Roger Marshall

Mr. MARSHALL

Mr. MARSHALL. If the gentleman will yield.

Mr. MARSHALL. It certainly seems to me that, today, 51 of our friends across the aisle voted to not have a trial. Make note of this: that every person that voted to end that trial was a vote for an open border. It was a vote to tell Laken Riley's family that the life of their daughter didn't matter. It was a vote to tell the 250,000 families that lost a loved one to fentanyl: It doesn't matter. But what struck me, as the clock struck midnight here and we lost that vote, is I feel like the Senate was gutted, that we lost part of our powers. You know, in high school we were taught--in high school government, we talked about checks and balances. And one of the checks and balances that the legislative branch had on the executive branch was this impeachment process. And I want to ask my colleague from Texas: Why do I feel like it has just been gutted right now--like the entire Senate--that this body has been gutted of a power that we are never going to get back, that impeachment going forward may mean nothing. Am I wrong?

Mr. MARSHALL

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, on February 2, 2021, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas took an oath that all of us in the Chamber have taken, an oath that many of us have taken who have served in the military--an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Yet here we are, 3 years later, with the worst border crisis our Nation has ever seen. I rise today because we find ourselves at a critical moment in our Nation's history--a moment when the integrity of this very Chamber and its leadership is being tested, a time when we will see if our colleagues across the aisle are willing to do the right thing and hold Alejandro Mayorkas accountable for his dereliction of duty that has left our country a shell of what she once was. Now with over 11 million border crossings, including 2 million unvetted ``got-aways'' now living here on U.S. soil--and amongst those are an unknown number of terrorists, violent gang members and drug cartels--Mayorkas has broken his oath, resulting in this dangerous and deadly invasion of our country. All you have to do is read your hometown news, and you are going to find a person in your community who has died from fentanyl or who has been physically abused or murdered by one of these unvetted illegal aliens. From the moment Secretary Mayorkas took office, he has skirted the Constitution and broken the law as outlined in the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which clearly states he must maintain ``operational control'' and ``prevent unlawful entries into the United States.'' In the past 3 years alone, we have had nearly 2 million known ``got- aways'' successfully evade capture and enter our country--a number that includes hundreds of violent gang members and terrorists. To put that into perspective, the scale of this issue, today, over 800 ``got- aways'' illegally crossed into this country; yesterday, over 800 unvetted ``got-aways'' escaped into our country; and, tomorrow, 800 more unvetted aliens will end up here on U.S. soil, living in communities around the country. Maybe that is why law enforcement officers recently told me back home that we cannot arrest ourselves out of this crisis; that they are so overwhelmed by crime now related to these illegal crossings that we cannot arrest ourselves out of this predicament. Secretary Mayorkas has given free rein to drug cartels to smuggle in illegal aliens and deadly drugs like fentanyl, resulting in the deaths of 300 Americans every day, with a total of over 250,000 fentanyl- related poisoning murders--deaths--occurring under his watch. That is three times more than the number of brave soldiers we lost in the Vietnam war--three times more. The Secretary has turned a blind eye to the exploitation of our borders by terrorists, Chinese nationals, and other high-risk individuals, causing the largest influx of terrorist border crossings in our Nation's history. And let us not forget the abuse and weaponization of parole and asylum. Secretary Mayorkas has illegally admitted nearly 800,000 aliens per year--800,000--under this parole compared to just 5,000 per year under President Obama or President Trump--800,000 versus 5,000 a year. There is no question that the situation at our borders is dire and that the responsibility of this historic crisis lies squarely at the feet of those who have failed to address it. Instead of fulfilling his obligation to the American people, Secretary Mayorkas has unraveled our national security, unleashed our border into chaos, and launched an unmitigated disaster and culture of lawlessness that has left Lady Liberty vulnerable to exploitation. His actions--or lack thereof--have endangered the safety of every American, and there must be consequences. Congress must step in and do the job that President Biden refuses to do and fire Secretary Mayorkas. Enough is enough. Americans deserve better. We are here today because we take our oath seriously. With the House managers delivering the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate Chamber today, I hope our colleagues across the aisle, who also took an oath to protect and defend our great Nation, will do the right thing. Let's bring this to a trial, let's debate his record, and for the sake of America's safety and security, let's impeach Alejandro Mayorkas. Taking this decisive action will send a clear message to this administration: They will be held accountable for orchestrating this deadly invasion. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARSHALL

Mr. MARSHALL. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MARSHALL. Madam President, I want to thank also the Senator from the great State of Louisiana for his leadership on this very important issue. The joint employer rule from the NLRB will crush the franchise model as we know it. It is going to crash the model of business that brought financial freedom to millions of Americans. What I love about the franchise models everywhere I go, visiting with these owners--it has been so helpful for minorities, for veterans, for women. These franchises provide a model, the framework on how to be successful, but this new rule from the NLRB would destroy the model as we know it. Now, I am not sure that Kansas had the first franchise, but in my mind, they did. I remember when Pizza Hut started. It was started by some students out of Wichita State University delivering pizzas to their fellow students. Not long after that came Rent-A-Center, Freddy's Frozen Custard, Goodcents subs, and many, many more. And that story has been repeated all across the country. These businesses started off small but through franchising were able to grow into national successes. Today, there are 7,500 franchises employing 75,000 employees across the State. Now, again, everywhere I go across the State of Kansas, people want to talk about inflation, but what is becoming more prominent, especially to a business owner, is regulations, just this overburden of regulations that is keeping us all down and driving up the cost of doing business. More regulations means more money, more cost to that owner. The question I get from folks is, Why does the White House want to fix something that is not broken? Listen, the system is working just fine right now. So why are we trying to fix it? I remember President Reagan talking about the 10 words every American hates to hear: ``I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you.'' We need less regulations, not more regulations. This definition is overly broad, and this rule threatens the success stories for all those happy endings, for all those American dreams that have become true. Instead of being independent business owners, franchisees will be reduced to middle managers--killing jobs, killing income as well. This rule attempts to trigger joint employer status if two employers share the essential terms and conditions of employment but then talks about indirect control as one of these terms and conditions. So instead of making overly broad and burdensome rules, we should pass bills like our own Save Local Business Act, which provides clear and consistent standards for treating joint employment status. I ask my colleagues to join us in supporting this CRA. This rule from the Federal Government is a solution in search of a problem. I yield the floor. The joint resolution was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time. Vote on H. J. Res. 98 PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?

Mr. MARSHALL

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I want to say thank you to the ranking member on the Senate Ag Committee, Senator Boozman. And I am especially proud to be here with the Senator from the great State of North Dakota, Senator Hoeven, and support our FARMER Act. Crop insurance is the backbone of every farm bill. When I talk to producers back home, they tell me crop insurance is their first, second, and third priority. It is important not just to producers, but it also helps stabilize groceries on the other end by having a good, constant supply by allowing the farmer to plant next year's crop after Mother Nature strikes. It helps keep those prices down at the grocery store as well. You know, I am often asked why crop insurance is so important. And I want to quote the late President John F. Kennedy when he summed up the plight of the farmer pretty well. This is what President Kennedy said: The farmer is the only person in our economy who buys everything at retail, sells everything at wholesale, and pays the freight both ways. Look, our input costs are driving the value of our crops up, and thus the cost of crop insurance is going up along with it. Unfortunately, commodity prices don't reflect that. Instead, we are seeing an alltime drop in farming income--year over year drop that we have seen in decades. But the FARMER Act truly puts ``farm'' back in the farm bill with a reasonable cost. It helps take on this added burden of crop insurance, which, again, allows the farmer to plant next year's crop and makes us the most single most important program at USDA. I am proud to be here today urging that this body pass the FARMER Act--perhaps included on the farm bill would be a good place for it as well--to protect the economic security of rural America and keep food prices stable for American consumers. I am happy to yield back to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. MARSHALL

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I want to say thank you to the ranking member on the Senate Ag Committee, Senator Boozman. And I am especially proud to be here with the Senator from the great State of North Dakota, Senator Hoeven, and support our FARMER Act. Crop insurance is the backbone of every farm bill. When I talk to producers back home, they tell me crop insurance is their first, second, and third priority. It is important not just to producers, but it also helps stabilize groceries on the other end by having a good, constant supply by allowing the farmer to plant next year's crop after Mother Nature strikes. It helps keep those prices down at the grocery store as well. You know, I am often asked why crop insurance is so important. And I want to quote the late President John F. Kennedy when he summed up the plight of the farmer pretty well. This is what President Kennedy said: The farmer is the only person in our economy who buys everything at retail, sells everything at wholesale, and pays the freight both ways. Look, our input costs are driving the value of our crops up, and thus the cost of crop insurance is going up along with it. Unfortunately, commodity prices don't reflect that. Instead, we are seeing an alltime drop in farming income--year over year drop that we have seen in decades. But the FARMER Act truly puts ``farm'' back in the farm bill with a reasonable cost. It helps take on this added burden of crop insurance, which, again, allows the farmer to plant next year's crop and makes us the most single most important program at USDA. I am proud to be here today urging that this body pass the FARMER Act--perhaps included on the farm bill would be a good place for it as well--to protect the economic security of rural America and keep food prices stable for American consumers. I am happy to yield back to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. MARSHALL

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, make no mistake about it, a vote to block the impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas is a vote to keep our borders open. It is a vote to continue the deadly track of lawlessness. It is a vote that tells Laken Riley's family and all those who have been victims of violent and gruesome crimes at the hands of illegal aliens, as well as the over 250,000 people who have died from fentanyl poisoning--what it says is the Democrats don't care. Ask any American and they will tell you that every State is now a border State. We don't feel safe in our own communities. From inner cities to suburbs and throughout rural America, we are living in the consequences of this wide-open southern border. So it should come as no surprise to my colleagues across the aisle that Americans are demanding accountability. They want to know why the cartel has more control of our border than the DHS does. Disgracefully, this week, we will witness a complete political charade that undermines this Chamber's responsibility and the oath we swore to protect this great Nation. Skirting justice, accountability in the very fabric of our democracy, the Senate Democratic leader has taken a historical measure to heighten the deadly border crisis his party has created and embraced. And why, you might ask, would they do this? They are so afraid that if Americans witnessed an open trial of Secretary Mayorkas and his record was exposed, it would seal the deal on the Democratic Party losing the White House and the majority of the Senate. They are very clearly worried about the next election and not the national security threat our wide-open borders pose to the sovereignty of our Nation. My hope here today is that America is watching. They will see the Senate Democrats line up to block the impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas and prevent his record from ever enduring a public trial. But make no mistake about this. Come November, the good people from Montana and Ohio, from Michigan and Wisconsin, from Pennsylvania and Nevada will make their voices heard and hold their Senators accountable. These Democrats had the opportunity this week to address the border crisis and send a clear message to the White House to address our most immediate national security threat and close the border now. Unfortunately, they won't stand up. They will not allow the American people to see the true lawlessness that has been the direct result of the abject failures of Secretary Mayorkas. Their silence will send a clear message to the thousands of families that have been torn apart by the consequences of our wide-open border. They simply don't care. My colleagues across the aisle don't want answers. They want to shield Secretary Mayorkas and the White House from any accountability and spare their party from the backlash in the press when Senate Republicans outline how dire the situation at our Nation's border is. In orchestrating this cover-up, they are willing to undermine our Constitution and disrespect the honor and integrity of the impeachment process that has been observed and held fast by this body for over 200 years. In our Nation's history, the Senate has never tabled an impeachment trial. That alone should tell every American how scared Senate Democrats are to share the true realities of the lawlessness happening right now at our borders across the United States. Secretary Mayorkas has failed his duty to protect our borders and uphold our laws. We have 11 million reasons to hold him accountable and impeach him. That is the 11 million encounters, including nearly 2 million ``got- aways'' who have shown up here on our soil under Mayorkas's watch. He is not just derelict in his duties, he is complicit in endangering the safety of every American. Yes, we understand the Democratic majority has the votes to table this hearing. But know this: History will not be so forgiving of this decision. The American people will not forget the betrayal of this Chamber and their family's safety. Come November, we the people will speak loudly. The people, the citizens of this great Republic, they are the true judges and the final jury. So, please, to my colleagues across the aisle, there is still time to do the right thing: to vote in support of holding Secretary Mayorkas accountable. The American people will be watching. We must impeach Secretary Mayorkas for his failure to uphold his oath. If this Chamber skirts its responsibility, we shall hold every one of the Senators who block this impeachment trial accountable at the ballot box. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARSHALL

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I would like to start by thanking Senator Budd for leading this very important issue to the Senate floor. We rise today to honor and pay our respects to the late Laken Riley and her family and to mourn with her family. Today, we call on this Chamber to come together to ensure this never happens again. Laken Hope Riley. Laken Hope Riley was a beautiful young woman in the prime of her life. She was brutally murdered in broad daylight while jogging on the University of Georgia's campus. Her alleged murderer, a Venezuelan illegal alien, was one of 2 million people paroled by Joe Biden--one of 2 million. Ironically, he was welcomed here on United States soil by this President and his egregious open border policies. He was stopped by the U.S. Border Patrol in 2022 when he crossed into Texas illegally, but because of the Biden administration's unlawful mass parole of illegal aliens, he was permitted into our country. From Texas, he moved to New York, where he was arrested by the New York Police Department last year for acting in a manner to injure a child and for a motor vehicle violation. But he was quickly released and never turned over to ICE for deportation. Instead, he was released by police before a detainer could ever be issued by DHS, and he was allowed to roam freely. Then he journeyed on to Athens, GA. And now we understand that the alleged assailant was a member of a violent Venezuelan gang. How can we ever identify who those people are when 10,000 people are crossing our border every day? How can the Border Patrol possibly vet these people in a proper manner? Just like so many other unvetted migrants living in the country right now, this man was handed the American dream--the American dream that Laken Riley should be living right now. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARSHALL

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I ask 4 minutes equally divided prior to the vote on the motion.

Mr. MARSHALL. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, as we assess an embarrassing fiscal fiasco, I believe a full-year continuing resolution funding the remainder of this year at last year's levels is the least of the evils we face tonight. Our amendment will effectively freeze spending and save American taxpayers at least $70 billion. Look, here we are already 5 months late, and I see no path to gathering in the reins of an out-of-control budget process. American taxpayers full well understand we have a broken budget process, and every Senator here knows we have not done any serious work on the Senate floor with appropriations bills since October, already 4 months into the fiscal year. And while the Appropriations Committee should be commended for accomplishing its job in a timely fashion last July, American taxpayers also realize these individual appropriations bills could have easily been brought to the floor one at a time, exposed to sunlight and cameras, amended, and then passed in a timely fashion months ago. But today we realize the symptoms of a bigger problem. Today, we feel the pain of a disease of failed congressional budget process, which gives too much power to too few people. But just like American families, the American Government needs to learn to live within its means, and that is why I hope soon we can turn to legislation that will secure a more stable, competent budget process. We need to get this year's appropriations process behind us, pass a yearlong CR, and then address legislation which brings teeth to an old budget law that forces the President and Congress to do our job in a competent, timely fashion. And, finally, our amendment also funds Israel at the White House's request, thus showing the world once again America stands besides Israel. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARSHALL

Mr. MARSHALL. Madam President, I rise today to thank Dr. Kim Krull for her many years of service to the State of Kansas and Butler Community College--BCC--as well as honor her for all she accomplished throughout her career. A passionate educator dedicated to serving Kansans, Dr. Krull began her professional career teaching math, biology, and chemistry at Nebraska College of Technical Agriculture--UNL-NCTA. Following 18 years of service to UNL-NCTA, Dr. Krull decided to head south across the Nebraska-Kansas State line to Cloud County Community College, where she served as vice president of academic affairs for 8 years. In 2013, Dr. Krull finally made the jump to my alma mater, Butler Community College, where she took over one of Kansas's largest community colleges as president. Dr. Krull hit the ground running, expanding BCC's online course catalog and prudently cutting programs no longer cost-effective. These two decisions, made early in Dr. Krull's tenure, remade BCC as a premier junior college destination in the State of Kansas, setting the stage for her and the school's subsequent successes. In the years following, BCC accomplished much under Dr. Krull's guidance. In terms of campus restoration, Dr. Krull was able to fundraise $3.3 million to renovate the student union and was pivotal in expanding college operations in nearby Andover. Thanks to Dr. Krull's efforts, BCC remodeled its building within the Andover school district to be more accommodating to students, as well as opened the Redler Institute of Culinary Arts, a $6.2 million facility dedicated to providing for the next generation of BCC culinary and hospitality graduates. But Dr. Krull's signature accomplishments during her time at BCC center around her support of the student body. While president, Dr. Krull added programs in Diesel Technology, Construction Technology, and expanded online offerings in partnerships with various Kansas colleges and universities. Doing this and increasing BCC student retention rates, especially amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, is a testament to Dr. Krull's work ethic and service to her student body. For her efforts, Dr. Krull was the recipient of many awards, both for herself and on behalf of BCC. In 2021, the Wichita Business Journal named Dr. Krull an Executive of the Year, and in the year following, BCC was named an Aspen Top 150 institution. After these and many more successes, the Higher Learning Commission designated BCC in 2023 as a highly mature institution, one of the highest functioning colleges related to teaching and student assessment. It was on this high note that Dr. Krull announced her retirement, and she will officially step down from Butler Community College on June 30, 2024, after decades of service in higher education. I now ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the distinguished career of Dr. Kim Krull, as well as thank her for all her work on behalf of the State of Kansas and my alma mater, Butler Community College. `'Go Grizzlies!''

Mr. MARSHALL

Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you, Mr. President. I didn't know what type of security situation there was there. So we felt that we had better just pause as well. So if we were talking about Taiwan, I think we can compare Taiwan to where Ukraine was a couple of years ago. We begged this administration to arm Ukraine so that they could protect themselves. If we could have gotten them those A-10 Warthogs--think about how that war would have changed if Ukraine had these A-10 Warthogs, as all of these Russian supply automobiles were stuck there trying to enter from the north. There is so much more that we could have done. It seems like this White House has just slow-walked the entire response. So, yes, I think many of us agree that we should help arm Taiwan to make them a porcupine. And, by the way, they have been a great ally, too, a great business partner. They seem to be a good player, a country that we greatly respect and want to help protect. But, at the end of the day, when you bundle this funding without giving us our own border security, that doesn't make much sense to us. And, of course, there is funding in here for humanitarian aid as well, I think to the tune of--goodness, I think it is close to $10 billion for humanitarian aid. This is in addition to what we typically are doing. We would remind everybody that USAID has a budget of over $60 billion a year, that we are all doing much of this humanitarian work already. And, of course, our fear--and I don't know how to answer Kansans thoughts on this when they ask me: How are we going to make sure that that humanitarian aid gets to women and children, the people that really need it, as opposed to--will Hamas intercept it? Again, I made several trips to the Middle East, and what I have seen is corruption. I have seen the terrorist groups grab the humanitarian aid, and it doesn't get to the people that we want it to get to there. So I am not convinced on the humanitarian aid part of this that we would accomplish what our goals truly, truly are. I don't think that this humanitarian aid should be going to support Hamas. I am all for helping those that need it, but very concerned about where it actually ends up being. I want to go back to the budget process just for a second as well. I have never have been part of an organization that functions quite like this. Most of us have run businesses before or have been on a church board or a school board. You know, typically, the fiscal year is going to be starting 4 or 5 months from now. We want our CFOs giving us a budget outline. We want to be presenting those budgets to the board at least 6 weeks before that new year kicks in and certainly ready to go before the new year starts. This body seldom does a budget. They seem to just fly by the seat of their pants. They do a cost-plus system. Whatever we spent this year, we are immediately talking about adding 5 or 10 percent to that budget, regardless. As opposed to that, I think we should go back to a zero- based budgeting process. I think we should go back exactly to the way the budget of the law of 1974 says we should be doing and then put some teeth on it, so if the President doesn't get his budget here on time, that there is some type of punishment, if you will, for the White House not getting that here on time, within the realms of the Constitution. I know there are some certain things we can't do, and I really think a President--a responsible President--could have that budget to us before--you know, months before the fiscal year ends as well. And then I think we should hold the Senate Budget Committee to the test and make sure that they get a budget out in time. And then we communicate that to the House, and they work on a budget, and we go back to this regular order that we have all talked about. And my compliments to the Appropriations Committee here in the Senate. I think they have done an incredible job, especially with the time presented to them, to at least giving us something. It has been through subcommittees; it has been through committees--for the most part, with large bipartisan support. We would have loved to have had them out here by now. We would have loved to have taken those packages--there are 12 buckets--taken them one at a time and gone through them and shine the light on the bridges to nowhere. Maybe there are places we need to accentuate, things that we could cut back. In a Federal budget of--goodness, I guess we are at $77 trillion a year now. You would think there would be some ways--there would be some programs that we could shut down, as opposed to, again, just this cost- plus system that we do up here: Whatever is last year's budget, let's just add 5 percent; let's just add 10 percent as well. And it still amazes me that, again, having a $900 billion military budget, we are going to have to go back now and spend even more to fund these never-ending wars overseas as well. So I do think that we need to pay attention to what is going on with our budget process. I had some folks back home send me some questions, and I thought I would try to answer them. Some of them I have covered already, but I think this is a good opportunity to talk about some of their questions as well. The first question: Were the Democrats ever serious about border security? Listen, I think there are folks in the Democratic Party that want border security. I don't know if it is as much of a priority as it is to me. I would like to assume that they do. But, on the other hand, it feels like, for the White House, that is not their priority. I think I have never heard from the White House that border security is a priority. They talked about an immigration system, wanting to grease an immigration system, but I never really heard that commitment from the White House that they wanted border security. Next question: Why is it so urgent to send Ukraine this largest lump sum of money right now when the war started over 2 years ago? I think that is a great question. Again, I would just point out that the situation there is a quagmire. I know that Ukraine is starting to launch offensive weapons into Russia, which concerns me. It concerns me about escalating a war as well. I think we need to realize that, in the stalemate situation, I am not sure why we need to be sending them more and more weapons. Again, the focus, I believe, should be on some type of peace talks. Next question: Has Israel been used as a pawn in these negotiations, and what message does this send to our allies like Israel? Well, Israel has been used as a pawn. As I pointed out before, Israel divides my friends across the aisle, so that much of their base no longer supports Israel. So when their base sees them thinking about funding Israel, it creates division. It creates havoc. It hurts the President's poll numbers. So I think that Israel has felt like a pawn. Again, what some will say is that the President is using the Ukraine funding as an excuse to include the Israel funding. Next question--again, these are questions from folks back home that wanted to make sure that I answered this: How does funding Ukraine address our No. 1 national security concern, the border crisis, as well as our long-term concern of our national debt crisis? You know, I couldn't agree more. Our No. 1 most immediate threat to our national security is an open southern border. The greatest threat to our long-term national security is our $34 trillion national debt. Look, we are going to spend more money on interest this year than we do on the military. When any business is spending that significant amount of their budget--probably, I am going to guess around 1/7th of our budget this year--1/7th will be spent on interest. I think, whenever that happens, that threatens our education programs. It threatens our roads and bridges. Any type of long-term infrastructure that we could be investing in, if we are going to be spending $900 billion or trillion on interest, we know that is a tough row to hoe. Any business that is ran, when you are that far in debt, spending that much in interest soon ends up in some type of bankruptcy. So this bill does not address--actually, it worsens our long-term national security crisis with the national debt. It certainly does not address the border in any way. Next question: When will the President realize that deterrence doesn't work after the fact? Well, I think, again, that is the difference in our philosophies here. I always believed President Eisenhower actually said it first. He said he believed in ``peace through strength.'' President Eisenhower said he hated wars as only a soldier could, as a soldier who has lived it and seen its brutality and futility as well. As a veteran myself and the brother and son of a veteran and uncles who were soldiers and a child who is now in the Active-Duty military, I certainly understand the importance of peace through strength and hope that we can regain some of that strength as the military begins to focus once again on military strength and readiness, as opposed to some of the other diverse issues. Next question: Why is putting America's safety and security so controversial? I can't answer that question. To me, it is not controversial. Of all my tasks up here, again to our priorities, I think my No. 1 priority is to make America safe and secure--I think physically safe with secure borders and then financially secure would be right behind that as well. Next question: Who within the American Government is responsible for overseeing how this money is spent in Ukraine? Whose job has it been to this point? Well, look, I think many of us have been concerned that there wasn't an individual person, an inspector general, focused on this $113 billion we have already spent. We know that whenever you send over large amounts of money at one time, the opportunity for fraud and abuse is there. Many leaders of our own country are concerned about the fraud in Ukraine as well. So I cannot look Kansans in the eye and say, Hey, we know where all this money is going. For heaven's sakes, the Department of Defense doesn't know where most of its assets are either. It has gotten so big, they can't keep track of what they have or where they have it. Next question: Why don't we bring Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table to bring peace, instead of funding death and destruction indefinitely? I couldn't agree with you more. I think we have the leverage. I think we have the economic leverage. Even our trade with these foreign countries alone gives us a leverage that most people don't have to bring them to the negotiating table. Next question: How can we be sure that humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip can be used to help civilians and not fall into the hands of Hamas terrorists? I can't. I cannot be sure of that. We know if history repeats itself, that significant amounts of aid have fallen into the hands of these terrorists. Next question: What is the end goal of Ukraine? That is a great question. It wasn't too long ago that Ukrainian leadership was here saying they wanted to go back to pre-Crimea. Basically, they want Crimea back, as well as the other territory that Russia has invaded and controls as well. I don't know that that is feasible or not, to think that they are going to get Crimea back. Crimea is so important to Putin. Folks don't realize the challenges that Russia had in getting their oil and getting their crops and their commodities out to a warm water port. Crimea is vitally important to their economy and militarily as well. I think that is another great point and another great question as well. What is the end goal in Ukraine? I don't think America has been given the answer to that. Again, I just think back to Vietnam and being a young child, listening to Walter Cronkite on ``The Nightly News,'' and my parents asking that same question: What is the goal? What are we trying to do in Vietnam? Where are we going with this? And as we saw, my goodness, the Agent Orange and all the atrocities that were coming out of Vietnam. Our soldiers were vilified. Americans didn't welcome them back home. It was a horrible time in America. And I think there was never a clear purpose of what the end game was in Vietnam. Let's don't repeat that same mistake. Next: What are we doing to ensure that Europe is doing their part as well? Listen, it is almost impossible for me to understand exactly how much Europe has committed and then actually followed through with. In my humble opinion, they have made some very bravado claims that they are going to do, and I don't think they have adequately followed up on it yet. I am still waiting for a report that I can trust and verify that Europe is doing their part. I do think that they should be more motivated than we are to secure the situation there. They are willing to help, but once again, I think it is about priorities for me. Let's secure our own borders first. Next question: Is there corruption happening in Ukraine? Look, I think that there is, unfortunately. I think that there is corruption in Ukraine. The largest telecom company in Ukraine is being threatened to be nationalized by Zelenskyy. Let me say that again. Zelenskyy is threatening to nationalize the largest telecom company in Ukraine. This particular company is on NASDAQ--American ownership, many Americans have ownership on this stock as well. It is sitting on a fair amount of cash, and the plan was when this war settled, that they would go back and reinvest that cash and reinvest that money through the telecom to help Ukraine's economy recover. But it appears to me that President Zelenskyy wants that cash. And just think what he can do from a political standpoint. It would be like if the White House could control two or three of the largest telecom companies in America; what an unfair advantage that is to other political parties as well. So there is political issues with it, as well as I think economic issues, and for Zelenskyy to threaten Americans, to threaten our leadership that if we don't give him the $60 billion, he is going to nationalize this American company, I think is hitting below the belt. It is not right. It is not fair. I don't like to be threatened. Americans don't like to be threatened. So those are some of the questions that folks back home in Kansas have asked us. I hope we have adequately addressed them. What time I have got left, Mr. President, I think I will talk about being a patriot, what it means to be a patriot. And I would just ask the folks in the room, Are you a patriot? or when did you become a patriot? And maybe if I could, I would just like to share my moment when I became a patriot. My wife and I got married about 2 weeks before medical school started. A year and a half later, in the second year of medical school, we had our firstborn. We brought her home to a little studio apartment. I took my desk and made a little spot for a crib for her. My wife was going to give up her job to take care of the baby, which I was so forever grateful for the sacrifices that moms make. And already, we were having a rough time making ends meet. So I knew I needed to do something economically. I said, This is no way to take care of a family. It was one of those moments when I was considering what I needed to do. I thought about my forefathers. My dad had served in the military. My brother had served. As a matter of fact, going back to the Civil War, every generation in my family had somebody who had served in the military. Four grandfathers of my grandparents served in the Union Army, a few gave their life, made the ultimate sacrifice preserving the Union. My wife had an uncle who served in World War I, suffered from nerve gas exposure in the Argonne Forest. Two of my dad's uncles were part of the D-day invasion. My dad served; my brother served; and I served, and my son served. Anyway, in that moment, I said, This is what I need to do; I need to go in the military, rather than borrow money. I wanted to check that box as well. So my wife and I signed up, and officer's basic training was in Fort Belvoir, VA, just 30 minutes from where we are standing today. Most people don't take their wife and newborn with them to basic training, but we decided to do that. And even though my wife stayed in a different place than I did, I was so glad that she got to come. Every spare moment that we had, though, we enriched ourselves in the many cultural opportunities that our Nation's Capital gives us. We spent a day at Monticello. We spent a day at Mount Vernon. We spent a day going through the National History Museum, spending days on end at all the different Smithsonians on the Nation's Mall, sucking up the history, the nectar of life in this great country, stopping at each one of the monuments and reading and learning and going on tours about the sacrifices that our forefathers, our Founding Fathers had done for all of us. Now, as a pre-med student--biochemistry, nuclear engineering--I didn't get to spend much time on history, so it was truly a great awakening for me. But sometime in that process that summer, between taking an oath to defend the Constitution and learning all this information about our Nation's history, I became a real patriot, dedicating myself to make sure I leave this country better for the next generation. And as I look at legislation like this--complicated legislation. My goodness, trying to do something in Ukraine, something in Israel, in Taiwan, in humanitarian efforts, and to think that we have left behind this opportunity to secure our border, it is very troubling to me-- horribly troubling to me--that we squandered this once in a generation opportunity to fix this problem. And that is why I have been willing to go forward. I wanted to go back and work. Let's work on this border security issue until we get it right, and then we can move on to this, but that opportunity was not afforded us, and here we are today. But as a patriot, I stand before you and I stand before the people of America saying the right thing to do would be to secure our border first. There is going to be those who today and tomorrow judge us and say that I am in the wrong, but it will take decades. It is going to take decades for history to figure out who is right here and who is wrong here. And as I have said before, I may be wrong on Ukraine, but I am darn secure and darn confident that securing the border should be our top priority right now. It is our No. 1, most immediate threat to our national security. So as this debate concludes, it is with an ill heart that I will go home having lost this battle, and Americans are not going to understand that. But they are going to hold people accountable. Americans are going to hold people accountable that chose to move on from border security and fund foreign nations before we took care of our own homes. I can promise the Presiding Officer that I am always going to be a patriot first. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the supplemental bill that is before us, but what should be appropriately called the ``Ukraine funding bill.'' It is only in America where we try to fund other nation's problems, to fight other people's wars for them, before we fix our own budget. We are just weeks away from our own government funding ending. We had the President's budget, which was due several weeks ago--we don't have that budget. We have not done the funding for this year yet. Yet we are moving on to a supplemental bill, of course, all in the background of $34 trillion of debt. A couple of things to point out about this supplemental bill. Stating the obvious, there is no border security in this bill--nothing to secure our border. We are about to send almost $100 billion overseas without addressing our most imminent national security threat that our Nation faces: our open southern border. I want to start also by saying this. I am not apologetic about being a patriot. A patriot is a person that puts America first. Look, I am always going to root for my home team, the Panthers. I am always going to root for the Kansas City Chiefs. I don't wish other players any ill will, but I will always be an American first. When the American hockey team is playing the Russian hockey team, I am going to root for the American hockey team. If the American soccer team is playing the German soccer team, I am going to root for the American team. I don't have ill will toward the others. I will be American first and set American priorities first. I think the next thing we need to point out about this bill is that two-thirds of Republican Senators voted against it. Two-thirds of Republican Senators have voted against proceeding with this legislation. In a Republican-controlled House, I don't see how you are going to find more than 50 percent of those Republicans to pass this bill. It just isn't going to happen. As I take a look at these last 4 months up here, I realize that the White House negotiating on securing the border was actually a charade. They were never serious about it. And, of course, it never made sense to the folks back home. Why would we have to beg the President of the United States to secure our own border? Why would we have to negotiate over that? Why would we have to give them Ukraine funding in return for a secure border? It makes sense to nobody. I want to take a second and talk about why this is important--why this issue is important--why are so many of us standing up and fighting against this $95 billion to never-ending wars. I think, as I even consider the 300 people who die from fentanyl every day in this country, this is important. The fact that we don't secure our border is going to allow more of that fentanyl into this country. We are seeing just upshots and upshots of human trafficking, sex trafficking going on across our Nation. As FBI Director Wray said, he sees warning, blinking lights everywhere he looks for the first time in his career. Why wouldn't we? Why wouldn't we when we have over 10 million people who have crossed our borders illegally in the last 3 years? So I think it is important from a national security standpoint. This is important to secure our Nation and to make our families safe again. I want to talk for a moment about whom we are fighting for. This is no longer just our own border issue. I am fighting for families back home. Every State is now a border State. Fentanyl poisoning kills a person almost every day in the State of Kansas. So I am fighting for all those people who died. You know, I just read this week about a young lady in Kansas who has lost four members of her family from fentanyl poisoning and most recently, over the past several weeks, lost a child to fentanyl poisoning. So I am fighting for all of those who lost a loved one to fentanyl poisoning. For all those people who are being human-trafficked as we speak, are being sex-trafficked as we speak as well, I am fighting for all of those people. I think it is important to take a second and talk about how we got here, you know, how we got to these open borders. This President likes to create a crisis, and then he tries to solve it. In this situation, the President of the United States created this open border crisis. This President penned over 90 Executive orders that opened that southern border, to go from less than 1,000 crossing a day to now, many days, having over 10,000 a day. These were Executive orders. It was policies that changed. The President created this crisis. Even today, the President could end that crisis. The President could shut down the border. He has the legal authority today to shut down the border, to secure the border. How did we get thrown into the Ukraine war? Another crisis created by our current President. You know, I would go back to Afghanistan. When America ran with her tail between her legs out of Afghanistan, we lost our reputation. This President lost his reputation, and, as I have been taught by so many physicians in my own practice, once a professional loses their reputation, you can never get it back. Then you fast-forward, and you see that this President will not respond to Iran's attack on Americans through their puppets with any type of significant response. I think it just basically allows our enemies to push us around and to shove us. How did we get to the Israel situation where Hamas came to be--where Hamas had the courage to cross the borders to brutally attack and murder thousands of Israelis? I think, again, it is this lack of respect. It was a lack of respect. It was this President's policies that allowed Iran to increase their sales of oil, to allow their economy to grow, to allow them to fund and to ship weapons to these puppets of theirs, these terrorists. I think an even bigger picture of how we got here is just the lawlessness in America today. The lawlessness started with an open southern border, cashless bail, turning our heads away from riots, the smash-and-grabs, turning our eyes away from these to see the lawlessness grow and then to see the fentanyl explode. As my dad, the police officer, taught me, wherever there are illegal drugs, crime is certainly going to follow it as well. So I think in this backdrop of a lawless America, where our constitutional rights are being attacked and where, on the world stage, a President lost his reputation, it allowed Russia to have the courage to attack Ukraine, and it allowed Hamas the courage to attack the people of Israel. As I look at the big picture of this legislation--$60 billion for Ukraine--I think of what else we could do with that. Do you realize that the entire annual budget of the Marines is only $53 billion? How much more national security would we have if we invested the money in our Marines as opposed to sending this money abroad? We could have built three walls on the southern border easily with this amount of money, maybe much more. As leaders, we need to focus on priorities, and I think that is what America is seeing right now. I think they are seeing these two-thirds of Republicans who voted against proceeding with this supplemental bill--we were folks who put our own national security first, put securing the border first. But up here in DC, my friends across the aisle and the White House--they continue to put Ukraine funding as their priority. Of course, add to that the complexity of the situation. Each one of these issues, even by itself, has merits. There are reasons to push them, and there are reasons that you wouldn't do it certain ways. But when you throw them all together, it is next to impossible to solve this Rubik's Cube, if you will, just seemingly next to impossible. You know, one of the things that the national media especially likes to do up here is declare within hours of a vote who was right and who was wrong. I think it is important to realize that oftentimes we don't know who is right or wrong for years, for decades after. And even sometimes they write the history books, and they don't get it right. I certainly have empathy for those who support Ukraine funding right now. And I could be wrong. I could be wrong that this is not the proper time to do it. But what I am not wrong on is securing the border, that that should be the top priority. Once we secure our own border, then let's look abroad and see what we can do to help with Ukraine as well. As I think about the border and the significance of the problem, I think about the number of people who have died from fentanyl poisoning. I know I keep bringing up this fentanyl poisoning, but it is so significant--300 people, 300 young adults, young Americans, dying every day from fentanyl poisoning. You try to put that into historical perspective. Pearl Harbor--a day that lives in infamy--2,400 American soldiers died. So that would be 8 days in February that the same number of people died from fentanyl. Every 8 days, we lose the same number of Americans we lost in Pearl Harbor, a horrible tragedy. Of course, 9/11, some 3,000 people died there. In 10 days--you know, just this month of February alone, we have lost more Americans to fentanyl poisoning than we lost to 9/11. D-day, 2,500 Americans died. Again, in just the month of February, we have lost more Americans to fentanyl poisoning than we did to D-day. So I think that is what we should be focused on. We should be securing our border to stop the flow of fentanyl into this country, to stop the human trafficking, to stop the sex trafficking, for all those reasons. I want to talk a little bit more about what border security looks like. Many of us have been to the border multiple times. You know, the Border Patrol officers, I think, would be one group of credible people. At my last visit, what they focused on was that they need policy changes. I think it is important that Americans realize that we would have proceeded with this bill if there was meaningful border security in the original legislation. Again, all the border security has been stripped out of this bill, but it is important for Americans to know what was missing. The Border Patrol officers themselves said that this bill--to make America truly secure, we needed more work on asylum, more work on the parole issue, and then this magic number of 5,000 and the border shuts down--not that it really ever did under this legislation, of course; the border never really shut down--that that 5,000 was way too high and to codify that into law would almost make that the norm. Again, the Border Patrol would say: We really can't deal with more than 1,000 people crossing the border a day. And even 1,000 is a huge stress, and they recommended that whenever we hit 1,000, we would literally shut the border down. So, again, if this bill would have been negotiated in broad daylight, if it would have gone through the Judiciary Committee, went through some type of a process where we could have addressed that particular number on the parole situation--I think it is so important that Americans understand that under President Obama, he was paroling 5,000 people per year. Barack Obama, President Obama, was paroling 5,000 people per year. President Trump, 5,000 people per year. Joe Biden, 700,000 people per year. So this President was illegally or is illegally paroling over 700,000 per year. Now, what is the magic number that should be? Is it 5,000? Is it 10,000? I think that we in the Republican caucus were willing to negotiate that number and that if there were some extenuating circumstances, then the President could come to this body and say: Hey, we need more than that number. But just to say that as long as they are flown in--and by the way, the vast, vast majority of those parolees are flown in on, of course, American taxpayer dollars. So think about that. Two million people have been paroled under President Biden--2 million people flown into this country for the most part on American taxpayer dollars and given a work visa. I wonder how that makes my union workers feel--like 2 million people entering the workforce here, willing to work for minimum wage or less. So this bill did not correct the parole situation, that they could continue to come into this country as long as they were flown in. Then there is the asylum issue. What this legislation did, again, was basically codify catch-and-release. Yes, some of the people were being caught and retained, but a significant number were still being caught and released for who knows how long. So that is the bare minimum that needed to occur on this bill to make it palatable because we wanted meaningful border security. We wanted to address asylum, address parole, and then this magic number of 5,000 when people cross the border, and those number of encounters, that we would change it, that that would shut down the border. So I hope that dispels any questions or concerns about what we would like to do with border security. I want to talk about Ukraine for a second a little bit more as well. As I assess Ukraine, I certainly feel for the folks there. You know, this has been a battle for thousands of years over the borders of Ukraine. But where we are today, I think it is very disingenuous--very disingenuous--to say that this war is anything but a stalemate. Look, the war front has not moved in over a year's time. It is a quagmire. But meanwhile, 200,000 Ukrainians have died, and maybe twice that number of Russians have died, probably 1 million casualties with no end in sight. This is a never-ending war, just like the Afghan war. I am not sure how long Russia was there but for years and years, and then America was there for years and years. But just due to the terrain, due to all the circumstances there, there appears to me to be no end in sight, and anyone who says otherwise I think is just not being intellectually honest with themselves or with Americans. I think the focus should be on some type of peace talks right now, not on fueling this fire, not on throwing more gasoline on this fire, not sending them more and more weapons. I think that if there is a will, there is a way, and that if America was leading on some type of a peace talk, I think we could have already been there by now. But one of the challenges we have with a President who has lost his reputation is trying to slow Putin down. So he is in this for the long haul. He is not going to step down. He is not going to step back when he sees a weak President that we have who is even afraid of Iran. So for all those reasons, I cannot support funding to Ukraine at this point in time. I think we have to secure our border first, and then I am willing to talk about funding for Ukraine. But I need to know what is the path to victory, what is our goal here, what some type of a realistic schedule looks like for that war coming to a conclusion. This legislation before us even promises money for future years-- again, misinformation being passed around by some of my colleagues. So this bill commits future Presidents to funding this Ukraine war. And by the way, there are a lot of Americans back home who don't think this is a good idea at all. Look, I grew up in the Vietnam era. I remember what it was like on my way to my grandparents to drive by the cemetery and see coffins draped with the American flag and the bugler playing ``Taps'' on a regular basis--too often a person I saw playing high school football last season, and here their life had ended. I don't want more wars; I want less wars. But right now, we are projecting weakness. Joe Biden has given us war through weakness instead of peace through strength. Let's turn our attention to Israel and Iran--Hamas as well--just for a moment. First of all, I want to remind everybody, four times we came to this floor and asked for unanimous consent for stand-alone funding for Israel. And I would do that again tonight if I thought it would be of any benefit, if I thought that it had a chance. I support funding Israel. Israel has been one of America's--if not their best ally, certainly one of their top allies of all times, faithful to us, a great source of intelligence. They have stopped so many foreign attacks on this land that we--many Americans--owe their life to the work that the people of Israel have done. And then, just in general, they are being attacked by a terrorist group that not only wants to destroy Israel but destroy America. Why wouldn't we support Israel? But, of course, the issue of Israel now tears the Democratic Party apart. It divides them. You know, it looks like, to me, many of them are very concerned about supporting Israel, that they have become this pro-Palestinian caucus rather than a pro-Israel caucus. They support Iran, but not Israel. Look, in the world of the Middle East, you can't do both. I don't see how you could possibly support Israel and Iran. I don't see how you could support Israel and support Hamas. I don't think it is possible. I think sometimes you have to choose and support who your friends and allies are. And, for me, I believe we should be standing firmly beside Israel and eliminating Hamas. Again, Hamas wants to destroy Americans. That is their goal. That is their stated purpose. So we would have--almost to a person, we would have supported some type of stand-alone funding for Israel, if given that chance. We talked about Israel. We talked about Hamas. We have to talk about Iran. There is so much more that this President could be doing right now, besides just funding Israel. Look, Hamas is the head of the snake. They are the ones that fund, train, support, plan these attacks by these puppets of theirs, these terrorist organizations in so many ways. So what could the President do besides, you know, funding more wars and more battles? I think that there is a military approach. There is an economic approach, and there is a diplomatic approach. Let's talk a minute about the diplomatic approach. The Abraham Accords are making great progress in the Middle East, and perhaps one of the most precipitating factors of Hamas attacking Israel was the progress of these Abraham Accords, that Israel was close to working out an agreement with our friends from Saudi Arabia. And if they would have done that, it would have put so much pressure on Iran. Well, basically, Hamas attacked on October 7, and now those talks have been cut off. But, if somehow, some way, those negotiations, those talks could be rekindled, that would indirectly put a huge amount of pressure on Iran. So there are huge opportunities for a diplomatic approach. Economically, let's talk about what we could be doing. Recall when Joe Biden was sworn in, Iran had about $6 billion of currency left--$6 billion in their treasury. Well, today they have got over $60 billion. Why? Because the sanctions that we had on, under the Trump administration, were lifted, and now Iran easily is selling all this oil, and, among other things, they have a fleet of 500 ghost ships. So they take these ships that are owned by foreign countries. They use that foreign flag then to smuggle either Russian oil or Iranian oil to people, ignoring the sanctions. We should be punishing not just Iran but also punishing those countries that lend them their flag, so to speak. What else could we do economically? I think that we could be putting--double-down on all the previous economic sanctions that we placed on them, including bank sanctions. And, again, anyone that is doing business with Iran, we could be shutting them down as well. Militarily, what could we do? I think back to what President Reagan did in 1988 when an American warship was attacked. I believe it hit a mine, if I recall properly. And what President Reagan did is he ordered an attack on Iranian oil platforms, and I think we also sunk three of their battleships as well. So without going inside of Iran proper, we sent a loud and clear message to Iran. And guess what. It worked. Instead, what the Biden administration has chosen to do are these fairly innocuous attacks on empty sheds, and maybe sometimes there is some old ammunition there. But something more than that needs to be beefed up. We need to shut down Iran's ships as they are crossing through the seas as well. Iran launched three military satellites recently. We could take out those military satellites. So there is a lot we could do, but this idea of passivity, this idea that if we just watch what Iran is doing and thinking that they are going to stop doing it, doesn't work. Anyone that has faced a bully in third grade out at recess knows being passive never works, and, eventually, you have to stand up and smack the bully in the nose. Otherwise, he is going to keep pestering you. It is that clear. That is what we should be doing in the Middle East right now. It is a military action on Iran, economic and diplomacy as well. You can't look at that in just a little silo. We should be supporting Israel, but all those other things would help Israel significantly as well. There is funding in this legislation for Taiwan. And, again, I think if that was standing alone, I could support it. I think back to pre-invasion of Ukraine by Russia. We begged the White House to make Ukraine some type of a porcupine, so to speak. That would have been our goal--that we should have been getting all the military aid in there before this all happened, not after. We could have gotten them A-10s that we were mothballing. Pardon me. I don't know what is going on, Mr. President.

Mr. MARSHALL

Mr. MARSHALL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I rise today to ask unanimous consent that the Senate adopt our resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the Governors of the individual States have a constitutional right to repel the dangerous and ongoing invasion across the U.S. southern border. Joe Biden has the power to secure our borders. Instead, he has chosen to break the law, resulting in the worst border crisis in American history. Frankly, I don't know how the President sleeps at night knowing that 300 young Americans will die today from fentanyl poisoning: 300 yesterday, 300 tomorrow. Three hundred thousand people have died from fentanyl poisoning since he took office. Along with that, there are terrorists, Chinese communist nationals, cartels. And worse, they are all living in the interior of our country. Since our Commander in Chief won't stop this historic crisis, an invasion declaration, as defined by the U.S. Constitution, allows Congress to recognize each State's right to secure their own borders. Where Joe Biden fails to put Americans' safety first, our resolution acknowledges each State's right to secure their borders themselves, as leaders like Texas Governor Greg Abbott have. The cartels and the CCP should not have more operational control of our borders than we do. We have reviewed the big picture here. Let's take a closer look. I think the first question we all ask is, Is this an invasion? Well, to have an invasion, you have to have invaders. And as we try to understand what the Constitution means, it is good to go back to some of those Founding Fathers when they defined what they thought were ``invaders.'' It is interesting that James Madison called pirates and barbarians invaders. And just like the barbarians of Madison's time, today's cartels and terrorists are those invaders acting like pirates of the day. So then let's talk about is this an invasion? Do we have an invasion on our southern border? You know, I tried to think what analogies I could give of what it was like when I visited the southern border. But we are here in DC, so I will kind of paint a picture of what I think it would look like if this invasion were occurring right here in DC. If you could imagine with me what it would look like if there were 10,000 ships coming up the Potomac River over the last 3 years--10,000 ships, each with 1,000 people from over 180 different nations; 10,000 ships, 1,000 people from 180 different nations. Let's pretend they come up the Potomac River and they lay anchor right out here at the Wharf and those people slowly get off one at a time. The way I would envision this is one of those ships is full of known terrorists and Chinese nationals. There would be 80 ships with aliens of interest--people from countries that wish harm to America. There would be 200 ships anchored out here where people would hop off the ship and just disappear into the night--200 ships with 1,000 people on it disappearing into the night, and we have no idea who they are or where they are. There would be another 200 ships--200 ships with 1,000 people--that President Biden would give parole to, just say: You are fine. We don't care what reason you are here for, here is your parole slip. And then sprinkled in amongst these ships are criminals, murderers, rapists, thugs, drug traffickers, human traffickers, and thieves. Does that sound like an invasion to you? Next, why do we need to declare this an invasion? Well, what our resolution does is give State Governors more powers to defend themselves. If the Federal Government is not doing their job, then it would make sense that the Governors would have the right to defend themselves, to defend the people of their States. Let me explain a little bit further. I am a physician; I am not an attorney, definitely not a constitutional lawyer. But fortunately for all of us, the Constitution was written, for the most part, by common people just like us so that common people like us could read it and understand it. So what does the Constitution say about an invasion? Remember, everybody up here swore an oath to defend that Constitution. Members of Congress, the White House, the President, we have all sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. This is what the Constitution says in article IV, section 4: It promises that the Federal Government ``shall protect each [State] against Invasion.'' This is a constitutional law that the Federal Government shall protect each State against invasion. Now, we have already established that the Federal Government has not done its job with this invasion of 10 million people that has already occurred. I don't think anyone can argue that point out there. But, fortunately, our forefathers anticipated such an incidence that someday we would have a President who didn't love this country, didn't recognize that we have a sovereign border, and would indeed allow some 10 million people illegally across our border, so they have in the Constitution from article I, section 10, clause 3: The States have sovereign interest in protecting their borders. So if the Federal Government doesn't do its job, the States have the ability--the constitutional right--to protect their borders. This is the last point I will make from the Constitution, and maybe this is a little tricky, but the Constitution goes on to say in clause 3 of section 10 of article I: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress . . . engage in War, unless actually invaded. Let me say that again: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . engage in War, unless actually invaded. That is why we are here today. The Senate needs to declare that our southern border has actually been invaded to empower the Governor of Texas to protect his people. Look, this invasion has occurred. We have established that. To say otherwise, to say this is not an invasion, I think, would be a false statement for anybody. The President has not done his constitutional duty. We have established that. Thus, we must invoke and concur with the Governor of Texas that an actual invasion has occurred. And the Governor of Texas, Governor Abbott, has not just a moral responsibility but the constitutional right to invoke his power and authority to do everything in his capability to protect the good people of Texas. I commend and compliment Operation Lone Star. They have come up with more than 35,000 felony charges. They have seized over 450 million lethal doses of fentanyl. Again, 450 million lethal doses of fentanyl-- that is enough to kill every man, woman, and child in America more than once. That is why I am here today, to lend my support and my hope that the entire unanimous consent and support of the Senate would be with the Governor of Texas and the good people of Texas. Mr. President, as in legislative session, and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 543, which is at the desk. I further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. MARSHALL

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I rise to day to recognize the Heartland Preganacy Center and Becky Reimer for their efforts in declaring January 22, 2024, the Sanctity of Human Life Day and Respect for Life Day in Harvey County, KS. As a staunch advocate for life who spent my career as an OB/GYN protecting the lives of both mother and child, I had the privilege of delivering over 5,000 babies, witnessing each time the beauty of the gift of life. There is nothing more precious than handing a child to his or her mother to be held for the first time. As a U.S. Senator, I have continued this passion for protecting life in all its forms, including the unborn, the pregnant woman, and the new mother. Having started and supervised multiple family planning clinics, I can tell you that we must all work together towards ensuring access to prenatal care, proper nutrition, and childcare, as well as attending to the social challenges a mother faces. I am proud to have sponsored legislation that addresses these points, and I look forward to future opportunities to continue protecting the sanctity of life. Our Founding Fathers acknowledged the defense of life, from conception until natural death, as the backbone of our country when they declared that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, it is our collective duty to create and provide an environment in which life, from conception until natural death, is safeguarded as the moral foundation for America and the rest of the world. For this reason, I now ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Heartland Pregnancy Center and Becky Reimer for their collective efforts in declaring January 22, 2024, as the Sanctity of Human Life Day and Respect for Life Day in Harvey County, KS.

Mr. MARSHALL

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. MARSHALL. I rise in support of my motion to commit this continuing resolution to the Appropriations Committee with instructions for them to return to the floor a new continuing resolution to fund the government through the 2024 fiscal year. The requested modifications to this continuing resolution are nothing more than date changes and minor anomalies that the Appropriations Committee is more than equipped to handle with the 24-hour turnaround time. Doing so gives us ample time for the Senate and House to pass this amended legislation and send it to the President's desk before Friday's funding deadline. Under the bipartisan agreements made as part of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, a full-year CR through September 30 would result in a spending cut of $73 billion, bringing our total discretionary spending down to 1.56 trillion, a significant cut from the $1.66 trillion funding deal that is in the works currently. This is the fiscally responsible decision that the American people deserve and Congress has an obligation to make. We should agree to this spending cut, roll up our sleeves, and get back to work on an even more responsible funding package for the next fiscal year that will start to address our Nation's massive $34 trillion dollar debt. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, a reminder of two dates: a date in June when the Appropriations Committee did their job--they got all their appropriations bills done--and another date in November when we last worked on this on this floor through a minibus. We asked for more time. We stand at the ready. We are begging to bring these bills to the floor. Let them see the light of day. Let us finish our job. But in the meantime, I believe that this CR is the best path for American citizens. I yield the floor. Vote on Motion to Commit

Mr. MARSHALL

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, my colleagues and I stand here today to demand accountability on behalf of the American people for the worst border crisis we have ever seen. For the past 3 years, Americans have witnessed the negligence and gross mismanagement at our southern border unfold, each day worse than the day before. The consequences of this crisis have been fatal, killing 300 Americans a day, 300,000 Americans over the last 3 years due to drugs trafficked into our homeland. It has been costly, putting an undue burden on American taxpayers to the tune of $500 billion per year. It is becoming more dangerous by the day as terrorists, Chinese nationalists, and over 1.7 million ``got-aways'' exploit our border at a rate higher than we have ever seen before. The Biden administration has for all practical purposes erased our southern border and embraced a structure of complete lawlessness, letting our national security hang in the balance. Enough is enough. Americans deserve better. I think everyone understands that when you are running a business, you look at the numbers, you look at the goals, and when those aren't being met, you find the problem and you address it, which brings me to why my colleagues and I are here today. I rise today in support of a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, no longer holds the confidence of the Senate and, more importantly, the confidence of the American people to carry out the duties of his office faithfully. Secretary Mayorkas is derelict in his duty and has failed to uphold his oath. Over the past 3 years, Secretary Mayorkas has refused to enforce immigration law as passed by Congress, fueling the invasion at our border. He ended effective border policies like catch and release, ``Remain in Mexico,'' title 42, and exploited parole and asylum loopholes that have allowed over 6 million migrants to live in the interior of our country without being vetted and with a court date nearly a decade away. With over 10 million illegal migrants entering our country under this administration's watch, not to mention the 1.7 million known ``got- aways,'' the crisis at our border is dire. Yet Mayorkas continues to lie to the American people and even under oath to Congress when he said he has operational control of our borders. Defined in the Secure Fence Act of 2006, ``operational control'' clearly means the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband. That is the Secure Fence Act of 2006. To claim that he has any control, better yet operational control as required by law, is not only disingenuous and insulting to the American people, who are concerned for their safety and security, it is also illegal. That is why Congress must step in and do the job that Joe Biden will not. Secretary Mayorkas has no control of the border. How can you when, again, you have fentanyl poisoning killing 300,000 Americans on his watch? We have had 33 months of more than 150,000 illegal border crossings and 19 months with more than 200,000 illegal border crossings, including a new 1-month record of over 300,000 this past December--a month that historically sees a decreased number of crossers. According to his own DHS, they have admitted they have no way to determine if these individuals have a criminal history. Sadly, the story that isn't being told enough is that right now, Secretary Mayorkas has misplaced approximately 100,000 migrant children here in our country. I am honored, I am proud that so many of my colleagues could join me here today as we outline the many reasons why there is no time to waste when it comes to firing Secretary Mayorkas. Next, I would like to recognize the Senator from the great State of Missouri.

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleagues for joining me tonight to help me prosecute this case against Secretary Mayorkas. As we introduce this historic measure, I want to close with this: You have nothing--you have nothing--if you don't have your word. As a physician, I took an oath to, above all else, do no harm. In the military, I took an oath to support and defend our Constitution. In the Senate, I reaffirmed my military oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Each one of these oaths I honored with integrity and exercised to the best of my ability. On February 2, 2021, Secretary Mayorkas swore an oath to ``well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office of which I am about to enter and to protect our country from enemies, domestic and foreign.'' With that oath, he promised the American people that he would defend our homeland and uphold our Constitution. Tonight, my colleagues and I have outlined numerous ways Secretary Mayorkas is derelict in his duty as Secretary and failed to uphold this oath. We are here today because we take our oath seriously and will not stand by idly while Secretary Mayorkas threatens our national security and our democracy. For the sake of America's safety and security, we need to impeach Secretary Mayorkas now and send a clear message to Joe Biden that in 300 days, we will fire him, too. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 169; I further ask that the resolution be agreed to; that the Marshall amendment to the preamble, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I certainly greatly appreciate the Senator from Delaware's remarks, and I agree with him on so many things he talked about. I agree that we are a land of opportunity and that we should help those in need. You know, personally, I have led humanitarian medical mission trips around the world. The United States spends $80 billion a year through the USAID programs, Food for Peace, and polio vaccinations. We promote economic trade. I am afraid my friends across the aisle see this as an immigration issue. If we open up the gates, 158 million people worldwide would like to come into the country right now, to come into our country--158 million people. That is according to a 2018 Gallup poll. There are 158 million people from around the world who would flood our gates right now if given the opportunity. I have always supported legal immigration--legal immigration--but I see this today totally as a national security issue. That is what I am afraid of. That is what I am concerned about when the FBI Director says all the lights are blinking. When we see 100,000 people--Americans, young Americans mostly--dying from fentanyl poisoning every year; when we have 1.7 million ``got-aways,'' where we don't know who they are or where they are--hundreds of known terrorists, aliens of interest, tens of thousands of aliens of interest--this is a national security issue to us. Secretary Mayorkas took an oath. He took an oath to enforce the laws of the land, to make sure that we had a secure border, and we don't have that right now. That is why we need to fire Secretary Mayorkas today, and we need to let the White House know that we are going to have a new person in there next year as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARSHALL

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