Floor Statements

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) would have voted ``yea.''

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, tomorrow afternoon, the House of Representatives will transmit Articles of Impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas to the U.S. Senate. And the Democrat leader? Well, by all accounts, the Democrat leader will move to sweep the articles and the border security crisis that they represent

under the rug by immediately dismissing the charges. It is not particularly surprising given Democrats' history of minimizing the crisis at our southern border, but it is disappointing nonetheless.

The House of Representatives has put forward serious charges, along with evidence to support those charges, and it is not too much to ask that the Senate take this matter seriously and explore these charges before dismissing them.

In a courtroom, a case is not dismissed without the court taking the time to examine the facts, and the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, should be no different. The Senate should have a full trial and take the time to examine whether Secretary Mayorkas's actions warrant a conviction. Then the Senate should be able to vote guilty or not guilty.

One thing is absolutely clear, and that is that Secretary Mayorkas and President Biden have presided over the worst border crisis on record. We have had 3 successive years of recordbreaking illegal immigration under President Biden. Now, let that just sink in for a minute. We have had 3 successive years of recordbreaking illegal immigration under President Biden. Fiscal year 2021 saw a recordbreaking 1,734,686 migrant encounters at our southern border. Then fiscal year 2022 broke that record, and then fiscal year 2023 broke that record. If the current trajectory continues, it is likely that fiscal year 2024 will break the record yet again.

While there are always various factors that affect the flow of migration, there is a reason that President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas have presided over 3 successive years of recordbreaking illegal immigration, and that reason is the weak border security policies of the Biden administration.

From the day he took office, when he rescinded the declaration of a national emergency at our southern border, President Biden made it clear that border security was at the bottom of his priority list. Over the 3 years since, he and Secretary Mayorkas have turned our southern border into a magnet for illegal migration, from repealing effective border security policies from the Trump administration to abusing our asylum and parole systems, which are now providing temporary amnesty to hundreds of thousands of individuals here illegally.

Under U.S. immigration law, parole, which is the temporary release into the country of an individual for an extenuating reason, is meant to be used on a case-by-case basis only for ``significant public benefit,'' like appearing as a witness in a trial, or ``urgent humanitarian reasons,'' like a medical emergency. But under Secretary Mayorkas, the Biden administration has created a system of mass parole, with groups being approved en masse for release into the country. In fiscal year 2023, the Biden administration paroled 22 times--22 times-- as many individuals per month from southwest border ports of entry as did the Trump administration.

Meanwhile, on the asylum front, President Biden's decision to implement a mobile app, CBP One, for filing asylum claims has helped result in hundreds of thousands of individuals taking up residence in our country, often for years, many of whom are unlikely ever to be approved for asylum.

Needless to say, the number of individuals flooding across our southern border under President Biden and Senator Mayorkas is a logistical nightmare. The Border Patrol is stretched thin, and U.S. cities at the border and across the country are being overwhelmed by the number of migrants. But even more than that--even more than that-- this is a national security crisis.

Our country cannot be secure while we have 2\1/2\ million individuals a year pouring across our southern border. And that is not even counting the hundreds of thousands of known ``got-aways''--individuals the Border Patrol saw but were unable to apprehend--the number of which, the Chief of the Border Patrol recently noted, is keeping him up at night.

Even some Democrat Senators here in the Senate have acknowledged that the crisis at our southern border has to be addressed, so I don't think it is too much to ask that we look seriously at the charges the House has brought against one of the chief architects of the Biden administration's lax border security regime, an individual so disconnected from the reality of the situation we face that he has repeatedly publicly asserted that the border is secure in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately, I suspect the Democrat leader will continue his plan to sweep these charges under the rug. And with the President and Senator Mayorkas's demonstrated unwillingness to use the power of their offices to stem the flow of illegal migration, year four of the Biden- Mayorkas crisis will continue.

I yield the floor.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Tennessee Mr. (Hagerty), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``yea''.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``yea''.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``NAY''.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``NAY.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``yea''.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``NAY.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``yea''.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``nay''.

Mr. President, this week, we celebrate National Agriculture Week. It is a time to celebrate America's farmers and ranchers, the hard-working men and women who fill America's supermarkets and Americans' dinner plates. Much of daily life here in the United States depends on the food, fuel, and fiber that America's farms and ranches produce. And this week in particular, we thank those who do the hard work of feeding America--and the world.

There are a lot of factors that go into a farm's or ranch's success. Today, I want to talk about just one of those factors that affects a lot of farms and ranches, and that is trade. Trade is critical to the continued success of American agriculture. One in four acres on U.S. farms is planted to be exported to a foreign market, and exports are responsible for a fifth of U.S. farm revenue.

For the 2023 marketing year, American farmers planted nearly 70 million acres of major crops to supply international markets. But we have a problem. Thanks in large part to the Biden administration's almost complete inaction on trade, U.S. agriculture exports are declining. In fact, last year, the United States posted a $16.6 billion agricultural trade deficit--16.6 billion. And that trade deficit, believe it or not, is projected to be nearly twice as large this year, in an area of our economy where typically we have run, historically, trade surpluses.

This would be bad enough on its own, but it is particularly distressing at a time of economic uncertainty for a lot of farmers and ranchers. Like so many other Americans, farmers and ranchers have suffered under President Biden's inflation crisis. Net farm income is expected to see its largest 2-year drop in 40 years.

We should be doing whatever we can to reverse this trend and help farmers and ranchers succeed, and a good place to start would be opening new markets for American agricultural products.

The sorry state of agriculture trade is emblematic of the Biden administration's generally unambitious trade agenda. The President made it clear early on that trade would not be high on his agenda, and unfortunately, he has lived up to that.

Increased market access--long a priority of the United States--has almost completely dropped off the radar under President Biden. The U.S. Trade Representative has openly said that the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, which contains one of the few trade initiatives that the administration has actually undertaken, was, in fact, designed not-- not--to include tariff reduction. In other words, the Biden administration deliberately chose not to pursue a key market-opening measure, and now, the Biden administration has put even this halfhearted trade initiative on hold, declining to move forward with the trade portion of the Indo-Pacific agreement.

A year ago, I came to the floor to discuss my bipartisan bill to kick-start negotiations on a comprehensive free-trade agreement with the United Kingdom. Now, you would think that a free-trade agreement with one of our oldest allies and largest trading partners would be a no-brainer, but the administration has punted on that one, too.

On digital trade--an area where the United States has historically been a leader and in which we should continue to lead--the Biden administration is pulling back. Last fall, the U.S. Trade Representative abandoned longstanding U.S. policy on digital trade at the World Trade Organization--a move that risks letting China take our place in writing rules for a major sector of the global economy.

The United States is currently negotiating zero--zero--free-trade agreements. But while the Biden administration keeps America on the sidelines, other countries are building up their trading portfolios. The European Union is negotiating new free-trade agreements. So is the United Kingdom. China is aggressively working to expand its trading network.

The Biden administration's failure on trade is putting our country at a competitive disadvantage. The administration is not only forfeiting opportunities for American leadership, it is harming American businesses, farms, and ranches that look to trade as a way to grow.

Earlier this week, I joined Senator Blackburn and other Senators in a letter to the President urging the administration to uphold America's longstanding leadership on digital trade. Last week, I led a group of Republican Senators urging the administration to work on expanding export opportunities for American agriculture.

If we want American farmers, ranchers, and business owners to succeed in the global economy, trade has to be a priority, and I will continue to do everything I can to urge the Biden administration to get off the sidelines on trade and start opening up new opportunities for American producers.

I yield the floor.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Schmitt).

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

Mr. President, we have heard some concerning statements on Israel in recent days from leading Democrats.

Last Thursday, the Democratic leader came to the floor to deliver a speech in which he took the extraordinary step of calling for a regime change in Israel. That is right. The Democratic leader of the U.S. Senate, who has, in the past, fiercely decried the prospect of foreign interference in U.S. elections, decided to insert himself into the internal electoral politics of a sovereign nation and a close U.S. ally. It was an incredibly troubling moment.

As I said, it wasn't the only troubling statement lately from a Democrat leader. The President has also recently inserted himself into Israeli decision making by criticizing Israel's war plan and saying it would be a ``red line'' for Israel to go after Hamas strongholds in Rafah on the southern border of Gaza--in effect telling Israel that Hamas should be allowed to continue to hold this region.

Both the President and the Democrat leader are entitled to their personal strategic opinions and their personal opinions on Israel's leadership. What they are not entitled to is to attempt to dictate the election process or the strategic planning of a sovereign nation.

There would be justifiable outrage if one of our allies attempted to dictate to our country when we should hold elections and whom we should choose to lead us. It is equally offensive for U.S. leaders to attempt to dictate war planning or election outcomes to one of our allies.

I also have to wonder where the similar statements are on, for example, Iran. Iran has been fomenting terror across the Middle East for decades--Hezbollah, the Houthis, Shia militias in Iraq and Syria, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and, of course, Hamas.

Hamas gets approximately 90 percent of its military budget from Iran. There is reason to wonder whether Hamas would even have had the capability to carry out its October 7 attack without its history of support from Iran. There is certainly reason to wonder what the Middle East would look like today if Iran hadn't spent decades funding and arming terrorist organizations.

Yet, in his entire State of the Union Address, the President mentioned Iran only once. The same goes for last week's speech from the Democrat leader. Where are the redlines for Iran, the calls for regime change? For that matter, where are the redlines for Hamas? Because, let's remember, that is how we ended up here. Israel didn't attack Hamas; Hamas attacked Israel.

President Biden himself has noted that October 7's brutal attack against Israeli civilians was the deadliest day for the Jewish people literally since the Holocaust. More than 1,100 individuals were killed. More than 240 hostages were taken, and 130 of those hostages still-- still--remain in Gaza, including 5 American citizens. This was not a war of Israel's making; the current war is the responsibility of Hamas.

Hamas has pulled its own citizens into the war zone because that is what they do. It has woven its terrorist infrastructure all through Gaza so that its fighters can easily slip into and outright hide behind the civilian population. The Israeli military has continued to discover Hamas tunnels networked beneath schools, hospitals, and the United Nations' headquarters in Gaza, UNRWA. The lives of its own citizens seem to mean as little to Hamas as do the lives of Israelis.

The world has seen the evil of Hamas and its indifference to life, and that is precisely why Israel must succeed in removing the threat of Hamas from its borders.

When Democrats do things like set redlines around an offensive operation into Rafah, they are supporting the conditions that will perpetuate this terror. No other nation would accept this threat just miles over its border, and we must not ask our longstanding ally Israel to make such a dangerous exception.

I hope and pray that Israel will succeed in permanently disabling Hamas and paving the way to a more peaceful future for Israelis and-- and--for Palestinians.

In an age in which the Democratic Party is increasingly surrendering to its most extreme-left wing, perhaps the President and the Democrat leader's comments should not have been unexpected, but, expected or not, they were inappropriate and troubling.

There is an old adage that when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Yet Democrats are out with a letter this morning that sets forth a new laundry list of conditions for Israel to meet.

Our focus should be on supporting our ally Israel and working for a future where both Israelis and Palestinians can live free from terror like Hamas's, and that requires clear-eyed focus on the task at hand of helping our allies defeat these terrorists, bring the hostages home, and restore peace.

I yield the floor.