 
understand that there will be members of Hamas in the future who will 
still think that way. And their response to me was there are still 
Nazis in the world right now. There are still people who claim to be a 
Nazi or a neo-Nazi right now, but the difference is, they don't run 
Germany. And their first goal was that we want to end Hamas's rule, a 
terrorist organization having the capacity to run the entity right next 
door to us.
  We understand that there will still be people who think like that, 
but we want to show them there is a better way. And we still want to be 
able to have peace with our neighbors.

[[Page S2780]]

  You see, this connection between Hezbollah and Syria and Hamas is 
Iran's plan and has been for a long time to build what they are calling 
a ring of fire around Israel. It was their way of protecting 
themselves--for the Iranian regime--that if they made it so violent 
around Israel, Israel would never actually attack Iran. That was their 
plan.
  What is interesting was Israel has been working to be able to build a 
ring of ice around Iran. That is the Abraham Accords. As Iran is trying 
to make the region more violent, Israel is trying to make the region 
more peaceful. It is stark when it is side by side, isn't it? Israel is 
working to build relationships and has with UAE and with Bahrain.
  They have had longstanding relationships with Jordan and with Egypt. 
They are working in their relationship with Saudi Arabia as they have 
even added Morocco into the Abraham Accords.
  They are building a ring of ice into the region to bring the 
temperature down in a violent, hostile area, and for the folks who are 
in Hamas, they hate the thought of that because they don't want 
normalization; they want violence and control. And as they scream, 
``from the river to the sea,'' they mean the death of every Israeli, 
and, quite frankly, every Jew worldwide. And they have been clear about 
that.
  Now, what do we need to do as Americans? I think we need to be 
attentive in several areas. One is, Russia has formed an alliance with 
Iran. Many of the weapon systems that are being shot right now at 
Ukrainians are actually Iranian weapon systems, and we should not 
ignore that. This alliance between Russia and Iran continues to grow. 
In just the past several years, Russia has dramatically increased its 
number of military bases in Syria.
  They have now gone over 100 there, and there are 103 bases now in 
Syria that are Russian active bases. We should pay attention to that.
  For Iran, we have seen clearly what they are doing, how they continue 
to attack. Again, there is this focus on 330 drones, cruise missiles, 
and ballistic missiles that were fired at Israel just this past week. 
What people may not be tracking is what continues to happen from 
Lebanon, with the Iranian-backed Hezbollah continuing to attack Israel.
  Just in the past 24 hours, Hezbollah has attacked northern Israeli 
communities and cities six times in the last 24 hours. But, of course, 
no media is covering that. But if you are in one of the communities 
that is now vacant in northern Israel--and that they fled and they are 
living in hotels or with relatives or fled to some other location from 
northern Israel--they are keenly aware of what continues to happen 
there.
  We have got to deal with the continued threat and awakening from 
Russia, but we have got to also think seriously about what is happening 
with the regime in Iran. We, as a nation, have tried to pacify Iran. We 
tried to isolate them diplomatically.
  Now, I don't call for a military attack on Iran. No one wants 
violence and war. We are not interested in our sons and daughters being 
involved in another conflict. But to think that Iran is going to 
suddenly be peaceful, when their regime is intent on trying to destroy 
Israel at the time, should awaken all of us to the reality of where 
Iran really is.
  It was also good to be able to see, when 330 projectiles were coming 
at Israel this week, that the Americans stood by their side. They shot 
down a lot of those. The Israelis obviously shot down the majority of 
them. But the British also were engaged in shooting those down. We had 
French that were engaged. But also the Jordanians were engaged. The 
Saudis were engaged. The region is pushing back on a violent Iran that 
is intent on making the region worse and more unstable, not better.
  Iran has used the vacuum of what has happened in Syria to move in 
their radicalism across Syria, and they continue to make it a more and 
more toxic place in Syria and in Iraq.
  We, as the United States, should turn up our sanctions even more. We, 
as the United States, should isolate Iran even more. We, as the United 
States, should use every leverage that we have to isolate not only 
their economy but to be able to be focused in on that regime, because, 
quite frankly, that regime is oppressing its own people.
  Our problem, as a nation, is not the Iranian people. They are living 
under the oppression of the Iranian regime as well. It is the regime 
that is there. And while some Members of this body have called for a 
change in leadership in Israel, I would call for a change in leadership 
in Iran, because that is really the problem in the region.
  And we should find ways to be able to apply as much pressure as we 
can on that regime and to be able to message to the people of Iran, as 
often as we possibly can: We see you in the oppression that you live 
under every single day, and we wish better for you--for well-educated 
young men and women who live under the oppressive thumb of that 
leadership.
  Something else we can do as the United States is to stop allowing our 
soil to be the place where the Iranian regime can spew their hatred. 
This Thursday, the Iranian Foreign Minister is flying to the United 
States to be able to speak to a group of people at the U.N., and our 
administration has given him a visa.
  I have called on Secretary Blinken to say, literally: This is one of 
the Iranian leaders who is a leading voice in the IRGC, who is a 
leading voice in the attack, in the preparation for October 7, who is a 
leading voice of hatred toward the United States and the West and our 
ally Israel. We should not extend a visa while Iran is attacking 
actively from their soil and from all of their proxies. We should not 
extend a visa to the Iranian Foreign Minister to come stand on our 
soil, in our country, and spew his hatred. If he wants to do that 
internationally, he can.
  Now, I understand the U.N. is a body and a place where we have 
allowed voices from all over the world to come speak. But do you know 
what? There was a moment when President Obama denied a visa to Iranian 
leaders because of where they were. There was a moment when President 
Trump also denied some visas to some of the Iranian leaders because of 
what they were actively doing.
  This is a moment when President Biden and Secretary Blinken should 
tell the Iranian Foreign Minister: Not this week, not right now, not at 
all.
  When you are attacking our friends, we should not loan them bits of 
our soil to do it from our territory. We should make it clear that the 
Iranian leadership that oppresses its own people and attacks our 
allies--and, by the way, uses their proxies to murder Americans who are 
also serving in the region--we should make it very clear: We will not 
allow that on our soil.
  I made it clear when I was in Israel that the people of the United 
States see the people of Israel. We understand what they are living 
under. And, as a nation that has faced terrorism in our Nation, we 
understand the emotion that they have at this point, and we understand 
their tenacity.
  We, as the United States, should be very clear: We have an ally, and 
it is Israel. We are going to walk with her. We are going to help 
Israel in every way that we can because she has been attacked and is in 
the middle of the war.
  And when you walk through the streets of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, you 
feel it. Just like when you are walking through the streets along the 
border with Gaza and Lebanon and Syria, you feel it. They are ready for 
peace. And Israel is actively building a ring of ice in the region to 
bring down the temperature of the region to push back directly on 
Iran's ring of fire.
  We, as a Nation, should be clear on which one we support--those who 
are bringing peace or those who are bringing violence and hatred? We 
should make that continually clear and continue to be able to act on it 
diplomatically and, when we need to, to protect our allies in every way 
we can, like we did this week with Israel.
  Let's pray for the peace of Jerusalem, but let's also stand by her.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNOCK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S2781]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kelly). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________