Floor Statements

Mr. President, with me today is one of my colleagues in my office, Mr. Christian Amy.

Mr. President, I want to talk for a few minutes about America, about Washington, DC, and about Louisiana.

Every time I leave Washington, DC, and go back home to America, I am reminded of how parochial Washington, DC, can be, how removed it can be, how unaware it can be. We often hear people in the city where our Capitol sits say: Well, the American people just don't understand. The American people--you often hear--just don't know what they are talking about. They don't know what we know. They don't read the news. They don't keep up like we do.

So, recently, I conducted a poll to test that point of view, and some were surprised with the results of the poll. I was not. One of the questions I asked in the poll of the people of Louisiana is, How frequently would you say they follow the news?

About 70 percent of my people in Louisiana follow the news every single day because--actually, it is 67.8 percent. Some of my colleagues back home were surprised by that. I was not; 23.5 percent said a few times a week; and only 6.4 percent of my people don't consult the news or read the news very often.

I also, out of curiosity, tested a poll where my people were receiving their news: 39 percent of the people of Louisiana--70 percent of whom follow the news every single day--get their news from cable TV. Another 21.1 percent get their news from morning and evening broadcast television, not cable--local television news and national television news.

So, I guess, from one point of view--and I think the numbers bear this out in Louisiana--in terms of the source of news, television is king. Television is king.

Seventy percent--or, rather, sixty percent of my people, most of whom follow the news every single day, get their news either from cable TV, from the national evening and morning news, and from local television evening and morning news.

Twenty-seven percent of my people get their news primarily from the internet. To break that down, it is about 12.6 percent from social media apps--Facebook, Twitter; 4.7--almost 5 percent--from YouTube; and another 9.1 percent from Apple News, Google News, and those sorts of sites on the internet.

So television news for both national and, particularly, local is king in Louisiana, with 60 percent of the people saying that is my go-to news source, but the internet is also a substantial factor at 27 percent: 27 percent of my people--70 percent of whom read the news every day--get their news from the internet.

Radio news is also important in my State. Seven percent of my people and change listen to radio news as their primary source of news. Coming in last--consistent with national trends--only 4 percent of my people receive their news today from newspapers. My, how the world has changed.

I just found these numbers to be interesting. The source of news for most of my people was interesting to me, but I was very, very pleased to find that 70 percent of my people in Louisiana read the news every single day, and in most cases, they get it from television but also the internet and radio as well.

Sometimes we get along in Washington in terms of our perceptions of what is going on in the real America.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, reserving the right to object and with all the respect I can muster for Senator Durbin--and I mean that, Dick--I do not believe that most of my colleagues think this bill is about ethics. This bill is about abortion.

In June of 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Dobbs case. It returned the issue of abortion to the American people through their States.

While the Supreme Court was deliberating that case, my colleague and my friend Senator Schumer went over to the Supreme Court and on the steps of the Supreme Court building--I was there; I remember it like it was yesterday--this is what Senator Schumer said:

I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you,

Kavanaugh--

Not ``Justice Gorsuch.'' Not ``Justice Kavanaugh.''

I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh:

You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.

You won't know what hit you--

Senator Schumer said--

if you go forward with these awful decisions.

What we are seeing today with this legislation, in my opinion but most Senators agree with me, is part of the promised whirlwind. And I do not believe that we should try to undermine the integrity of the institution of the Supreme Court of the United States because we are unhappy with one of its opinions.

I will withhold my objection at this time to allow my friend Senator Lee to speak.

Mr. President, I want to talk just for a few minutes this evening about my people in Louisiana.

They are hurting. Inflation is gutting them like a fish. This inflation, like all inflation, is manmade, and that man's name is President Joe Biden.

President Biden has proven to be an inflation machine. He has spent trillions and trillions of dollars that we do not have. He has injected so much money into this economy that we are practically drowning in liquidity.

Unless you were in the quad playing frisbee during Econ 101, you know that, inevitably, that is going to cause inflation. And, indeed, it did.

I realize there is a yawning disconnect between what President Biden says and what my people in Louisiana are experiencing. There is. President Biden says that the economy is just fine. He says the economy is just wonderful.

I will tell you what my people say. My people say, with respect, Mr. President: You need to put down the bong because, in our State, we are paying more to live worse. And we are not going to be able to retire because of you, Mr. President, until 4 years after we are dead.

Louisiana is not a wealthy State. Our median household income is about $58,000. That is mom and dad both working, two children--$58,000. It is about $4,800 a month. President Biden's inflation is costing my people an extra $900 a month. That is not a year--$900 a month; $11,000 a year. My average family is making, once again, $58,000 a year. They have got to find, all of a sudden, an extra $11,000 a year.

Since President Biden has been President, his inflation has cost the average family in Louisiana an extra $22,000. You don't have to take my word for it. You can see this chart. You don't have to be a senior at Caltech to see that the direction is up, and these extra costs were caused by inflation.

The prices of consumer goods in my State, on average, are up 20 percent since President Biden took office. Some are up a lot more; some are up a little less. But the average is 20 percent.

Credit card debt is up 46 percent. The average credit card balance in Louisiana is now $5,800. When you are making $58,000 a year for a family of four, $5,800 is a lot. Delinquent credit card debt is up 11 percent, the highest in 12 years. We have had a record number of people who have had to take early withdrawals from their retirement accounts.

The average electricity bill in Louisiana is up 28 percent since President Biden took office; gasoline in Louisiana, up 53 percent; eggs, 69 percent; bread, 28 percent; coffee, 28 percent; rice, 29 percent; flour, 30 percent; milk, 15 percent; ice cream, 22 percent; chicken per pound, 27 percent.

If you are a mom and dad and you are both working and you have maybe two car notes--certainly one car note--and a mortgage and two children, how can you afford this? You can't.

When you group these necessities that I have just talked about by category, what you see is that, on average, for my people in Louisiana--again, we are not a wealthy State--food is up 21 percent on average; housing is up 290 percent; clothing is up 11 percent; used cars and trucks are up 21 percent; new cars and trucks are up 19 percent; and mortgage rates are up a breathtaking 156 percent.

Now, President Biden has said, truthfully--and I agree with him on this, and I am very happy that it happened--that inflation is coming down, and it is. But let me tell you the difference between inflation and prices. When inflation starts to go down, we call that disinflation. That doesn't mean prices are falling; that just means that prices are going up less quickly.

At one point, we were experiencing 9 percent inflation. Prices were going up an average of 9 percent a year. Now, it is somewhere in the 2 to 3.5 percent range. That means that prices are only going up 2 to 3 percent a year. Again, that doesn't mean prices are falling; that just means they are going up less quickly.

That is a long-winded way of saying that disinflation, which I just described, is very different from deflation. Deflation is when prices fall. And these prices--the President leaves this part out. These prices, I am sad to say, are permanent. They may not go up any more if we can get inflation down to roughly 1 to 2 percent, but the higher prices are still permanent.

And don't take my word for it. I can refer you to the testimony of both Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell, who both testified in the Banking Committee on which I sit. These prices are permanent.

Mr. President, my people are really getting good--they are really getting good at barely getting by. And it hurts; it hurts deeply. President Biden's inflation, in my State, is a cancer on the American dream. And it didn't have to be this way. We tried to tell him. We tried to tell him. When I say ``we,'' not only many of my Republican colleagues, but many of my Democratic friends did as well. Jason Furman, economic adviser to President Obama--I remember clearly Dr. Furman, now at Harvard, said: With all due respect, Mr. President, if you spend this kind of money, you are going to have inflation. And we did.

And the worst part of this is that President Biden has no plan to get it down--none. And I regret to say, but I think the only place that we are going to find economic sanity in our country again is in the voting booth.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I neglected to introduce one of my colleagues to the Senate, Ms. Jess Andrews, who was just here. She is my communications director, and she helped me research my remarks, and I wanted to thank her.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, with me today is a current member of my staff, one of my colleagues, Mr. Josh Dunn.

I want to talk, Madam President, about a topic I hate to talk about. It is very unpleasant, but it is necessary that we talk about this. Some of my colleagues want it to go away, but it is not going away.

I thought that we had all agreed that sexual predators and bigots are not welcome in America's workplaces. We have all heard of the #MeToo movement. The #MeToo movement, President Biden endorsed it. Many of my colleagues have actively supported it, as have I. The #MeToo movement reminds us all that America is no place for creepy old men who sexually harass and demean their employees. I thought we had agreed to that.

I don't remember seeing any exceptions in the #MeToo movement for President Biden's appointees to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. We call it the FDIC. There is not supposed to be a carve- out for bigots and perverts at the FDIC to harass their coworkers when they are supposed to be regulating America's banks.

So why hasn't--why hasn't President Biden shown FDIC Chairman, Mr. Martin Gruenberg, and his leadership team the door? Why hasn't he fired them?

Based on the latest report from the Agency, not a single Biden appointee should keep his or her job at the FDIC.

Now, Mr. Gruenberg released a statement a few minutes ago. He didn't say he resigned. He said he is prepared to resign as soon as his successor is confirmed by the U.S. Senate. In the meantime, he is going to continue on as FDIC Chairman. It triggers my gag reflex.

I mentioned this report. This report, 234 pages, it was done by a law firm called Cleary Gottlieb at the request of the FDIC. The FDIC and Mr. Gruenberg were forced to ask for this report because the Wall Street Journal published a series of articles about the sexcapades at the FDIC, and the FDIC leadership was forced to respond.

Cleary Gottlieb issued this report. I was very suspect at first because Mr. Gruenberg and others had picked Cleary Gottlieb to do it. But after the report has been issued and I have had a chance to read it, it is clear to me the law firm--as it should have--pulled no punches.

The report tells us that nearly 1 in 10 employees--1 in 10--at the FDIC has experienced sexual harassment, racial discrimination, verbal abuse, or other inappropriate behavior while working at the Agency.

I want you to listen to this. I hate to have to say it, but I want the American people to understand what has been going on under Mr. Gruenberg's leadership at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

This is what the report told us: One Hispanic employee told investigators with the Cleary Gottlieb law firm that his FDIC supervisor made him recite the Pledge of Allegiance at work to ``prove that they were American.'' Another FDIC employee reported that her supervisor told her ``You're a mother. You don't belong in the workplace.''

The report goes on. One senior FDIC official who had a reputation for visiting brothels during his work trips--isn't that special--sent his coworker a photograph of his penis.

Another senior FDIC official, who allegedly was thrown out of a strip club during a work trip because he groped the dancers, this official, the same day,

asked his female coworker ``Does your husband eat you?''

An FDIC field officer pursued sexual relationships with several female employees, including a student intern. Another employee reported that a former FDIC executive ``grabbed her and rubbed himself on her after a happy hour.'' My God.

One female employee recounted more than 6 years of persistent sexual harassment from a senior FDIC bank examiner. She said the examiner continuously sent her disturbing text messages, including one that said ``get naked Bitch.'' The employee said the behavior bordered on the edge of stalking. You think?

Look, I could go on for hours here. I am not sure my stomach can stand it.

In total, there are 6,000 workers at the FDIC. In total, more than 500 reported misconduct by their bosses--creepy old men. They reported 145 incidents of sexual harassment; 436 reports of gender-, sexuality-, or race-based discrimination; and 320 incidents of verbal abuse and bullying.

The investigators in this report noted that many of these employees had never previously reported the harassment because the employees at the FDIC had a real and widespread fear of retaliation from the Agency's management.

The FDIC employees who did report, through the years, who did report their harassment to the Agency, quickly realized that it was a mistake and a waste of time.

From 2015 to 2023, 92 brave employees directly reported incidents and instances of harassment or abuse to the Agency. Good for them. The management at the FDIC didn't fire or demote or dock the pay of a single creep because of these reports. In fact, the FDIC often punished the victims rather than the predators. They would move the victims from the victim's job, not the predator.

The predator got to stay. The victims were moved. It didn't matter if they were experienced. It didn't matter if the victim enjoyed his or her job. They had to move because a creep was molesting them.

In fact, when a male examiner called his colleague ``a grizzly bear with tits,'' the FDIC relocated the woman instead of the man who made the comment.

Again, I am sorry to do this, but I am just reciting the details of just eight of the hundreds of reports of harassment at the FDIC.

Now, FDIC Chairman Mr. Martin Gruenberg has been a top official at the FDIC for two decades, as the FDIC has devolved into what apparently is a hellscape for its employees. Mr. Gruenberg has been Chairman of the FDIC for 10 of the last 13 years. He started at the Agency in 2005.

Mr. Gruenberg didn't just supervise the harassment at the FDIC. According to the report, he participated in it. According to Mr. Gruenberg's employees, Chairman Gruenberg repeatedly ``disrespected, disparaged, and mistreated'' his staff--not the predators but his staff that was trying to help him manage the Agency. According to the report, Mr. Gruenberg would berate them, threaten to fire them, participate in ``embarrassing and inappropriate'' group chats with them and throw temper tantrums; or he would throw papers his staff prepared for him against the wall.

One of his loyal staff members told investigators: In my entire career of 35 years--in my entire career of 35 years--I have never had anybody treat me like that.

Reports of Chairman Gruenberg's abusive behavior ranged from 2007 to just last year, showing that he has been a menace to his employees for just about as long as anyone can remember. Yet when my friends in the House of Representatives asked him if he had ever been formally accused of abuse, do you know what he said? He seemed to forget he was the target of an abuse allegation. He said: ``No.'' He had to go back and later correct the record to confirm that he was.

Mr. Gruenberg didn't just struggle with holding himself responsible for bad behavior, but he also refused to hold others accountable too. He even handpicked a known abuser. He picked one of these creepy old men, someone whose outburst had cost the FDIC more than 100,000 bucks in a settlement, for a key promotion to serve as the FDIC's general counsel.

Employees told investigators that they expect Chairman Gruenberg's leadership team to ``pay, promote, or move'' the serial predators within the FDIC. It is all in the report.

Mr. Gruenberg has not once--not once--taken responsibility for his failed leadership. He said he was sorry, but he has never taken responsibility. When he was speaking with the investigators who compiled this report, Mr. Gruenberg denied every single, solitary allegation.

Now, the role of the investigators was not to advise the FDIC about whether Mr. Gruenberg and his leadership team should resign. But if you read the report--200-plus pages--it is clear what they think. The investigators said: Mr. Gruenberg's ``apparent inability or unwillingness to recognize how others experience certain difficult interactions with him'' would make it difficult--I would use the word ``impossible''--for him to restore the FDIC to something that resembles a respectable workplace.

Chairman Gruenberg is far from the only bad apple at the FDIC. That much is clear from the report. Not everyone is a bad apple at the FDIC. There are employees who are very good employees there, but not all of them. And they have been getting away with this for years.

In my opinion, after you read this report, you would conclude that everyone in senior management either knew of the gross, disgusting, and bigoted behavior and did nothing, or they have proven themselves to be such incompetent leaders that they don't deserve to oversee a pet goldfish, much less a Federal Agency.

If the executives at the FDIC had any sense of decency, they would resign today, not issue some weeny statement that ``Yeah, I know things are bad at the FDIC, and I will consider resigning as soon as the Senate confirms my successor, but I am going to continue in the meantime.''

That is the statement that Mr. Gruenberg issued. And do you know what we have heard out of the Biden White House? Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

If I could fire Mr. Gruenberg, I would. But the only person who can fire Mr. Gruenberg is President Biden. Yet no one at the White House wants to talk about this. No one seems interested in firing Chairman Gruenberg or demanding his resignation, and President Biden won't even address it. He sent a spokeswoman out to suggest that President Biden has not fired Mr. Gruenberg because Chairman Gruenberg apologized and has committed to the recommendations that have been provided by the independent report.

Let me get this straight. Chairman Gruenberg is going to implement the recommendations, which investigated the abuse while he was chairman of the FDIC.

Let's take a look at a few of the recommended changes that President Biden thinks Chairman Gruenberg is qualified to implement. One recommendation that the report includes says that the FDIC must work to protect the victims of sexual harassment, discrimination, and bullying.

Do you think?

How is Mr. Gruenberg, who issued a statement today, saying, ``Well, I might resign as soon as the Senate confirms my successor''--how is Mr. Gruenberg, who has proven for more than two decades that he has no interest in protecting his employees--supposed to get that job done? He won't even admit that he is a bully. How does the White House think he is going to recognize and deter other bullies and predators?

Another recommendation in the report is to enact a culture transformation--a culture transformation--within the FDIC. The investigators recommended that the Board of the FDIC hire an individual to oversee this transformation.

I thought that is why we had a Chairman. I thought that is why we had a Chairman. If Mr. Gruenberg's past hiring decisions are any indication, he and the Board will probably promote the Agency's top pervert to the post.

The most important recommendation the investigators made, in my view, is that the FDIC must hold leadership accountable for their harassment. Does President Biden really believe--does he really believe--that Chairman

Gruenberg is going to hold himself accountable? Are the dozens of creepy old men that the Chairman has protected for two decades?

Put down the bong.

Wouldn't firing Mr. Gruenberg and every other bigot or predator and senior management at the FDIC be the obvious first step in holding leadership accountable for this abuse?

As one employee put it, allowing Mr. Gruenberg to oversee improvements to the FDIC's culture is like ``foxes guarding the henhouse.''

I would put it another way. It is like asking Alec Baldwin to teach a course on gun safety.

Mr. Gruenberg and every single member of senior management ought to hide their heads in a bag. The #MeToo movement ought to mean something. And, frankly, the White House should hide its head in a bag.

I don't read an exception to moral order in the #MeToo movement for the FDIC because Mr. Gruenberg happens to be of a particular party--the same party as the President's.

These folks ought to quit, and they ought to quit today. And if they don't, President Biden should fire them. Anything short of firing them will show that President Biden condones this behavior.

The FDIC employees--and there are many good ones--are only responsible for making sure that our banks are secure in the wealthiest and most powerful country in all of human history. Those FDIC employees deserve a professional workplace. They deserve a workplace where they can do their jobs with dignity. And young women don't deserve to be sexually harassed and sent pictures of their boss's genitals. The taxpayers deserve this too, and the banks being examined deserve this as well.

You know, when President Biden took office, in 2021, I remember in one of his press conferences--I don't know how the subject came up, but the subject of appropriate workplace conduct came up--President Biden correctly said that he would fire on the spot any appointee who disrespected other members of his staff. Those are the President's words: ``on the spot.'' And he told his appointees that he expected them to do the same.

The evidence is plentiful that Chairman Gruenberg disrespected his staff and allowed a toxic culture to bloom at the FDIC. He should resign. He should resign immediately. It is time to clean house at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Charlie November and Quinn Eisenfeld, who are interns in my office, be granted floor privileges until May 21, 2024.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, with me today are two of my valuable colleagues from my office, Ms. Maddy Dibble and Mr. Christian Amy, and I am glad to have them today and thank them for their good work.

From afar, being an NFL football player looks like a lot of fun, but if you have ever been down on the field when those guys are playing, it is brutal. I mean, it is brutal.

Some NFL linemen weigh over 300 pounds, and it is all muscle. A lot of NFL quarterbacks, they are pretty big themselves, but they are not 300 pounds. They probably miss their high school days when they only had a chubby 16-year-old lineman trying to tackle them under those Friday night lights.

We have a player on the New Orleans Saints that we are all proud of in Louisiana, Mr. Cam Jordan. I will bet even Mr. Jordan, who is a starting defensive end for the Saints, one of the best in the NFL, has days when he wishes his competitors were only half as big as the ones he faces every Sunday and every day in practice.

But think about this, if Mr. Jordan were to announce tomorrow that he identifies as a 16-year-old and if Mr. Jordan then tried to join the football team at Zachary High School, my alma mater, no one in America would pretend that Mr. Jordan is actually a student athlete with the right to take the field along with teenage boys.

I mean, most Americans would think you are from outer space. They would be thinking, What planet did he just parachute in from?

I mean, every sane person in Louisiana and on planet Earth would understand that a 34-year-old NFL player has no place attacking kids who haven't even been to the prom yet, for God's sake.

Not only would it be unfair to allow Mr. Jordan on the Zachary High School football team, he would probably send a few kids to the hospital in the first quarter, in the first minute.

Men and women don't take the field against one another for the same reasons. It is fundamentally unfair, and women could get hurt.

Yet there are activists in our country today--I wish I didn't have to say this--and there is a President in our White House who think the laws of physics and biology don't apply to transgender athletes.

And these activists and President Biden are happy to destroy athletic opportunities for every woman in America to prove their point. These activists

and President Biden are working throughout the country--you have read about it in the media--to force biological women and girls to compete against biological men and boys.

The ACLU is one of those supporters. The ACLU, for example, says it is a ``fact'' that ``trans girls are girls.''

Now, these activists and President Biden say that it is ``a myth''-- they call it a myth--that transgender female athletes have a physical advantage over biological girls.

As an aside, if that is the case, if this is a myth and not a fact, then you have to wonder why so few transgender men who are actually biological women are anxious to play on male sports teams, but I digress.

The fact is, you don't need a graduate degree in anatomy to know that these claims are specious. They just are. Both medical and the physical science and the data show that men have obvious and significant advantages over female athletes.

I mean, unless you are the reason that your parents drink, you know that. It is just a fact. That is how our Creator made us. Even before birth, baby boys begin developing different hormones and skeletal structures that help them outperform women athletically.

Testosterone exposure in the womb, before the baby is born, alters brain development in boys. This improves their motor skills, increases their aggression, two traits that benefit competitive athletes.

Boys also experience what doctors and scientists call a ``mini puberty.'' They call it a mini puberty in the womb, so that shortly after birth baby boys will gain weight faster than baby girls.

That is biology. That is not political ideology; that is biology. And that ultimately contributes to boys being taller than girls, on average, later in life.

The differences between boys and girls, as I think most of us know, explode during puberty. They explode during puberty. Girls develop hearts that are 14 percent smaller than boys. Girls develop lungs, smaller lungs, that are 12 percent smaller than men, on average.

That helps boys take in more oxygen--duh. It helps them pump blood more efficiently than girls can. That is biology, and that gives boys a clear edge in endurance sports, sports like running, cycling, swimming, rowing.

Girls, also during puberty--again, a biological fact--develop a wider pelvis, on average, and this decreases the amount of force their legs can exert when they are lifting or kicking or pedaling. That is another relative disadvantage when you compare female athletes to male athletes.

Boys develop broader shoulders. I think most of us know that. Common sense is illegal in Washington, DC, but it is not in the rest of America, and I think Americans know that. Boys develop broader shoulders to make space for more upper body muscle mass--again, a biological fact.

It is hard to think of a sport--I can't think of one--in which a higher muscle-to-fat ratio isn't helpful.

The average boy will also grow 5 inches taller than the average girl during this time. Even when women and men are the same height, men have higher levels of bone density, which helps them move more forcefully and escape more injuries in athletics--a biological fact.

Women are at a competitive physical disadvantage against men from birth, and this is especially clear at the very elite levels of athletics. Top-ranked high school boys, for example, regularly outsprint female Olympians. Many high school boys--now, we are talking the elites in high school, I wasn't one of those, but the really, fine male athletes in high school, they could run faster than female Olympians, and they are in high school.

In 2016, for example, American female sprinter Allyson Felix, Ms. Felix earned an Olympic Gold Medal in the women's 400-meter race. Ms. Felix is a wonderful athlete. A year later, after she won a gold medal, more than 285 American teenage boys logged a faster 400-meter time than Ms. Felix.

Don't take my word for it, it came from a study done at Duke University. More than 4,300 adult male athletes across America clocked faster 400-meter times than Ms. Felix, and she was an Olympian.

In many Olympic track or swimming events, the female world record holder wouldn't even qualify--wouldn't even qualify--to compete against men. In strength-based sports, such as weight lifting, men outperform elite women in the same weight class by as much as 30 percent.

Activists try to distract from biological reality by claiming that men lose their advantages over women when the men begin taking cross- sex hormones. That is not true. The differences between men and women begin in the womb, and no number, no amount of hormone treatments or surgeries can undo those.

Estrogen shots don't shrink a man's heart or his lungs, nor do they change the structure of the pelvis or the size of a skeleton, nor do they change your height.

One study revealed that men who have been taking cross-sex hormone treatments for 2 years can still run 12 percent faster and do 10 percent more pushups, on average, than women. That is just a biological fact. If you think that is misogynistic, curse our Creator, if you have the courage. It is just a biological fact.

Perhaps that is why the University of Pennsylvania swimmer--you have heard of her. When she first competed, her name was William Thomas. She was a male. She is now a transgender female, very prominent athlete. She now goes by Lia Thomas. She went from being the 554th ranked man in swimming to a top-ranked woman in the 200-yard freestyle when she was allowed to compete with biological women as a transgender female.

Now, at least in swimming, each athlete gets their own lane. A mediocre male athlete's transition into a top-tier female athlete kills the dreams, and it steals the scholarships of biological women. I will talk more about that later. But at least the female swimmers aren't usually in physical danger because everybody has got their lane. Contact sports are a whole different--a whole different--thing.

Transgender athletes have seriously injured female competitors on several occasions, as President Biden's and these activists' movement have been forced on many of our schools. In May 2023, for example, about a year ago, a high school volleyball player in North Carolina sued her State's high school athletics association after a transgender player--transgender female, born a biological male--spiked the ball in her face. Boom, hit her, right in the face. She got a concussion. She is suffering from long-term physical and mental injuries--not just physical injuries but mental injuries.

Last October, a high school senior in California suffered a season- ending concussion after a transgender--born biological male, now a transgender female--after a transgender volleyball player spiked the ball and hit this young woman in the face during a game. She couldn't play high school volleyball anymore.

This February, a girls' basketball team in Massachusetts forfeited a game. They said ``no mas''; we quit; we can't go on. They forfeited a game after a transgender athlete--biological male, transgender female-- injured three female players. The other team was going to run out of players, so they had to quit, and the coaches were worried that more of their players were going to be hurt.

Now how many women and girls are going to be rushed to the hospital while activists and President Biden create safe places in which transgender athletes can hurt female athletes as a matter of course? Shouldn't we be asking that question?

Some activists say that a biological man--as I indicated, some activists may say that a biological man has the same physicality as a biological woman. Put down the ball if you believe that, but some--this is America. You are entitled to say what you want. And some say that a biological man doesn't have any advantage physically over a biological female, but that doesn't change the laws of nature. That doesn't change the laws of science. That doesn't change the laws of anatomy. The truth is that a woman's bone doesn't care that the person who snapped it identifies as a woman or a man or whatever. They just know their bone is broken.

American female athletes are not lab rats. They are not lab rats we can subject to a social experiment. They have

goals and dreams, too, and they have worked hard, too, to develop their skills, to earn scholarships, to win championships. No girl, no woman, no female in America should end up on the bench with her arm in a sling because the Biden administration wanted a biological man to feel included.

Broken bones will heal in most cases, but transgender athletes have also inflicted a different kind of pain on female athletes, a pain that is a lot harder to mend. I am thinking of the pain felt by athletes like the swimmer from the University of Florida who missed out on the chance to swim as an All American because Ms. Lia Thomas, formerly Mr. William Thomas, who ranked 554 as a man in swimming took her place and dominated the women's race. We should all worry about the swimmer from Virginia Tech who didn't get to compete in the final race of her collegiate career. That is a race she will never get back because Ms. Thomas stole her spot in the pool.

How discouraging. How discouraging it must be to dedicate your life to a goal, only to have these activists and President Biden rip them away because institutions are unwilling to accept the immutable facts of anatomy.

I reject the proposition. I do. I reject the proposition that it is OK that some young athlete is losing out--spends hours in the pool or in the gym each night--has to have her college championship taken away by a biological boy because the Biden administration says so. I reject that.

Transgender athletes are not just undermining the game for female athletes, they are also stealing opportunities for women athletes to earn scholarships to get an education. This isn't just about competitive competition; this is about getting an education. That is why we call them scholar athletes. The NCAA, for example--not exactly a model of courage, by the way. You ever seen a catfish once you catch it and bring it up on the bank? It flips and flops, and it flips and it flops. That is the NCAA. They just go with the political winds. Their attitude is: We have standards. If you don't like our standards, we have others.

The NCAA sets limits on the number of scholarships available for every sport, men and women. By definition, giving a transgender athlete a scholarship means a nontransgender girl will not get one. Duh. Yet the University of Washington recently offered the first Division I women's volleyball scholarship in the country to a biological male. It won't be the last. This is the first Division I scholarship taken away from a female athlete, but it won't be the last.

Now, that makes President Biden happy. I am happy he is happy. But that makes most fairminded Americans sad. It makes me sad.

Additionally, we have only just begun to see how much money is at stake for female athletes who could earn private sponsorships. Have you followed the career of Angel Reese, our star--former star at LSU now playing in professional basketball? Have you followed the career of Ms. Caitlin Clark? They make a lot more money from their sponsorships than they do from their salary playing their sport.

Now, regardless of how you feel about paying college athletes, it is here. Name, image, and likeness sponsorships--they are here, and they present an enormous financial opportunity to athletes. From July of 2021 to June of 2022, about a year, college athletes earned nearly $1 billion in sponsorship deals. We are talking a lot of money here.

We don't know yet how much sponsorship money female athletes can earn. We are sort of in the infancy of this. But we know for certain that they won't earn a penny if a biological male takes their spot on the team. I know that.

A lot of girls are already suffering the consequences of this reality. Chelsea Mitchell--Ms. Chelsea Mitchell--for example, she missed out on several track and field championships because the State of Connecticut forced her to compete against biological boys. She sued her State high school athletic association--good for her--because she believes she could have earned a better scholarship if she had finished first. This is what she told reporters.

When colleges looked at me, they didn't see a winner. They

saw a second or a third place. I wasn't a first place

finisher, and I think that is what really hurt me.

The playing field--I have talked a lot about it--the playing field is not the only place where young women worry about facing transgender females. The locker room has become a nightmare. Ms. Riley Gaines, a female swimmer, she has been very outspoken to protect female athletics. You have probably seen her interview. She said: I felt and feel ``extreme discomfort''--her words, not mine--sharing a locker room with a nude biological man. She added:

We were not forewarned. We were not asked for our consent.

And we did not give our consent.

Ms. Gaines and more than a dozen other female athletes recently sued the NCAA--good for them--for forcing them to share a locker room with Ms. Lia Thomas, formerly Mr. William Thomas. The plaintiffs say that what the NCAA did violated their 14th Amendment right to bodily privacy, and it is hard not to believe them.

If Ms. Gaines--who is a tremendous athlete, and she is very well- educated--felt disturbed and violated by having a biological man in her locker room, think how horrifying it is for a teenage junior high school girl--a teenage junior high school girl--in her locker room after soccer or volleyball practice with a biological male.

Imagine how helpless parents feel when they can't shield their teenage daughter from naked men and boys without killing their daughter's chances to play and win the sports they love. It is the choice parents face. You can either play the sport--their daughter can either play the sport they love, or they can be forced to look at a young boy's penis in the locker room. Are you kidding me?

The discomfort that adults and President Biden are subjecting female athletes to should be enough for us to say that biological males should not be in the girl's locker room, let alone exposing their penises in front of those girls.

Only fools would ignore the reality that some--not all, now--but some men would abuse misguided gender policies for their own sexual advantage. We have already seen some horrific instances of this. You have probably read about the disturbing assault in Loudoun County, VA, sexual abuse in girls restrooms by biological males.

I will happily send you the media articles, President Biden, if your staff has not shown them to you.

Now, look, I have great empathy. I have genuine empathy for the small percentage of Americans who struggle with gender dysphoria. I do. And I hope they can somehow find peace in their lives. But I do not think that we need to sacrifice the physical safety of women. I do not think that we need to or should sacrifice women's athletic, educational, or professional opportunities just because some activists and President Biden claim that injecting biological men into women's sports is the only way to make transgender Americans feel included.

And don't let activists and President Biden try to tell you that protecting women is a controversial opinion. They are going to try. And 70 percent--70 percent--of Americans polled--you will see this every time--70 percent of Americans think only girls should compete in women's sports. In fact, many transgender Americans are part of that 70 percent. They don't believe biological men should compete in women's sports because it is going to destroy women's sports. Yet their stories by some members of the media have been co-opted by people determined to force boys onto girls teams and into their locker rooms.

Now, Louisiana has already put a stop to this. In 2022, the Louisiana State Legislature passed a bill--it is now an act--called the Fairness in Women's Sports Act. It prohibits biological boys from competing against girls in elementary or high school sports. It sailed through our State legislature. It was bipartisan. Republicans voted for it, and a whole bunch of Democrats voted for it.

It is just common sense that biological girls should take the field against biological girls and biological boys should compete only against biological boys. That is how we in Louisiana see it. We need a whole lot more of Louisiana's common sense in Washington, DC.

Congress has done a lot. I am proud of this body. Congress has done a lot to protect women's sports in the 50 years

since title IX became law. I am very proud of title IX.

I think President Biden is trying to turn it into something that we don't recognize, and I don't think he has the authority to do it. But I am very proud of the original title IX, and it would be a great disgrace to allow activists and President Biden to erase all the progress that we have made in elevating women and women athletes in order to conduct a social experiment, in order to demand inclusion.

Let me give you the bottom line. Activists and President Biden want to force young female athletes to change clothes in front of biological boys in their locker rooms. They accept the biological man's slide tackle on the football field with a smile. That is what they want women to do--just grin and bear it. And President Biden and activists want young women to hide their tears when a biological male walks away with a trophy that those women have spent their entire lives working for. And it is wrong.

Pass me the sick bucket. Pass me the sick bucket. That is what most fairminded Americans are thinking.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Nadler, my colleagues in the New York delegation, Mr. Speaker, and Leader Jeffries.

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you humbled by the opportunity God has given us to be together in this moment, this awesome and magnificent responsibility that has been granted to me by the people of western New York.

I am grateful to those who have entrusted me with their vote and their confidence to represent our beloved Buffalo-Niagara region in the United States Congress.

I want to take a moment to recognize my family, who is here with me, my wife, Katie, and our children, Connor, Eireann, and Padraic. I also want to recognize my parents, Martin and Mary Kennedy, and my in-laws, Dave and Jane Duerk. My brother, John, also made the visit down, along with many other family members and friends. I am grateful that they can all join us here today.

Looking down on us are our baby angel, Brigid, along with so many other family members and friends who have passed on and whose spirits remain with us here today on this auspicious occasion. They are no doubt toasting and celebrating in Heaven above.

Calling Buffalo, New York, and America home were the O'Briens and O'Donohues, Wilsons and Flynns, Dobmeirs and Stearns, McCarthys and Duffys. Mixed all together, the result is a Kennedy.

I hail from the City of Good Neighbors, the community of good neighbors; the original home of the Seneca Nation of Indians; the village of Buffalo, burned to the ground by the British in the War of 1812, and rebuilt and incorporated in 1832; the western terminus of the Erie Canal, helping to transform our Nation through improved commerce; a border community with our greatest ally, Canada, to the north; a region surrounded by Great Lakes; and, in between, one of the greatest wonders of the world, Niagara Falls. The grandeur of the falls is only surpassed by the people who have defined the region around us.

Today, we stand as a community of patriotic citizens who have always championed democracy and freedom, from the days of serving as a final stop on the Underground Railroad to the Niagara Movement, the precursor of the NAACP, which was formed in our community. The equality and justice these leaders strove for over a century ago has yet to be fully achieved, and there is still so much more work to be done.

In Buffalo-Niagara, we walk in the footsteps of Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mary Talbert, Shirley Chisholm, and so many other civil rights leaders. In their spirit, we march on.

It was Niagara Falls that made Buffalo the City of Light. While we have seen our share of darkness, Buffalo is seeing a resurgence that generations

only dreamt of, as a melting pot of ethnicities and cultures are helping to redefine our region and an economic renaissance has taken hold. We are a working-class community with a belief in achieving a better life and the American Dream through education; honest, hard work; and perseverance.

I believe the character traits that define us in the Buffalo-Niagara region are the same ideals held by all Americans. I believe the hope we hold as a western New York community in achieving our greatest potential is shared equally by all communities across our country.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to change our country for the better. I am hopeful that we in this Chamber can demonstrate leadership on a world stage that our fellow Americans can be proud of.

I wish to thank, once again, the people of western New York for having faith in me to lead our community and our country in the United States Congress.

God bless us all. God bless America.

Madam President, I have a motion. I think my motion takes precedent.

Having heard Senator Schumer's serious allegations-- which, in my judgment, are specious--about the constitutionality of these impeachment proceedings, we find ourselves in the awkward position, because we are in impeachment proceedings, of being unable to discuss in public the merits of Senator Schumer's claim, and at the same time, my Democratic friends have refused to go into closed session so we can discuss it.

For that reason, I move we adjourn this Court of Impeachment immediately until 12 o'clock noon on Tuesday, April 30, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion to Adjourn

Madam President, I have a motion, and it takes precedence.

As I appreciate the majority leader's allegation, lying to the United States Congress is not a high crime and misdemeanor. You don't have to be Mensa material to know that it is not always----

--a high crime and misdemeanor; it is a felony.

I will.

Since we are not allowed to talk among ourselves about the absurdity of this and my Democratic colleagues will not allow us to go into closed session to talk about the absurdity of this----

--I move that we adjourn until 12 noon on May 1, 2004, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, 2004 would probably be preferable, but I will accept a friendly amendment that we make it 2024.

(Chorus of Hear! Hear!)

Vote on Motion

Madam President, I have a motion, and it takes precedence.

Madam President, before we establish a precedent that lying to the U.S. Congress is not a felony----

And before we add a new chapter to the movie ``Pulp Fiction,'' I move that we go into executive session to at least allow us to talk about the breathtaking precedent we are about to establish here.

Could you turn me back on here?

And I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I just want to be able to be sure I understand, Senator.

I asked Senator Lee if he would yield to a question.

I thought I heard Senator Schumer argue today that lying to the U.S. Congress was not a high crime or misdemeanor and, therefore, could not be the basis for an Article of Impeachment.

Did I hear that correctly?

So even though lying to the U.S. Congress is a felony under the precedent that the majority leader and our Democratic colleagues established, it is not a high crime or misdemeanor? Is that what we did?

Well, may I ask one more?

Well, I am trying to follow the Senate majority leader's logic. What do you have to do to get impeached now? I mean, a felony is not sufficient. What is above a felony?

But it takes, as I understand it, Senator--you are a legal scholar--it takes more than a felony now.

Yeah.

Who is on first? What is on second? I don't understand any of this, and I am very, very worried and would like your thoughts or others' thoughts about the precedent that our Democratic colleagues, in their haste to sweep this under the rug, may have established.

With pleasure.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

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.

Madam President, I would like to talk for a few moments about and I am going to have a motion about the impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas.

As you know, Madam President, our government is one of laws, not people--laws, not people. As you also know, the U.S. Senate is built on precedent and custom and history and the law, not political expedience.

We in the Senate are supposed to listen to the American people, not ignore them. One of the ways we do that is by playing by the rules we have all agreed to--all of the rules, all of the time.

Now, my Senate Democratic colleagues today or at least very shortly, however, may be willing to jeopardize centuries of this stability--the stability that this body has wrought and lives by--for short-term political advantage.

We all know what is going on here. We all know exactly what is going on here. For the very first time in our Nation's history, my Senate Democratic colleagues are seeking to table--maybe even dismiss--an impeachment by the United States House of Representatives of a sitting Cabinet official without holding a full trial. If my Senate colleagues do that, they will be summoning spirits that they won't be able to control.

Let me say that again--the United States House of Representatives. We are not talking here about some ``snow bro'' who lives off Chicken McNuggets and weed and happens to have an opinion. The United States House of Representatives, elected by all of the American people, spent months investigating our border policy and Secretary Mayorkas's role in it, and then they thoughtfully crafted and they passed with a majority vote two Articles of Impeachment. Now my Senate Democratic colleagues want to toss them out in the trash like a week-old tuna salad sandwich without hearing from either side.

In the more than two centuries that this body has existed, we have never once tabled an impeachment--not once. The Senate has never dismissed impeachment articles under these circumstances either-- neither tabled nor dismissed.

If the Senate dismisses these charges without a full trial, it will be the first time in the Senate's long history that it has dismissed impeachment charges against an official it has jurisdiction over without the official first resigning, and that is just a fact of history.

The Senate has the responsibility to hold this trial, and everybody in this body knows it. Yet my Senate Democratic colleagues seem willing to forfeit our constitutional authority in order to bury the evidence of how bad the border crisis is.

Now, I, for one, want to hear the House's evidence, and Senate Republicans are offering our colleagues across the aisle--all of whom I respect, by the way--a menu of options for how to hear that evidence and listen to Secretary Mayorkas's defense without eroding democratic institutions.

If Democrats set a new precedent by making an impeachment trial impossible, as I am afraid they are going to try to do, they will be silencing the voices of the Americans who elected them, and they will have to own the decisions they will be making and bear the consequences tomorrow, and tomorrow may come sooner than they can imagine.

Apparently, my Democratic colleagues are really leaning in on their double standards. Whenever protecting democracy--have you heard that expression?--or upholding ``the rule of law''--have you heard my Democratic colleagues talk about the rule of law? I

have. I agree with them. Whenever they use those expressions but it becomes politically challenging, they seem happy to ignore the rule of law and the will of the people, and their political expedience is in full view today. I regret to say that.

We will see what my Democratic colleagues do with respect to my resolution and Senator Lee's resolution.

Senate Democrats, I am afraid, are silencing the American people who want their country's secure border back. The truth is that the American people are tired of the drug trafficking. They are tired of the human trafficking. They are tired of the sexual abuse of women and children. They are tired of the widespread illnesses. They are tired of the death. They are tired of the behavior of President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas with respect to the border. They are tired of the chaos. They believe it is chaotic by design, and they believe it is undermining their national security. And they are right. Now, the American people may be poorer under President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas, but they are not stupid. They are not stupid.

In total, more than 9 million people, foreign nationals, have crossed the southern border under President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas--9 million. That is four Nebraskas. Secretary Mayorkas doesn't have any idea who they are. He doesn't have any idea where they are. Customs and Border Protection also seized 53,000 pounds of fentanyl from 2021 to 2023. That is enough to kill every man, woman, and child on this planet, for God's sake--not the United States, this planet.

The southern border is an open, bleeding wound. Now, the majority of the House of Representatives reached that conclusion. That is why they voted to impeach Secretary Mayorkas. They have sent us their evidence, and that evidence alleges that Secretary Mayorkas's policies have made our immigration system septic. If I were Secretary Mayorkas, I would want to answer those allegations. As a Senator, I want to hear the evidence, and I know the American people want to hear the evidence.

These are serious charges. By tabling or dismissing the Articles of Impeachment without so much as a trial, like it was just spam in their inbox, my Senate Democratic colleagues are endorsing the Biden administration's lawless approach to the southern border. They are setting a precedent that the next administration can ignore the laws of Congress and the will of the American people as long as it advances the majority party's agenda. That is what they are saying.

Now, my resolution will give the procedures we need to set up the procedures we need to conduct this trial fairly and efficiently.

My resolution is modeled on the procedures that this body used during the second impeachment trial of President Trump. When President Trump's first impeachment came to the U.S. Senate, Senate Republicans were in the majority. You didn't see us trying to table that impeachment. You didn't see us trying to dismiss that impeachment because we believe in the rule of law all the time, not just when it is politically expedient. We heard the evidence. We did our job. And that is what we ought to do right now.

The proceedings set forth in my resolution are efficient; they are fair; they are honest. They will not uproot the longstanding precedent that we have given to Articles of Impeachment in the past. It will give the Articles of Impeachment serious consideration, as we have always done.

Here is my final point. If my Senate Democratic colleagues--let me say it again, each and every one of whom I respect--if they choose to ignore this impeachment, they will have placed their seal of approval on the lawlessness at the border and the chaos it has brought to so many American communities, and they will have ignored 200 years of Senate precedent--200 years. A charitable interpretation based on policy does not exist for what my Democratic colleagues are going to try to do. It is all based on raw, gut politics and they know it and I know it and everybody in this room knows it. Please don't do it. Please, my friends, don't do it. Please don't allow the Senate to rot from within. The American people deserve better.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 623, my resolution that I just talked about; further, that the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I will respond, briefly.

The U.S. House of Representatives--the U.S. House of Representatives--has found, after lengthy investigation, that the chaos at the southern border is manmade, and the U.S. House of Representatives has alleged that that man's name is Secretary Mayorkas.

We need to hold a trial.

Now, Senator Durbin is my good friend and, as usual, he is eloquent, and he sounds very confident that the evidence will exonerate Secretary Mayorkas.

How does he know? He hasn't heard the evidence, and he doesn't want to hear the evidence because he is scared that the American people might disagree.

That is what this is all about--raw, gut politics.

Madam President, a lot of history has unfolded in this room. The U.S. Senate has been home to some of the most formative debates in our Nation's tenure. These are fierce arguments among passionate, intelligent people. It is not all that different from the debates today.

The Senate has always welcomed these sometimes intense disagreements by respecting the rules and the traditions of the institution. It is how a Senator like me, who is a Member of the minority party, can stand here and speak freely about the issues that matter to the American people and to the people of Louisiana.

Now, my Democratic colleagues in the Senate, today, may be about to make some new history in this room. Apparently, they think it is a brave new world, and they want to set a dangerous new precedent. For the very first time, Senate Democrats are seeking to table--maybe even dismiss--an impeachment of a sitting Cabinet official without even holding a trial. They are summoning spirits they won't be able to control.

Please, my colleagues, don't do it.

I fear though that Senate Democrats are going to try to take the Articles of Impeachment that our colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives thoughtfully crafted and passed with a majority vote and toss them into the trash without hearing from either side.

They don't want to let the House impeachment managers make their case. They don't want to let Secretary Mayorkas make his case. They just want to ignore the House's evidence, summarily sweep it under the rug, and move on. And that is wrong.

The Senate has never in its history tabled an impeachment--never. In the more than 200 years that this body has existed, the House of Representatives has impeached an official 21 times, and we have never once tabled the impeachment--not once.

Now, Senator Schumer may also try to dismiss these charges instead of tabling them, but that has never been done before, either. If the Senate dismisses these charges without a trial, it will be the first time in the Senate's long history that it has dismissed impeachment charges against an official it has jurisdiction over without that official first resigning. And that is a fact.

I want you to consider this: The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to impeach an official 21 times--only 21 times--in our long history. The U.S. Senate has only dismissed 3 of those cases--3 out of 21.

Now, why did they dismiss them? In two of those cases, the impeached official chose to resign instead of facing a trial. As a result, the Senate dismissed the charges. In this case, Secretary Mayorkas has not resigned. In one of those dismissed cases, the impeached official was a U.S. Senator, and the Senate concluded that the Constitution did not give it jurisdiction to remove a

U.S. Senator through the impeachment process.

Here, everyone agrees that the Constitution gives Congress the power to impeach and remove a sitting Cabinet Secretary.

Now, listen to me carefully on this. The U.S. Senate has the right and the responsibility to hold this trial. Yet Senate Democrats want to ignore our Chamber's history and forfeit our constitutional authority by tabling or dismissing these charges without even considering the evidence--without even considering the evidence.

Americans need to hear what I am about to say, even if my Democratic colleagues won't listen. Let me say it again: A majority of the duly elected Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, who represent all of the communities across America, spent months investigating the allegations against Secretary Mayorkas. They spent months drafting the Articles of Impeachment, and a majority of the House then voted yes to bring two very serious charges.

The Senate Democrats are now treating those charges--those Articles of Impeachment--like spam that landed in their inbox.

Americans, however, are not nearly so sanguine about the border crisis that has brought death, drugs, violence, chaos, criminals, and mayhem into their neighborhoods. The Biden administration's border crisis is as unprecedented as the majority leader's move to bury the evidence of who could be to blame here.

I, for one, want to hear the House's evidence, and so do the American people. The majority leader's move is unprecedented. It is undemocratic. And I am confident that my Democratic colleagues, if they do this--please, don't--but if they do it, will regret this new precedent when they find themselves in the minority, just as they regretted breaking the Senate precedent for confirming judicial nominees.

You see, Republicans do not like to break precedent when we are in the majority. We respect the traditions of this Chamber because we respect the voters who sent all 100 of us here.

If my Democratic colleagues set a new precedent that tramples the rights of the minority party and silences the voices of the Americans who elected them--if they do that--Senate Democrats will have to own that decision and bear its consequences.

Now, I have listened to the loon wing of the Democratic Party spend the better part of the past decade making passionate speeches about how important it is to protect democracy, to uphold the rule of law, and they are right. President Biden even ran his campaign on the idea of ``restoring our norms,'' as he called it, and ``defending democracy.'' Apparently though, the rules of the loon wing were of the ``for thee and not for me'' variety. Whenever protecting democracy and upholding the rule of law becomes politically challenging, the loon wing has been happy to ignore the rule of law and the will of the people. Isn't that special?

Their political expedience is in full view today, but it is not the first time that their cynicism has reared its ugly Democratic head.

I am sure, Madam President, you will remember. I will give you just two examples. The loon wing spent several years promoting a conspiracy that the Trump campaign was an arm of the Kremlin, despite no objective evidence to tie President Trump to Russia. Democrats and several members of the national security community rushed to dismiss any information found on Mr. Hunter Biden's laptop as ``Russian misinformation,'' despite not having any objective evidence, as we now know, to make that claim. And those are just two of many examples that I could give.

Secretary Mayorkas' impeachment may be the best example of this hypocrisy to date. The same Senate Democrats who have shouted for years about defending democracy and upholding the rule of law seem ready to disregard serious impeachment charges without so much as a second glance. These Senators, if they do that, won't just be silencing the House of Representatives. They will be silencing the American people-- the American people who want their border's security back.

You can pick any poll--any one you want--and you will find President Biden's approval rating on the issue of immigration and border security is on a journey to the center of the Earth. A recent Associated Press poll, for example, found that more than two-thirds of Americans--69 percent of Americans--disapprove of how the Biden administration is handling border security.

I can't imagine that these same Americans would approve of Democrats' refusal to even hear the evidence that Americans see play out in their communities every day.

This poll is only surprising if you peaked in high school. Under President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas, the southern border has become an open, bleeding wound. It has become a cesspool of misery. Drug trafficking, human trafficking, sexual abuse of women, sexual abuse of children, drowning, dehydration, widespread illnesses, death--all have become commonplace.

In total, the Border Patrol has encountered illegal immigrants at the southern border more than 9 million times since President Biden took office. That is four Nebraskas. The Biden administration has failed to remove 99 percent of foreign nationals that it has released into this country.

The backlog of immigrant court cases has doubled under the Biden administration's watch. These foreign nationals have overwhelmed American cities. Instead of investing in American citizens, cities throughout the country are raising taxes. They are cutting programs to fund prepaid debit cards for migrants.

America's children have to stay home from school because Democratic officials turned their classrooms into housing units. Democratic leaders in New York City, Chicago, Denver, Houston, and Los Angeles have begged the Biden administration to do something to curb the flow of unvetted people into their cities.

Of course, it is not just people flowing illegally over that border; cartels have flooded the United States with poisonous fentanyl over that border, too. Customs and Border Protection seized nearly 53,000 pounds of fentanyl from 2021 to 2023--not 53,000 grams, 53,000 pounds. That is enough to kill the entire population of our planet. This poison actually did kill more than 70,000 Americans in 2022. It is now the leading cause of death among Americans 18 to 40.

The Biden administration's border policies bring Americans nothing but suffering. If you hate America, however, the Biden border strategy has been a blessing. Cartels' smuggling operations saw revenues increase from $500 million in 2012 to $12 billion--that is ``b'' as in ``billion''--in 2022.

The policies that President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas have implemented are directly responsible for this disaster at our southern border. At every turn, the Biden administration has ignored the laws of this land and this Congress and the will of the American people to facilitate their own broken border security policies.

The House has detailed several examples in their Articles of Impeachment, and we ought to hear their evidence.

To start, the law requires that all foreign nationals who are not clearly admissible must be ``retained for a removal proceeding.'' Instead, Secretary Mayorkas established a catch-and-release--catch, release, repeat--a catch-and-release scheme that incentivized illegal immigrants to flood our country.

The law also requires that law enforcement take an illegal immigrant who commits a crime or has ties to terrorism or both into Federal custody. That is the law. Yet Secretary Mayorkas told his Department not to follow that law regarding the ``mandatory arrest and detention'' of criminal aliens.

Our law also says that law enforcement must detain illegal immigrants. Instead, Secretary Mayorkas has paroled them wholesale by the thousands into our country, where they could catch a bus or a plane to any unsuspecting community they desire. Not only that, Secretary Mayorkas even gave them the money to do it.

Secretary Mayorkas killed the ``Remain in Mexico'' program. He quashed contracts to build a border wall. He ended the safe third country agreements that allowed America to work with other countries to find protection for migrants in need.

By tabling or dismissing the Articles of Impeachment without so much as a

trial, my Senate Democratic colleagues will be endorsing the Biden administration's lawless approach to the southern border. They will be setting a precedent that the next administration can ignore the laws of Congress and the will of the American people too.

Impeachment matters. It is an important check we have on the executive branch, and we have an obligation to take it seriously. We have an obligation to give any charges brought the full trial they deserve.

I am going to have a resolution, if I am allowed to present it, that will give the procedures we need to conduct this trial fairly and efficiently. I will be bringing that at the appropriate time. It will be efficient. It will be fair. It will be honest. It won't uproot the longstanding precedent we have given to Articles of Impeachment in the past.

If the majority leader and my Democratic colleagues table or dismiss these charges and destroy Senate precedent--precedent that we have established to conduct full and fair impeachment trials--they will regret it. They will regret it. Senate Democrats, if they do that, will show the world that their proclamations about rule of law and protecting democracy are just tools of their own political experience and arrogance. Senate Democrats will let the American people know that they endorse the lawlessness and the misery the Biden administration's broken border has brought to this country.

I don't think Americans' future should be beholden to the politics of the moment, and that is why I want the Senate to do its job and hear this evidence.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, with me today is Mr. Matt Turner, one of my colleagues in my Senate office.

Mr. President, I want to talk about one of President Biden's nominees to be on the Federal Bench, but first I want to digress for a moment.

I love animals, and I especially love dogs. If only people had the hearts of dogs, the world would be better off.

The Presiding Officer and I, of course, are in the same profession-- politics. Politics takes a big heart and a lot of wind and a thick skin. I try not to worry too much about what anybody thinks of me-- except dogs. I really like dogs.

I used to have a beagle. His name was Roger. I loved Roger to death. We lost him a few years ago to cancer.

Roger was a stray. Actually, Roger was raised to hunt rabbits. If you know anything about beagles, when a beagle gets on a scent, the beagle is oblivious to everything else. They just follow that scent. Roger got on the scent and got lost and showed up at my house, so Becky and I took Roger in.

Roger was a rascal. He was a rascal. He loved us, but he couldn't help himself. Whenever there was a small crack in the door, Roger was gone. He was out and gone, and he stayed gone 2 or 3 days. I would worry incessantly. Oh, is he hurt? Will he come back? I love Roger.

He would always come back. But about half of the time when Roger would come back, he would come back dragging roadkill. I wouldn't let him inside with his roadkill, so he would go in the backyard, and he would hide his roadkill--he didn't think I was watching--Roger would hide his roadkill under the back porch.

I miss Roger.

Sometimes--not always but sometimes--the nomination process that the White House uses to select Federal judges--the nomination process is what I am talking about--looks to me like something Roger was hiding under my back porch. I just don't understand it. I don't understand the criteria or the process the Biden White House uses to put people on our Federal bench.

Now, I am not suggesting that President Biden hasn't made some good nominations because he has, and I voted for his nominations who I thought were qualified. But I think it is also--any fairminded person would have to conclude that over the past several years, President Biden has nominated some people to the Federal bench who, quite frankly, are not qualified to judge a pie contest. That is just a fact. That is my opinion, but if you go look at the testimony of all of those nominees, I think you will see I am right.

With respect, the President's pick of Mr. Adeel Mangi is, frankly, one of his worst.

Mr. Mangi is affiliated with an organization that calls itself the Alliance of Families for Justice--the Alliance of Families for Justice. In fact, Mr. Mangi is not just affiliated with this group; he is on its advisory board.

One of the Alliance's founders was a member of a domestic terrorist organization. What does that mean? One of the Alliance's founders was convicted of murdering police officers in cold blood. He killed cops.

Now, the Alliance of Families for Justice on whose board Mr. Mangi sits--or at least sat--advocates for the release of people who kill cops. Let me say that again. I didn't know such organizations existed. The organization on whose advisory board Mr. Mangi sits or sat advocates for the release of people who kill cops.

This organization has even called people who kill police officers freedom fighters. Freedom fighters. Why? I know that sounds crazy. That is because it is. It is also why so many law enforcement organizations have sent all of us on the Judiciary Committee letters opposing Mr. Mangi's nomination. I have never gotten so many letters or phone calls from law enforcement supporting or opposing--in this case, opposing--a nomination.

For example--I am not going to read all of them. I would be here the rest of the evening. For example, take the National Sheriffs' Association. I think most of us have heard of them. The National Sheriffs' Association wrote to all members of the Judiciary Committee, and here is what they said. I am quoting now. These are not my words but the sheriffs' words. ``Mr. Mangi's association . . . with an organization advocating the release of convicted cop-killers is seriously disturbing.'' That is coming from the sheriffs.

According to the National Sheriffs' Association, the Alliance's position--on whose advisory board Mr. Mangi sat or sits--according to the sheriffs, the Alliance's position ``is not only tone-deaf to the sacrifices made by law enforcement [officials], but also disrespectful to the victims of heinous crimes, as well as the family and friends of officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice.''

We also heard from the National Association of Police Organizations. I think most people have heard of them.

They said this about Mr. Mangi's nomination: Mr. Mangi's ``conscious work with the Alliance shows an anti-victim and anti-police bias that would certainly cloud his decisionmaking as a judge.'' That came from the police. Those aren't my words; those are law enforcement's words.

By itself, Mr. Mangi's work for and with this organization that I refer to as ``the Alliance'' should be disqualifying, but there is more. There is a lot more.

From 2019 to 2023--4 years--Mr. Mangi also served on the advisory board of another group, and this group calls itself the Center for Security, Race and Rights--the Center for Security, Race and Rights. This organization is steeped in hatred and anti-Semitism. I don't know any other way to put it. I think any reasonable person who looked at the center's work would agree with me, at least as to my description.

Now, every single American I know--and I will bet this is true for the Presiding Officer too--every single American I know remembers where they were on September 11, 2001. We call it 9/11. We don't even have to explain ourselves anymore; we just say ``9/11,'' and every American knows what you are talking about.

On the 20th anniversary of 9/11, Mr. Mangi's Center for Security, Race and Rights, on whose advisory board Mr. Mangi either sits or sat, sponsored an event. Here is the title of their event: ``Whose narrative? 20 years since September 11, 2001.'' The purpose of this event was to blame America and blame Americans for 9/11. That is why they held the event. This event and the speakers there blamed ``U.S. imperialism''--not the terrorists; ``U.S. imperialism''--for the 9/11 attacks that killed thousands of innocent American citizens.

The event featured some of the most despicable speakers that even the most fertile imagination would be challenged to come up with. One of those speakers was Mr. Sami Al-Arian. Mr. Al-Arian was convicted of providing support to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Another speaker, Mr. Rabab Abulhadi, has ties to terrorist hijackers. A third speaker, Mr. Hatem Bazian, publicly called for an intifada in the United States. Hard men. Rough words. American imperialism.

Mr. Mangi claims that he didn't know about this event--that is what he told the Senate committee--but his center has a long, long history of sponsoring vile, hate-filled events, and that is just a fact. That is not rhetoric; that is just a fact. Are we really expected to believe that Mr. Mangi had no idea what the center was up to? He sat on its advisory board, for God's sake.

Now let's talk about the director of this center on whose advisory board Mr. Mangi sat. The director also has a vile history of bad behavior. In 2021, the director of this organization on whose board Mr. Mangi sat signed a letter. That letter is posted on the Alliance's website. So far as I know, you can go to it and read it right now.

In the letter, the director says that she is ``in awe''--``in awe''-- ``of the Palestinian struggle to resist violent occupation, removal, erasure, and the expansion of Israeli settler colonialism''--``Israeli settler colonialism.''

Hamas murdered, raped, maimed Jewish men, Jewish women, little Jewish children, and according to Mr. Mangi's organization's director, it is Israel's fault.

The center's director describes himself as being in respectful awe. I think the vast majority of Americans would describe themselves as being nauseated.

The center's director, of whom I speak, also personally recruited Mr. Mangi to serve on the center's advisory board.

Again, are we really expected to believe that Mr. Mangi didn't know about the director's vile behavior? Did Mr. Mangi not even run a single Google search on this person?

On top of all of that, I do not believe--this is one person's opinion--I do not believe that Mr. Mangi told me the truth in our Judiciary hearing. When I asked him about his involvement with this radical organization, Mr. Mangi told me he only provided ``advice on academic areas of research.'' That is what he told me. He said: My only involvement is ``advice on academic areas of research.''

Those aren't my words; those are Mr. Mangi's words. But it turns out he was also funneling money to the organization--tens of thousands of dollars from himself and from his law firm. I didn't know that at the time of the hearing. I wish that I had.

With these facts in mind--and I have tried just to stick to the facts--I find it very hard to believe that anyone can in good faith-- no. Strike that.

I find it hard to believe that a fairminded, objective person who is not involved in this nomination can defend Mr. Mangi's nomination. Some of my Senate colleagues are doing that. That is OK. Sometimes people disagree, and that is a good thing. I believe in having two sides, opposing sides, come together in a dialectic. Sometimes that is how you find the truth. But it has gotten kind of personal. I regret that.

Some people--not all people; the Presiding Officer doesn't do this-- some people, when they are losing an argument, tend to rely on epithets, you know--``You are a racist'' or ``You are a sexist'' or ``You are a misogynist'' or ``You are a Nazi'' or ``You are a bigot'' or, as in this case, ``You are Islamophobic.'' Some of the Members of this body have made that suggestion. They have suggested that all of the people who are opposing Mr. Mangi's nomination based on the facts that I have just tried to describe as fairly as I could--some Senators have suggested that asking Mr. Mangi questions about his involvement with these organizations is Islamophobic.

One of my colleagues--which, again, is his right--came down to the Senate floor, and he said that certain Republican members of the committee ``believed that he,'' referring to Mr. Mangi, ``must be a terrorist because he is a Muslim.'' Wow. That got my attention. That is not true.

I believe that Mr. Mangi is not qualified to be a Federal judge because he supports organizations that celebrate people who kill law enforcement officers; he supports organizations that hate Americans; and he supports organizations that hate Jews.

When President Biden, as I said earlier, has nominated qualified people to serve on the Federal bench, I have supported them regardless of their race, regardless of their gender, regardless of their religion.

I confess to asking tough questions in committee. That is my job. When you are put on the Federal bench, you are there for life--for life. You are unelected, and you are there for life, and you have the full power of the United States of America, the most powerful country in all of human history, behind you, so you had better get it right.

Just a few years ago, for example, I voted to confirm one of President Biden's nominees, Mr.--now judge--Zahid Quraishi. Mr. Quraishi happened to be at the time the first Muslim-American Federal judge. I voted for him. He is doing a great job. Unlike Mr. Mangi, Judge Quraishi was not on the board of an organization that celebrates and advocates for the release of cop killers. He was not on the board of an organization that sponsors anti-American events and blames 9/11 on American imperialism. Judge Quraishi was qualified and is qualified to serve on the Federal bench. Mr. Mangi is not. He is just not. That is not Islamophobia; that is just a fact. And I think anyone who is being honest with themselves--particularly if you go look at the confirmation hearings and read the evidence--I think any person who is being honest with themselves would agree.

So, for these reasons, I ask my colleagues to oppose Mr. Mangi's nomination, and I urge President Biden to withdraw it.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to begin with a quotation:

Let me tell you something, New Yorkers, never in my life

have I had a problem that I did not see an ending to [but] I

don't see an ending to this. This issue will destroy New York

City.

``This issue will destroy New York City.''

That is New York Mayor Eric Adams. He was responding to the crisis at our border. Mayor Adams is the mayor of our country's largest city.

Now, New York City is about 2,000 miles from Eagle Pass, TX, but the breathtaking influx of illegal immigrants into our country and the Secretary of Homeland Security's refusal to detain or deport them has brought New York City to its knees--to its knees.

Mayor Adams now knows what Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas won't admit. When reality calls, you can only ignore it for so long.

Secretary Mayorkas's actions have had consequences, and time is up. Time is up.

I am only going to say a brief word about the open, bleeding wound that is our southern border, which has been open wide to unknown people--to criminals, to cartels, and, yes, to terrorists.

No. 1, I know you know that fentanyl is now the No. 1 killer of Americans between the ages of 18 and 45 and that fentanyl is coming across our open southern border.

No. 2, we know that under Secretary Mayorkas's watch, human traffickers have built a $13 billion--not $13 million--$13 billion business trafficking human beings across our border.

No. 3, we also know that roughly 450,000 children unaccompanied have shown up at the border. And most of them have been released into our country. Many of them--we don't know how many--many of them have ended up in dangerous places with dangerous, evil people.

And, finally, as best we can tell, since President Biden has been President and Secretary Mayorkas has been Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, we have had 8.6 million people--8.6 million people--come into our country illegally. That is four Nebraskas--that is four Nebraskas. And we don't have the slightest idea who they are.

Now, the U.S. House of Representatives has investigated this crisis, and it has found that some of the blame for this crisis lies with Secretary Mayorkas. And the U.S. House of Representatives has impeached Secretary Mayorkas for it.

In its first Article of Impeachment, the House alleges that Secretary Mayorkas has ``willfully and systematically refused to comply with Federal immigration law.'' The House says that Secretary Mayorkas has refused to detain some illegal immigrants, as the law requires them to do, and has, instead, embraced his own catch-and-release scheme in which he has released huge numbers--I think any fairminded American would call 8.6 million people huge--huge numbers of illegal immigrants into the United States.

The House says that Secretary Mayorkas has refused to follow unambiguous and clear Federal laws that require him to detain illegal immigrants who are subject to deportation for engaging in criminal or terrorism-related behavior.

The House says that Secretary Mayorkas has failed to make case-by- case parole determinations, which the law clearly requires--clearly. And, instead, he has, on his own, paroled millions of people illegally into the United States en masse.

In its second Article of Impeachment, the House alleges that Secretary Mayorkas has breached the public trust in two respects: by knowingly making false statements to Congress that the border is ``secure'' and that the Department of Homeland Security has ``operational control'' of the border and by failing to comply with subpoenas issued by congressional committees seeking to exercise oversight over DHS activities.

Any fairminded person can see that these are serious charges. And they demand a full trial.

Let me say that again. They demand a full trial.

The Senate must let the House present its case. And then we must do our job and give that case careful consideration. If the Senate dismisses these charges without trial--as if it is just a parking ticket being fixed by some politician--it will be the first time--the very first time--in the Senate's long history that it has dismissed impeachment charges against an official it has jurisdiction over without that official first resigning--the very first time.

The House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress has voted to impeach 21 times--only 21 times--in the history of this country. The Senate has only dismissed those cases three times--three times. And two of the cases the Senate dismissed, the impeached official chose to resign instead of facing a trial in the Senate. As a result, the Senate dismissed the charges.

Secretary Mayorkas has not resigned.

In one of those cases--the last remaining case--the impeached official was a U.S. Senator. Perhaps some remember it. And the Senate concluded that the Constitution did not give it jurisdiction to remove a U.S. Senator through its impeachment process.

Now, in this case, everyone agrees that the Constitution gives Congress the power to impeach and remove a sitting Cabinet Secretary.

I repeat: The U.S. Senate cannot and should not turn a deaf ear to the democratically elected Members of the U.S. House of Representatives by dismissing their charges against Secretary Mayorkas without a full and fair trial.

Precedent demands a trial. Respect for the House of Representatives demands a trial. Respect for the law demands a trial. And the American people demand a trial, and they deserve it. The U.S. Senate should do its job.

I yield the floor.