Chuck Schumer

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. I appreciate his courtesy. Thank you.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we do not expect votes this evening, but we are continuing to work on an agreement on the FISA bill. Members should expect votes tomorrow. I yield back to my colleague and thank him for his courtesy.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to consideration of S. Res. 594.

Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, that 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. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 655, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, that 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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Austin T. Fragomen, Jr., who for more than five decades has made extraordinary contributions to the field of immigration law and policy and who has dedicated his life to serving the underprivileged in New York City and across the United States. Austin T. Fragomen is chairman emeritus of Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, a global immigration law firm based in New York City with more than 60 offices worldwide. He began his legal career over five decades ago as counsel on the House subcommittee on immigration, citizenship, and international law. Since then, he has remained a leader in the New York immigration law community and played a leading role in shaping U.S. and global migration policy. Most notably for New Yorkers, Austin Fragomen served as chairman of the New York City Bar's Justice Center and, since 2007, has provided at least one attorney to provide fulltime pro bono immigration services through the City Bar Justice Center to help with the underprivileged in New York to seek refuge from political and religious persecution or reunite with family members. Austin Fragomen played a pivotal role in shaping the landscape of U.S. and global immigration policy and practice. He has testified numerous times before the House and Senate, including the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Citizenship while I sat on that subcommittee. He chaired and/or taught at the annual Immigration and Naturalization Institute of the New York City-based Practising Law Institute for the past quarter of a century. He has written many treatises on different subspecialties of immigration law published through Thomson Reuters/West, chaired the American Council on International Personnel which later became the Council on Global Immigration, served as vice chair of the Center for Migration Studies and on the editorial board of the International Migration Review. Currently, Austin serves as chairman of the Business Mechanism of the Global Forum on Migration and Development and has participated at a number of GFMD and U.N. sponsored events and proceedings, including the Global Compact on Migration. The list goes on and on but suffice it to say that Austin Fragomen has shaped immigration law and policy and has served the underprivileged immigrant community of New York, in ways that very few if any has paralleled. On April 20, 2024, Austin Fragomen is being honored on Ellis Island, NY, for his lifetime achievements and contributions. I congratulate him on his exemplary leadership and dedication to the principles of justice and equality. Austin Fragomen has made enduring contributions to the field of immigration law and has earned the respect and admiration of his peers, colleagues, and clients alike. His legacy as a visionary immigration thought leader continues to inspire and guide efforts to create a more just, compassionate, and equitable immigration system for all. I am proud to call him a fellow New Yorker.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, yesterday, the Senate set a very important precedent that impeachment should be reserved only for high crimes and misdemeanors and not for settling policy disagreements. That is what is the impeachment against Alejandro Mayorkas was from the start: a policy dispute, frankly, to help Donald Trump on the campaign trail. It did not meet the high standard required by the Constitution to remove someone from office. I am very glad the Senate worked its will to set these charges aside. The prudence and cool judgment the Senate showed yesterday is what the Framers would have wanted. They didn't want impeachment to be used for every policy dispute--when you don't agree with a Cabinet minister or Cabinet secretary, you impeach them. That would have created chaos in the executive branch and here in the Senate, because the House could just throw over impeachment after impeachment; and if you have to have a whole big trial on every one of them, the Senate could be ground to a halt. So let me repeat what I said yesterday. We felt it was very important to set a precedent that impeachment should never--never be used to settle policy disagreements. We are supposed to have debates on the issues, not impeachments on the issues. Let me repeat that; it is such an important concept, and I am so glad we stood firm yesterday: We are supposed to have debates on the issues, not impeachments on the issues. We are not supposed to say that whenever you disagree with someone on policy, that that is a high crime and misdemeanor. Can you imagine the kind of chaos and damage that would create? As I said, the House could paralyze the Senate with frivolous trials, particularly when one party had the House and the other had the Senate. It would degrade Government, and it, frankly, degrades impeachment which is reserved--rarely--for high crimes and misdemeanors. To show how unprecedented what the House did was, no Cabinet Secretary has been impeached for over--since--I think it was 1867. And even in that case, he resigned before the trial. It was never intended to happen. But, unfortunately, the hard, radical right in the House is just so intent on paralyzing government, creating chaos in government, even destroying government, that they don't care. But we in the Senate on our side of the aisle did care. My guess is a lot of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle cared too. If my colleagues on the other side want to talk about immigration, Democrats welcome that debate--welcome it. We should debate border bills, like the ones Republicans blocked here on the floor. That is how you fix the border--with bipartisan legislation. Impeachment would have accomplished nothing.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 213, S. 2958.

Mr. SCHUMER. I further ask that the Carper substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

Mr. SCHUMER. I know of no further debate on the bill, as amended.

Mr. SCHUMER. I ask that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, finally, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned under the provisions of S. Res. 655 until 11 a.m. on Friday, April 19; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 365, H.R. 7888, postcloture; further, that all time during adjournment, recess, morning business, and leader remarks count toward postcloture time.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I have four requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 33.

Mr. SCHUMER

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

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this afternoon, Senators will come to the floor and be sworn in as jurors in the impeachment trial of Secretary Mayorkas. Yesterday, the Senate received the impeachment House managers, who read the two articles against the Secretary. Today, the trial will commence, and we will be in our seats as jurors for the third time in 4 years. But this time, Senators will preside as jurors in the least legitimate, least substantive, and most politicized impeachment trial ever in the history of the United States. The charges brought against Secretary Mayorkas fail to meet the high standard of high crimes and misdemeanors. To validate this gross abuse by the House would be a grave mistake and could set a dangerous precedent for the future. For the sake of the Senate's integrity and to protect impeachment for those rare cases we truly need it, Senators should dismiss today's charges. So, when we convene in trial today, to accommodate the wishes of our Republican Senate colleagues, I will seek an agreement for a period of debate time that would allow Republicans to offer a vote on trial resolutions, allow for Republicans to offer points of order, and then move to dismiss. Let's not kid ourselves about what is going on today: The impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas has nothing to do with high crimes and misdemeanors and everything to do with helping Donald Trump on the campaign trail. Secretary Mayorkas has not been accused of treason or accepting bribes or unlawfully attacking our elections or anything of the sort. He has not been accused of criminal wrongdoing. He did not blackmail a foreign power to dig dirt on a political opponent, nor did he incite a violent mob to wage an insurrection against the peaceful transfer of power. Instead, the hard right wants to exploit the supremely serious matter of impeachment for the sake of cable news hits and content for social media. This is an illegitimate and profane abuse of the U.S. Constitution. The Framers were clear: Impeachment should never be used to settle policy disagreements. Legal scholars from across the ideological spectrum have agreed to the same for decades. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial board, the darling of the conservative intelligentsia, argued a few months ago that ``a policy dispute doesn't qualify as a high crime and misdemeanor.'' If our House Republicans want to have a debate about the border, Democrats are glad to have it. But instead of wasting time on impeachment, we should debate bipartisan legislation to secure our border once and for all. In fact, that is precisely what we tried to do in this Chamber just a few months ago. I worked with a handful of Democrats and Republicans to draft the strongest border security bill to come before the Congress in decades, before Donald Trump and the hard right killed it in its tracks. It was everything that Republicans could have wanted and more: a bill to hire more Border Patrol agents, reform asylum, fight the fentanyl crisis, and create brandnew powers for the President to close the border. It was strong, strong stuff. The National Border Patrol Council, the Chamber of Commerce, and the ultraconservative Wall Street Journal editorial board all threw their support behind our bipartisan bill. If both Chambers would have voted on it, I am certain it would have passed and be signed by the President. But that is precisely why Donald Trump and the hard right were afraid of it. Instead of providing a solution to the border, Donald Trump and his MAGA radicals want to exploit the border for political gain. And, today, with this trial, MAGA radicals want to likewise exploit our Constitution and try to gain an edge on the campaign trail. It is beneath the dignity of the Senate to entertain this nakedly partisan exercise, one that both conservative and liberal legal scholars agree fails to meet the high standard demanded by impeachment. So I will say it again: Impeachment should never--never--be used to settle policy disagreements. That would set a disastrous precedent for the Congress and could throw our system of checks and balances into endless cycles of chaos.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, at this time, pursuant to rule III of the Senate rules on impeachment and the United States Constitution, the President pro tempore emeritus, the Senator from Iowa, will now administer the oath to the President pro tempore, Patty Murray: Mr. GRASSLEY: Will you place your left hand on the Bible and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that, in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you God?

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, any Senator who was not in the Senate Chamber at the time the oath was administered to the other Senators will make that fact known to the Chair so that the oath may be administered as soon as possible to the Senator.

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, in a moment, I will ask unanimous consent to allow for debate time, to allow for Republicans to offer and have votes on trial resolutions, and allow for Republicans to offer and have votes on points of order. So I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lee be recognized to offer a resolution that is the text of S. Res. 624, the full Senate trial; that Senator Cruz be recognized to offer a resolution that is the text of S. Res. 622, the trial committee; that there then be up to 60 minutes of debate on the resolutions, concurrently and equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; and following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on, or in relation to, the resolutions in the order listed, with no amendments to the resolutions in order; further, that following the disposition of the trial resolutions, if they are not agreed to, Senator Schumer, or his designee, be recognized to make a motion to dismiss the first Article of Impeachment; that the motion be subject to only seven points of order; that there be up to 60 minutes for debate, concurrently and equally divided, on the motion to dismiss and the points of order; and that following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote in relation to the points of order in the order raised and the motion to dismiss; further, that if Senator Schumer, or his designee, makes a motion to dismiss the second Article of Impeachment, that the motion be subject to only one point of order; that there be up to 60 minutes for debate, concurrently and equally divided, on the motion to dismiss and the points of order; and that following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote in relation to the points of order in the order raised and the motion to dismiss; further, that following disposition of article II, the Senate vote on the motion to adjourn the Court of Impeachment sine die; finally, that there be up to 4 minutes for debate, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, prior to each rollcall vote, all without intervening action or debate.

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I raise a point of order that impeachment article I does not allege conduct that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor, as required under article II, section 4 of the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, unconstitutional.

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, in our previous consent request, we gave your side a chance for debate in public, where it should be, and your side objected. We are moving forward. Vote on Motion