[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 61 (Wednesday, April 10, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2695-S2703]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5,
UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD RELATING TO ``STANDARD FOR DETERMINING JOINT EMPLOYER
STATUS''--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 623
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I would like to talk for a few moments
about and I am going to have a motion about the impeachment of
Secretary Mayorkas.
As you know, Madam President, our government is one of laws, not
people--laws, not people. As you also know, the U.S. Senate is built on
precedent and custom and history and the law, not political expedience.
We in the Senate are supposed to listen to the American people, not
ignore them. One of the ways we do that is by playing by the rules we
have all agreed to--all of the rules, all of the time.
Now, my Senate Democratic colleagues today or at least very shortly,
however, may be willing to jeopardize centuries of this stability--the
stability that this body has wrought and lives by--for short-term
political advantage.
We all know what is going on here. We all know exactly what is going
on here. For the very first time in our Nation's history, my Senate
Democratic colleagues are seeking to table--maybe even dismiss--an
impeachment by the United States House of Representatives of a sitting
Cabinet official without holding a full trial. If my Senate colleagues
do that, they will be summoning spirits that they won't be able to
control.
Let me say that again--the United States House of Representatives. We
are not talking here about some ``snow bro'' who lives off Chicken
McNuggets and weed and happens to have an opinion. The United States
House of Representatives, elected by all of the American people, spent
months investigating our border policy and Secretary Mayorkas's role in
it, and then they thoughtfully crafted and they passed with a majority
vote two Articles of Impeachment. Now my Senate Democratic colleagues
want to toss them out in the trash like a week-old tuna salad sandwich
without hearing from either side.
In the more than two centuries that this body has existed, we have
never once tabled an impeachment--not once. The Senate has never
dismissed impeachment articles under these circumstances either--
neither tabled nor dismissed.
If the Senate dismisses these charges without a full trial, it will
be the first time in the Senate's long history that it has dismissed
impeachment charges against an official it has jurisdiction over
without the official first resigning, and that is just a fact of
history.
The Senate has the responsibility to hold this trial, and everybody
in this body knows it. Yet my Senate Democratic colleagues seem willing
to forfeit our constitutional authority in order to bury the evidence
of how bad the border crisis is.
Now, I, for one, want to hear the House's evidence, and Senate
Republicans are offering our colleagues across the aisle--all of whom I
respect, by the way--a menu of options for how to hear that evidence
and listen to Secretary Mayorkas's defense without eroding democratic
institutions.
If Democrats set a new precedent by making an impeachment trial
impossible, as I am afraid they are going to try to do, they will be
silencing the voices of the Americans who elected them, and they will
have to own the decisions they will be making and bear the consequences
tomorrow, and tomorrow may come sooner than they can imagine.
Apparently, my Democratic colleagues are really leaning in on their
double standards. Whenever protecting democracy--have you heard that
expression?--or upholding ``the rule of law''--have you heard my
Democratic colleagues talk about the rule of law? I
[[Page S2696]]
have. I agree with them. Whenever they use those expressions but it
becomes politically challenging, they seem happy to ignore the rule of
law and the will of the people, and their political expedience is in
full view today. I regret to say that.
We will see what my Democratic colleagues do with respect to my
resolution and Senator Lee's resolution.
Senate Democrats, I am afraid, are silencing the American people who
want their country's secure border back. The truth is that the American
people are tired of the drug trafficking. They are tired of the human
trafficking. They are tired of the sexual abuse of women and children.
They are tired of the widespread illnesses. They are tired of the
death. They are tired of the behavior of President Biden and Secretary
Mayorkas with respect to the border. They are tired of the chaos. They
believe it is chaotic by design, and they believe it is undermining
their national security. And they are right. Now, the American people
may be poorer under President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas, but they
are not stupid. They are not stupid.
In total, more than 9 million people, foreign nationals, have crossed
the southern border under President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas--9
million. That is four Nebraskas. Secretary Mayorkas doesn't have any
idea who they are. He doesn't have any idea where they are. Customs and
Border Protection also seized 53,000 pounds of fentanyl from 2021 to
2023. That is enough to kill every man, woman, and child on this
planet, for God's sake--not the United States, this planet.
The southern border is an open, bleeding wound. Now, the majority of
the House of Representatives reached that conclusion. That is why they
voted to impeach Secretary Mayorkas. They have sent us their evidence,
and that evidence alleges that Secretary Mayorkas's policies have made
our immigration system septic. If I were Secretary Mayorkas, I would
want to answer those allegations. As a Senator, I want to hear the
evidence, and I know the American people want to hear the evidence.
These are serious charges. By tabling or dismissing the Articles of
Impeachment without so much as a trial, like it was just spam in their
inbox, my Senate Democratic colleagues are endorsing the Biden
administration's lawless approach to the southern border. They are
setting a precedent that the next administration can ignore the laws of
Congress and the will of the American people as long as it advances the
majority party's agenda. That is what they are saying.
Now, my resolution will give the procedures we need to set up the
procedures we need to conduct this trial fairly and efficiently.
My resolution is modeled on the procedures that this body used during
the second impeachment trial of President Trump. When President Trump's
first impeachment came to the U.S. Senate, Senate Republicans were in
the majority. You didn't see us trying to table that impeachment. You
didn't see us trying to dismiss that impeachment because we believe in
the rule of law all the time, not just when it is politically
expedient. We heard the evidence. We did our job. And that is what we
ought to do right now.
The proceedings set forth in my resolution are efficient; they are
fair; they are honest. They will not uproot the longstanding precedent
that we have given to Articles of Impeachment in the past. It will give
the Articles of Impeachment serious consideration, as we have always
done.
Here is my final point. If my Senate Democratic colleagues--let me
say it again, each and every one of whom I respect--if they choose to
ignore this impeachment, they will have placed their seal of approval
on the lawlessness at the border and the chaos it has brought to so
many American communities, and they will have ignored 200 years of
Senate precedent--200 years. A charitable interpretation based on
policy does not exist for what my Democratic colleagues are going to
try to do. It is all based on raw, gut politics and they know it and I
know it and everybody in this room knows it. Please don't do it.
Please, my friends, don't do it. Please don't allow the Senate to rot
from within. The American people deserve better.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules
and Administration be discharged from further consideration and the
Senate now proceed to S. Res. 623, my resolution that I just talked
about; further, that the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, Madam President. The
Senator from Louisiana is my friend. We throw that term around here in
the Senate, but it is true. I think he would say the same. We both
serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee. We have worked on issues
together. We have been adversaries, but we have done it respectfully,
and it will continue, I hope, to this day.
But the gentleman, the Senator from Louisiana, brings to the floor of
the Senate and to this debate special qualities. He sounds many times
like a homespun backwoods lawyer. Don't be fooled. He is a graduate
from a famous university in England--I have forgotten which one--
Oxford, Cambridge, one of those. They are not in the Big 10, I am sure
of that, but I know they are in England. I congratulate him. I was
never even considered for a university of that stature. He is a
brilliant lawyer and Senator and raises important questions, not just
for the moment but for history.
The question before us today that he is raising is about the
purported impeachment--I should say actual impeachment--of a member of
President Biden's Cabinet, Mr. Mayorkas, the Secretary of Homeland
Security. That is now about to be reported to the Senate, and we have
constitutional responsibilities when it is reported.
In this situation, we are waiting for the actual report to arrive. I
think it will be momentarily, perhaps this week or next, and we will
take up this matter as we are required to do.
The House Homeland Committee engaged in a yearlong investigation of
Secretary Mayorkas and his alleged maladministration of the border of
the United States. This committee in the House held 12 hearings,
testimony from more than two dozen witnesses, producing nearly 400
pages of reports.
The Senate, when sitting as a Court of Impeachment, is not
responsible for making the case on behalf of the impeachment managers.
We are the jury. We are the ones who will decide the impeachment. Our
duty is to make the determination based on the Articles of Impeachment
and the facts at hand. We are not a factfinding operation.
My friend from Utah is also on the floor. During the first Trump
impeachment, he said that ``the Senate--here sitting as a court of
impeachment--has both the authority and the obligation to decline to
hold a full trial where the material facts in the case are not in
dispute.''
The facts are not in dispute here. This is the first time that the
House has successfully impeached a sitting Cabinet-level official
without providing any evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor. None.
All those hearings, all those pages, all those witnesses--no evidence
of high crimes or misdemeanors. And that is a requirement in the
Constitution. The Articles of Impeachment that will be before us
contain zero evidence that Secretary Mayorkas has committed high crimes
and misdemeanors. Instead, it can be read as a summary of Republican
grievances with this administration's approach to border policy,
immigration, detention, and methods of removal and parole--all of which
is conduct that falls squarely within the executive branch's
constitutional prerogative. Fortunately, the Constitution was designed
to prevent this type of partisan politics driving this effort from
contaminating the extraordinary process of impeachment.
The delegates to the Constitutional Convention considered and
rejected the concept of maladministration as an impeachable offense, in
part, because they feared the misuse of impeachment for purely
political retribution.
The Constitution empowers the Senate to have the sole power to try
all impeachments and to determine the rules of its proceedings, but the
Senate
[[Page S2697]]
only has the power to convict, remove, and disqualify officers whose
conduct meets the constitutional standard. That standard is well known
to all Members of Congress and to the Senate particularly.
Given that the Senate only has the power to convict, remove, and
disqualify officers who have committed ``Treason, Bribery, or other
high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' the appropriate Senate response to
impeachment articles that do not articulate those charges is obvious.
If congressional Republicans were genuinely interested in addressing
concerns about our border, they should be willing to work on a
bipartisan basis to pass legislation fixing our broken immigration
system and give this President and Secretary Mayorkas the tools they
have asked for to address the situation at the southern border.
I want to make sure this is clear on the record. The border is
broken. It needs to be fixed and what we should do and what we did do
was to establish a bipartisan committee. The Republicans said: We
insist that James Lankford, a respected Senator from the State of
Oklahoma, speak for us and negotiate for us when it comes to changing
the rules at the border. We agreed with that.
Senators worked with Senator Lankford, whom I respect, and came up
with a bipartisan proposal that gave new authority to the President and
to the executive branch to deal with the crisis at the border. What
happened on the Republican side of the aisle when James Lankford, the
Republican Senator from Oklahoma, came up with this proposal? All but
seven of them--I believe that was the number--walked away and said they
wouldn't even support it.
Why did they do it? You know why they did it--because Donald Trump
announced he wanted no part of any agreement, any bipartisan effort to
solve the problem. Then, former President Trump said: And blame me.
Well, I am blaming him. We had an opportunity to actually do
something on the floor of the Senate when it came to the border. He
stopped it. And so many of the Republican Senators who begged us to
work with Senator Lankford turned their backs on him after the yeoman's
effort he put into this undertaking. That is the reality.
We had our chance, on a bipartisan basis--and still do--to solve this
problem rather than engage in any political stunt. Instead, the vast
majority of Republicans, including the Senator from Utah and others on
the floor, recently blocked the bipartisan border reform bill that was
written by the Republicans' designated negotiator, Senator Lankford.
They had their chance. It didn't work; neither will this. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I will respond, briefly.
The U.S. House of Representatives--the U.S. House of
Representatives--has found, after lengthy investigation, that the chaos
at the southern border is manmade, and the U.S. House of
Representatives has alleged that that man's name is Secretary Mayorkas.
We need to hold a trial.
Now, Senator Durbin is my good friend and, as usual, he is eloquent,
and he sounds very confident that the evidence will exonerate Secretary
Mayorkas.
How does he know? He hasn't heard the evidence, and he doesn't want
to hear the evidence because he is scared that the American people
might disagree.
That is what this is all about--raw, gut politics.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 624
Mr. LEE. Madam President, the House impeached Secretary Alejandro
Mayorkas. He is the second Cabinet official to be impeached in all
American history. The last Cabinet member to be impeached was William
W. Belknap in 1876.
The Senate held trials in virtually all previous impeachments, except
for those in which the impeached officer no longer held office.
However, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer now wants to effectively pardon
Secretary Mayorkas--pardon him from this impeachable offense, pardon
him from the impeachment itself--without letting us even examine the
evidence.
No, the facts are not in dispute in this case. They are not in
dispute in the least. If they were, there wouldn't be a need for a full
trial. There would however, still, at a minimum, be a need to reach a
verdict of guilty or not guilty because in literally every other
circumstance in the history of the Republic--unless circumstances have
arisen that have rendered the case moot--the U.S. Senate, sitting as a
Court of Impeachment, adjudicates the matter, whether through short
proceedings or long ones, whether through a trial conducted on the
Senate floor or by delegation to a select committee. It does, in fact,
reach a verdict of guilty or not guilty, as is the Senate's
constitutional obligation. But when the Articles of Impeachment arrive,
we have to remember that we have a constitutional duty to hold a trial.
Again, what that trial consists of may depend on the circumstances,
but we still have to hold a trial sufficient to get to the point, in
the absence of the case being rendered moot or something of that
nature, to reach a verdict of guilty or not guilty.
Now, I am so grateful to House Speaker Mike Johnson for delaying
delivery of these so that we can give our full consideration. Ignoring
the evidence before us betrays the trust of those who sent us here.
In this spirit, I have introduced a resolution, a resolution to
ensure that we are prepared to consider the impeachment articles in a
manner befitting our responsibilities. You see, the Senate has three
states of being. It is always either sitting in a legislative capacity,
where we pass bills, we debate and amend and ultimately pass or decline
to pass legislation; the Executive Calendar, where we consider
Presidential nominations and consider ratification of treaties; or a
third state of being, of course, consists of a Senate sitting as a
Court of Impeachment. We are always in one of those three states.
We have a separate set of rules governing our impeachment
proceedings, but those rules aren't so specific as to define the
precise details of each and every impeachment proceeding. Those have to
be negotiated independently through resolutions.
It is to that end that I offer this resolution to put meat on the
bones of the Standing Rules of the Senate on impeachment trials.
This resolution mandates that the Senate begin deliberations on the
impeachment articles no later than 7 session days after the House of
Representatives transmits them to the Senate. This timeline is not just
for the Senate but so that the American people can hear from Secretary
Mayorkas himself. He is afforded up to 7 session days to respond to the
charges that will be presented to us by the House.
Both parties in this debate would be permitted to submit trial briefs
within specific deadlines, ensuring that all arguments are heard and
considered with the gravity they deserve.
It requires the House to file its records, including materials from
the Judiciary Committee and documents related to Secretary Mayorkas's
impeachment. These records, which are subject to scrutiny and objection
by Mayorkas, are crucial evidence in our proceedings.
My resolution lays out how motions and arguments will be carefully
managed. Motions, except those to subpoena witnesses or documents,
would be required to be filed before the proceedings start.
The structure of the presentations and questioning would be designed
to allow Secretary Mayorkas to comprehensively present his case.
After the questioning period, we would proceed to final arguments and
decide whether Secretary Mayorkas is guilty or not guilty.
With my resolution, we would be ready to conduct a fair and
legitimate trial.
So, to my colleagues, if you are confident that the charges against
Secretary Mayorkas are baseless, then why object to organizing a fair
and legitimate trial? Why try to sweep this under the rug? Why pardon
someone before they are even afforded the opportunity to prove their
innocence?
If you trust that Secretary Mayorkas didn't authorize millions of
individuals to enter illegally into our country for swift and
precursory release into the interior, don't object to my resolution;
just hold a trial.
[[Page S2698]]
If you are certain that Secretary Mayorkas hasn't, in fact, increased
the pull factors incentivizing parents across the globe to send some
430,000 unaccompanied children into the United States--in many cases,
to end up in the hands of traffickers--then, by all means, don't
object; hold a trial.
If you are confident that Secretary Mayorkas hasn't created at least
13 illegal immigration parole programs designed to increase the flow of
people into this country by the hundreds of thousands, in violation of
the very law invoked to facilitate their admission, then don't object;
hold a trial.
If you are so sure, so confident, so certain that, under Secretary
Mayorkas, Customs and Border Protection hasn't dramatically decreased
its vetting processes for allowing Chinese immigrants to cross our
border with military-age Chinese males, don't object; hold a trial.
If you believe that we haven't seen a dramatic increase in the known
terrorist encounters at our southern border, don't object; hold a
trial.
If you are confident that Secretary Mayorkas hasn't allowed enough
fentanyl to flow across the southern border to kill every man, woman,
and child in the United States of America, don't object; hold a trial.
An invasion, Madam President, is taking place on American soil. At
least 8 million people--that is at the low end--have illegally crossed
our border since Mayorkas became the Secretary of Homeland Security,
and the numbers just keep rising. This unprecedented influx includes
gang members. It includes drug traffickers, human traffickers,
dangerous individuals from every single country in the world, including
the thousands of military-age males from China. In December alone, the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security reported 302,000 encounters. That
is in 1 month--the highest number ever recorded in a 1-month period.
These are not the kinds of records he should try to break, but he has
broken them again and again and again.
Now, to be clear, Secretary Mayorkas has the tools to stop this
invasion--to halt it in its tracks--and he has the tools to do it
today. Not only does he have the tools, but he has the obligation and
the sworn responsibility under the laws of the United States to do so.
He doesn't need legislative action from Congress.
These aren't victimless crimes. The tragic case of Laken Riley--a
life cut short by an illegal alien, one of the millions whom Secretary
Mayorkas has allowed to enter our country unchecked--is a reminder of
the human cost of this prolonged, severe, and deliberate malicious
abdication of duty. Laken isn't alone. Her case represents hundreds of
thousands of families across the Nation whose lives have been upended
by the invasion that our leaders willfully allowed to happen and,
indeed, invited. In fact, they encouraged them to happen.
Should Secretary Mayorkas be found guilty, these are impeachable
offenses of the highest order. Make no mistake, this is not mere
maladministration. This is a deliberate, willful, malicious
determination to break the law in order to bring in millions of people
who do not belong here.
There is no doubt, at this point, that the invasion of our southern
border has inflicted pain and suffering on countless Americans. So we
are obligated to figure out who is responsible and to make sure that
they are held responsible. That is exactly why we are here.
To that end, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and
Administration be discharged from further consideration and the Senate
now proceed to S. Res. 624; further, that the resolution be agreed to
and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the
table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. It is, indeed, unfortunate that this has happened. We have
followed the model of previous resolutions that have been used in order
to set up impeachment debates. This one was based off of one of the
impeachment trials of the 45th President of the United States. These
terms were agreeable under previous impeachment proceedings, and now
they are not.
This is not the kind of case in which the material facts are
undisputed nor is this the kind of case in which the office held by the
person impeached has been vacated either by death or resignation. And
so, in order to comport with, comply with, to follow the precedents
that we have consistently followed in this country that have been in
place for some two and a half centuries--to say nothing of the
constitutional obligation behind those precedents and those customs--we
need to hold a trial.
It is not enough simply to stand up and say: We are choosing not to
address these. We don't feel like addressing these. We are going to
decline to address them without a finding of guilt or innocence.
This is not appropriate. So, if they don't like these particular
terms, then perhaps we can find another resolution that will allow us
to approach these proceedings with dignity and fairness as an
institution, showing dignity and fairness to the accused and to the
American people alike, including and especially those Americans who
have been victimized by the acts of lawlessness carried out by this
administration under the leadership of Secretary Mayorkas.
We have an obligation to do this. Absent one of the circumstances not
present in this case, where the case becomes moot--this one is not. We
have an obligation, regardless of what the precise procedures look
like, to reach a verdict, to make findings, to convict or acquit, to
reach a verdict of guilty or not guilty. It is wrong for us to ignore
this duty, and it is also phenomenally dangerous.
This precedent having been set will suggest that, from this moment
henceforth, insofar as the party of the President of the United States
is the same party that controls a majority of the seats in the U.S.
Senate, Articles of Impeachment passed by the House of Representatives
will be essentially dead letter, to be dismissed without a verdict--
without a finding of guilt or innocence, of guilty or not guilty. It
would be a shame, and it would be a derogation of our constitutional
responsibility.
My hope, my expectation is that we can find some other means. If this
one is not acceptable to the body, to my friend and colleague from
Illinois, then perhaps another will, but we must keep trying. We can't
pretend that we can simply table these. That is not what we are
required to do here, and it is a derogation of our responsibility.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 622
Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, there are times when the eyes of history
are upon the U.S. Senate. This is one of those times. We are facing
today an existential crisis at our southern border. It is qualitatively
different than anything we have ever faced at our southern border in
the history of our Nation.
A few moments ago, the Senator from Illinois acknowledged the border
was broken, although he acknowledged it in the classic Washington way
of using the passive voice--``the border is broken''--that is designed
to hide and obscure who broke the border.
He is correct that the border is broken, but it was broken
deliberately by the President of the United States, Joe Biden; by the
Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris; by the Secretary of
Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas; and by every single Senate
Democrat who repeatedly has rubber-stamped and embraced this open
border policy.
The Senator from Illinois said the border is broken. He is also the
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, on which
Senator Lee serves, and on which Senator Kennedy serves. In the past 3
years, we have held precisely zero hearings on the crisis on our
southern border. The Senate Judiciary Committee cannot be bothered to
inquire as to the cause of this crisis.
Understand why Alejandro Mayorkas became the second Cabinet Secretary
in the history of the United States to be impeached. The last one was
in 1876--the Secretary of War--and now, 148 years later, Alejandro
Mayorkas joins him. It is not because Alejandro Mayorkas is
incompetent. It is not because he is negligent. It is not because he is
bad at his job. Rather, unfortunately, Alejandro Mayorkas is very,
[[Page S2699]]
very good at his job. However, he does not view his job as securing the
border. He does not view his job as protecting our homeland security.
Rather, he views his job as openly and directly violating--flouting--
Federal law and aiding and abetting the criminal invasion of this
United States. He is not trying to secure the border. He is trying to
accelerate the invasion that is happening. He wants more illegal aliens
and more criminal illegal aliens released into this country. Under the
Biden administration, 10.4 million illegal immigrants have been
released into this country.
Senate Democrats are desperate to avoid the misery and suffering and
death that their radical policies have produced. At a hearing before
the Judiciary Committee, I asked Secretary Mayorkas how many migrants
died last year crossing illegally into this country.
He said: I don't know. I have no idea.
I said: Of course, you don't. The number is 853. That is a number
from your own Department, but you don't care about the dead bodies that
Texas farmers and ranchers are finding--nearly three a day.
When I brought 19 Senators down to the border to see firsthand what
was happening, we went out on a boat on the Rio Grande River, and we
saw a man floating dead in the river, who had drowned that day. By the
way, those 19 Senators were only Republicans. I have invited my
Democrat colleagues. I have invited the Senator from Illinois: Come to
the southern border and see the people who are dying because of the
policies you support. None of them have any interest in seeing
firsthand the deaths they are producing.
I have looked in the eyes of children--of little boys and little
girls--who have been brutalized by human traffickers day after day
after day. None of the Senate Democrats want to take responsibility for
the little girls and little boys to whom unspeakable evils are being
done.
I have looked in the eyes of women who have been repeatedly and
violently raped by human traffickers. None of the Senate Democrats want
to take responsibility for the horrific violence and suffering their
open border policies have produced.
When I asked Secretary Mayorkas about colored wristbands on a poster
I displayed at the Senate Judiciary Committee, he responded by saying
he had no idea what those wristbands are.
Those colored wristbands are worn by just about every illegal alien
coming to this country. The colors correspond to how many thousands of
dollars they owe the cartels. Understand, the cartels don't view them
as human beings. They don't even view them as livestock. They are
cargo. The colors show how many thousands of dollars they owe.
If you stand on the banks of the Rio Grande River, you will see
hundreds or even thousands of those colored wristbands laying there in
the grass. And what Alejandro Mayorkas was saying, as I told him--I
said: Mr. Secretary, you have just told the American people you are
utterly incompetent at your job, and you don't even give a damn enough
to pretend to try.
When I invited my Democratic colleagues to come to the border and see
the wristbands, the Democrats don't take us up on it.
Understand why those wristbands matter. Thousands upon thousands of
teenage boys, they turn themselves in to the Biden administration. They
say: Where do you want to go?
Some will say Chicago; some will say New York; some will say Los
Angeles. And the Biden administration puts them on an airplane, puts
them on a bus, and sends them to every city in America.
The mayor of Chicago, the hometown of the Senator from Illinois, has
declared it a crisis, the illegal aliens pouring into his city. Yet
Senate Democrats not only will do nothing about it, they continue the
policies in place that make it worse and worse and worse.
Understand, those teenage boys, when they arrive in Chicago or L.A.
or New York--and, by the way, the Democratic mayor of L.A. has also
said it is a crisis. The Democratic mayor of New York has said it is a
crisis. The Democratic mayor of Boston has said it is a crisis. The
Democratic Mayor of Washington, DC, has said it is a crisis.
When they arrive, they owe the cartels thousands of dollars. If they
don't pay the money back, the cartels will murder their families. And
so they are working for the cartels.
There are crimes going on in your home State of California today by
illegal immigrants the Biden administration has released that are
working for the cartels. There are Californians who are being robbed
right now, who are being carjacked, who are being assaulted. There are
people in Chicago who are being robbed, who are being assaulted.
You want to understand the misery, take a look at Laken Riley. There
has been a lot of discussion about Laken Riley; although, sadly, only
on one side of this Chamber. If a Democratic Senator has said the words
``Laken Riley,'' I have not heard it come from their mouths.
Laken Riley was a beautiful 22-year-old woman who was murdered
because of the Democrats' open border policies. How can I say that with
such certainty? Because her murderer, an illegal immigrant from
Venezuela, was apprehended in El Paso. We had him. We had him. He was
arrested. All Joe Biden and all Alejandro Mayorkas had to do was follow
the law, and we would have put the murderer on a plane and flew him
back to Venezuela. And he never would have been in Georgia murdering
Laken Riley.
But Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas made the decision that politics
matters more than protecting American citizens, and so they released
this violent criminal.
He went from El Paso to New York City, where he was arrested again.
We had him a second time, this time for endangering the safety of a
child.
Unfortunately, New York City is a sanctuary city run by Democratic
politicians, so what did they do? They let him go a second time, and he
went down to Georgia. And Laken Riley, 22 years old, was out jogging, a
nursing student. She is out jogging like millions of people do across
America, and this murderer took a brick and beat her to death.
If either Joe Biden or Alejandro Mayorkas had followed the law or if
New York had kept him in jail, she would still be alive.
Do you know what I also haven't heard from Senate Democrats? The name
Jeremy Caceres. Jeremy Caceres is a beautiful 2-year-old boy, murdered
in Prince George's County, MD, just miles from where we are right now,
murdered by an illegal alien that Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas
released.
Just a few weeks ago, news broke of an illegal alien from Haiti that
not only did Biden release but flew from Haiti to the United States.
The Biden administration has had over 300,000 secret flights bringing
illegal aliens to America. In this case, they brought the Haitian
illegal immigrant to Boston, MA. And what happened just a couple of
weeks ago, he was arrested for violently raping a 15-year-old girl who
is seriously disabled.
These are the very real consequences of the Democrats' open border
policies. Yet Democratic Senators don't want to confront the people who
are dying, who are suffering because of them.
Alejandro Mayorkas was not impeached because he is negligent; he is
impeached because he is actively defying the law. By the way, he has
turned the Mexican drug cartels into decabillionaires.
According to the New York Times, in 2018, the revenue from human
trafficking the cartels earned was roughly $500 million. Last year, it
was $13 billion. Thanks to Joe Biden and Senate Democrats, the drug
cartels' profits have gone up 2,600 percent. That is why the House has
impeached Alejandro Mayorkas.
Now, what is the Senate to do when impeachment occurs? Well,
fortunately, we have a document that tells us what to do. It is called
the Constitution of the United States.
Under the Constitution, it is the sole power of the House to impeach
and the sole power and responsibility of the Senate to try.
Twenty-one times in our Nation's history in more than 200 years, the
House has impeached an individual and sent Articles of Impeachment over
to the Senate. Here is what has happened in those 21 times:
In one time, the Senate concluded it had no jurisdiction because the
individual impeached was a Senator, and
[[Page S2700]]
impeachment only attaches to members of the executive branch or the
judicial branch. So they dismissed that one for lack of jurisdiction.
In three of them, the individuals impeached were no longer in office,
and so the Senate didn't act because it was moot. It was no longer
necessary to resolve because the individual impeached was out of
office.
In the remaining 17 times, all of them--100 percent of the time--the
Senate conducted a trial, the Senate heard evidence, and the Senate
adjudicated guilt or innocence. Each Senator stood up and said
``guilty'' or ``not guilty.''
Well, next week, when the articles arrive, we are told that Senator
Schumer intends not to proceed to a trial, not to follow the Senate
rules of impeachment, not to allow any evidence but simply to move to
table--to throw it out at the outset.
Why is Senator Schumer doing so? Three reasons:
No. 1, he desperately, desperately wants to stop the House managers
from presenting their evidence.
The Senator from Illinois says: He knows there is no evidence. It is
like an ostrich putting his head in the sand. One way to know there is
no evidence is look at no evidence, hear no evidence, consider no
evidence, and do everything you can to prevent the American people from
hearing evidence.
No. 2, the Senate Democrats want to stop a trial. They don't want the
American people to know the suffering and misery and dead bodies their
policies are producing.
But No. 3, the Senate Democrats desperately want to prevent Democrats
who are on the ballot right now from casting a vote of guilty or not
guilty. They want to avoid an adjudication, because, do you know what?
Senate Democrats are back in their home States saying: Gosh, I am
really concerned about illegal immigration.
If they were really concerned, we can decide that next week by voting
to fulfill our constitutional obligation to hold a trial.
Now, let me say something. I look and see the Senator from Illinois;
I see the Senator from West Virginia. All three of us were on the
Senate floor at another momentous time in 2013, when then-Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid exercised the nuclear option and blew up the
filibuster for nominations. That did enormous damage to the institution
of the Senate.
I remember standing in the well of the Senate, 10 feet from where I
am now, and turning to Senator Amy Klobuchar that day. I told her, I
said: You are going to regret this day. This is a catastrophic mistake.
I told her then: The result of this decision from Harry Reid and the
Democrats will be more judges and Justices on the Court in the mold of
Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
If you want to know why Roe v. Wade has been overturned, it is
because Harry Reid and the Democrats exercised the nuclear option in
2013. Had they not done so, there is no way this Senate would have
confirmed all three of the nominees put forward. It was the direct
consequence of the utter disregard for this institution Senate
Democrats have.
I bring that up because we are at a second moment that is equally
consequential, except instead of nuking the Senate rules as they did in
2013, Senate Democrats are preparing to nuke the Constitution of the
United States itself, the impeachment clause, which every single time
that the Senate has had jurisdiction and the person has been in office,
the Senate has held a trial. If Senate Democrats proceed next week to
table that, they will blow up that precedent.
I am here to make a prediction. Senate Democrats sometimes behave
like small children with no ability to look to the future and
anticipate the consequences of their actions. Everyone can recognize
right now we have got a Presidential election coming up in November.
None of us knows the outcome. I am going to posit to you right now:
There is a significant chance Donald Trump will be reelected as
President. I am also going to posit to you that is an outcome no one on
the Democratic side wants to see happen.
There is also a significant chance Republicans will retake the
Senate. But there is a possibility that Democrats will retake the
House. That is a very likely scenario in this election.
If that happens--I turn to my friend from West Virginia because I
want you to contemplate what will happen. If that happens, I am going
to make a prediction: One year from today, we are going to be on the
Senate floor, and if Democrats control the House, they will have
impeached Donald Trump again, impeached him a third time and maybe a
fourth time and maybe a fifth time. If they have the House, that is
what they are going to do.
And if and when those impeachment articles come over to the Senate,
if Senate Democrats next week dismiss this impeachment, I am telling
you right now, Senate Republicans will do the same thing to any
impeachment that comes over from the House. What Senate Democrats will
have done is effectively eliminated the Senate's power of impeachment
anytime the Senate is the same party as the President.
Many of us were here the last time this scenario happened. It was the
first Trump impeachment. The first Trump impeachment, he had a
Democratic House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President. The
Democrats in the House impeached Donald Trump. They sent Articles of
Impeachment over. The Senate Republicans could have played these games
and tried to table the impeachment and said: We are going to shirk our
constitutional duty; we are not going to have a trial. But we didn't.
We followed the Constitution.
My question for my colleagues here is: Is there even one Democrat who
cares about the institution of the Senate, who cares about the
Constitution, who cares about democracy?
Democrats love to pound their chest and say they are defending
democracy while they are engaging in a relentless assault on democracy.
I have an organizing resolution that would follow the precedent and
simply appoint an impeachment committee to hear the trial. The trial
doesn't have to be on the Senate floor; that is typically done for
Presidents. Instead, the impeachment committee could hear the evidence,
which is what the Senate has done over and over and over again.
By the way, every Democrat who says we have got other things to focus
on--FISA and other matters--the impeachment committee would proceed
parallel with the Senate floor considering other business. So it would
delay nothing on the Senate floor to follow our Constitution and have
an impeachment committee. But it would avoid destroying the impeachment
power of the Senate, destroying the Constitution. And it would also
give the American people a chance to hear the evidence and to hear the
presentation of the House managers.
Therefore, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Rules and Administration be discharged from further
consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 622; further, that
the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or
debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, the date
was June 27, 2013, and on the floor of the U.S. Senate we had done
something that no one believed could be achieved: We had, through the
Gang of 8, established a comprehensive immigration reform bill.
I was part of that Gang of 8--eight Senators, four Democrats and four
Republicans--who labored for months to create that legislation. It was
comprehensive, as I noted. It covered every aspect, from border all the
way through the immigration process.
We brought it to the floor in the hopes that, for the first time in
decades, we would finally reach an agreement, a bipartisan agreement.
The people who were involved in it--John McCain on the Republican side,
Senator Flake from Arizona, Senator Graham from South Carolina, and
four Democrats--worked hard to bring this to the floor. It was an
opportunity for us to finally do something together.
It got 68 votes. We needed 60, but we got 68 votes. There was a lot
of celebration because business and labor and others were supporting us
and so happy that we got it done.
We know what happened to that bill. It went over and died in the
House of
[[Page S2701]]
Representatives. The Republican leadership over there refused to even
call it for consideration. Of the Republican Senators currently on the
floor, two of them were on the floor on June 27, 2013. They both voted
no.
Listen to the speeches and ask yourself the question: If the border
and immigration policy need to be fixed in America, why weren't you
there when we had a chance for a bipartisan approach to comprehensive
immigration reform?
And to make it even worse, there was an argument made that we would
not provide defense supplemental spending, asked for by the
administration, around the world, unless we came up with a border
reform bill within the last several months. And the Republicans said:
We have a leader on our side of the aisle whom we want to head up our
effort to come up with a bipartisan bill to deal with the border. We do
believe it needs to be fixed; it is in crisis.
They proffered James Lankford, a conservative Republican Senator from
Oklahoma, a highly respected Senator. I may disagree with him on many
issues, but I respect him as a Member of the Senate. He was to be the
lead negotiator, and we respected that request. Democrats had Chris
Murphy and Kyrsten Sinema joining in the effort and prepared to bring
to the floor a major--it was a bipartisan approach to solve this
problem.
Why is that necessary? Because in this body you need 60 votes. If you
don't have 60 votes, you are wasting your time. We needed something
bipartisan.
And so this measure was headed to the floor. And at the last minute,
former President Donald Trump announced that he wanted to stop the
process; he did not want to even attempt to solve the problem with
bipartisan legislation. He said: You can blame me if you want to. And I
blame him again. Yes, he did that.
And, unfortunately, the Republican Senators were complicit, most of
them, in that effort instead of respecting what James Lankford had
achieved and what a bipartisan bill would have made.
So you can say what you want and make all the speeches about bodies
and suffering, and I am sure most or some of that is true. But the
bottom line is, when you had a chance to do something about it with the
bipartisan Gang of 8 bill, you voted no, and when you had a chance to
support James Lankford's bipartisan approach to fixing the border, you
were not there to be seen. You were loyal to Donald Trump and not loyal
to the situation that we face in the Senate.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 2
minutes to respond to Senator Durbin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, nowhere in Senator Durbin's remarks did we
hear any mention of the children being brutalized by traffickers.
Nowhere did we hear of the women trapped in sex slavery. Nowhere did we
hear the words ``Laken Riley.'' Nowhere did we hear ``Jeremy Caceres.''
Nowhere did we hear a word about the dead bodies--three a day, nearly--
that are being found on Texas properties. Nowhere did we hear a word
about the suffering.
Instead, what did he do? He pointed to the Democrats' longstanding
objection that granted amnesty to as many people as possible so they
get more Democrat voters.
The Gang of 8 bill was a terrible bill. And Senator Durbin is unhappy
that democracy operated and the House of Representatives made the
decision not to pass it. That is the way our system works.
That is what led Senate Democrats and Joe Biden to decide to just
open the border lawlessly because they couldn't actually get the votes
to pass their bill.
The Schumer bill he is talking about would have made this situation
worse. And understand what Senator Durbin is saying. It is the policy
of Senate Democrats to support these open borders. They don't have any
arguments on the merits.
By the way, Joe Biden inherited the lowest rate of illegal
immigration in 45 years. All he had to do was nothing because we had
success in securing the border. And Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas
deliberately broke the border, and they continue the policies in place
that ensure tomorrow more children will be brutalized and more women
are going to be raped. They know that, and they are not willing to do
anything to stop it.
That is, I believe, immoral and wrong, and the Senate should hold a
trial as the Constitution requires. We owe that to the American people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. BRAUN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following Senators have up to 5 minutes each: myself, Senator Manchin,
and Senator Marshall and Senator Cassidy for up to 10 minutes before
the rollcall vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
H.J. Res. 98
Mr. BRAUN. Madam President, we have had several times recently--and I
am talking about since the Biden administration came into office--to
where, when you can't legislate, all of a sudden you use Executive
orders and rulings.
You have heard of the deep state. That is what happens when you can't
get your way legislatively, which means you have got to get 60 Senators
corralled here to do it, and you start doing things--in many cases,
pushing legal limits administratively. That is when government has gone
wild.
I want to take you back to about a little over a year and a half ago
when COVID was in the rearview mirror. If you remember, there was the
effort to try to force vaccinations on every individual in the country
working for an employer with 100 employees or more. That would have
been almost everyone. You had folks in Indiana that owned businesses
wondering, now that this was all in the rearview mirror: Why would you
do it? It is government gone wild.
It was our office that dusted off the Congressional Review Act that
said enough is enough. Of course, Speaker of the House Pelosi wasn't
going to take it up there. We did pass it in the Senate. And thank
goodness the Supreme Court came in about 2 weeks later and said: Enough
is enough; that is unconstitutional.
We had to do it another time on all your hard-earned money you put
into your investment accounts. You heard of ESG--environment, social,
and governance--that that should be of equal value as return on
investment. You know it shouldn't be. That is when you are trying to
weave in ideology along with investment returns. We had to dust it off
again. And that passed in the Senate and the House and generated
President Biden's first veto.
The number of times we have had to do it since then--too many to
count. We are doing it again here this evening.
I have led bipartisan letters to the NLRB, National Labor Relations
Board, raising concerns about its proposed rule regarding joint
employer status over the past couple years to no avail.
And what they are wanting to do--again, this is getting into Main
Street, into small business, and leveraging that Executive power to do
something that would mess up what has worked well for a long time.
This rule replaced the 2020 joint employer rule that focused on
``direct and immediate control'' as the criterion and replaced it with
an ``indirect, reserved'' control standard, which means it is
subjective; you can do whatever you want because you don't want that
particular rule that would have kept it where it has always been and
where it has worked.
It has caused confusion for franchise owners for years; in fact,
franchisees just as bad. Those are the Main Street business owners. It
would have immediate and long-term negative effects on millions of
workers in thousands of businesses when the economy is already reeling
from the inflation and the sugar-high economy based upon borrowed money
spent to help few parts of it. That is what they have given us, and
then they want to do this. Franchisors and franchisees, Main Street
America, gets impacted by it.
[[Page S2702]]
Moving forward with this misguided rule, the NLRB would hurt
entrepreneurs. That is the backbone of our economy. They are the ones
who start things that someday may become a larger business. Thirty-two
percent of small business owners say they would not have a business if
it were not for franchising. The NLRB should not move forward with this
joint employer rule because it will have a negative economic impact. It
is actually inconsistent with common law. The Board should maintain the
2020 rule. It wasn't broken. It was working. They seem to be doing
everything to try to fix it when it is not broken.
I yield the floor to the Senator from West Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I rise today, and I agree with my
friend and my colleague from Indiana Senator Braun, my friend and my
colleague from Louisiana Senator Cassidy, and my friend and my
colleague from Kansas Senator Marshall.
I rise today in support of the joint resolution of congressional
disapproval to overturn the National Labor Relations Board's new joint
employer rule.
This rule is just another example of Executive overreach and the
partisan politics that we deal with all too often.
Small businesses are the heart of our economy, from the States like
myself in West Virginia--small, rural States. This is the backbone of
our business society. And especially, we have 98 percent of our
businesses are small in West Virginia. I don't have one city in my
State with a population greater than 50,000. So I am 1.7 million of
small towns and cities. This is who we are.
The COVID-19 pandemic was hard on small businesses and franchises,
with an estimated 32,700 franchise businesses closing during the first
6 months of the pandemic. The last thing they need is greater
uncertainty caused by this rule.
And the joint employer rule has caused confusion for franchise owners
for years--telling them they could be held liable for actions taken by
businesses with their brand, potentially subjecting them to corporate
control.
Franchising is a pathway to entrepreneurship for Americans across the
country, and it helps build generational growth. By providing access to
capital, training, managerial assistance, and a system of support,
which is so needed in small rural areas, the franchise model helps many
Americans overcome the numerous barriers to owning their own business--
for the first time, the dream coming true of having your own business
and controlling your destiny.
One out of every three franchise owners say they wouldn't own a small
business without the franchise business model that they buy into. The
unique model is used by over 5,000 independent businesses in my State
of West Virginia, providing over 45,000 jobs.
This new rule has further confused the issue and put the franchise
model at risk. Under this rule, businesses are liable for entities they
do not control. I repeat: Under this rule, businesses will be liable
for entities that they do not control. And it makes no sense.
Let me give you an example. If under this brand there are uniform
standards for their products or they would require hair nets to be
worn, they would then be found as a joint employer. It is as simple as
that, if that is part of the model that you buy into, part of the
franchise you bought has certain requirements to deliver products
safely and healthfully.
This is despite the fact that they have no responsibility--no
responsibility--or role in hiring, firing, or wage decisions for the
employees in any way, shape, or form.
Does that make any sense? It just doesn't.
Franchisees, for years, have enjoyed the independence of running
their own businesses and making their own decisions about their
employees, working with their employees in joint relationships. If a
franchisor is now held responsible for these decisions, the franchise
model will essentially no longer exist. The guidelines won't be there
because they are totally liable and responsible.
The bottom line is, this rule will shut the door on thousands of
Americans who want to start--or maybe already have--a business and
fulfill the American dream. That is why I introduced the Congressional
Review Act with the Senators whom I just mentioned and our colleagues
to make clear this rule does not work.
Businesses should not be liable for entities they do not control. The
National Labor Relations Board moved forward on this rule without
bipartisan support, and I can assure you they did not have my partisan
support.
A member of the Board even found that this rule would be ``even more
catastrophic'' than previous attempts to change the standard and
potentially ``harmful to our economy.'' We know previous attempts to
change the joint employer standard resulted in a 93-percent--I repeat
again, 93-percent--increase in litigation, a loss of over 376,000 job
opportunities, and were eventually struck down by the courts.
This doesn't work. The courts have already ruled it doesn't work. And
it will happen again, but here we go. Here we go.
We should be focused on bolstering our economic growth and protecting
Main Street businesses, not obstructing them.
I am standing here today for the thousands of small businesses not
only in my State but across the country. There are hard-working
employees in the surrounding communities who are going to be harmed by
this rule.
I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, my friends on
both sides, Democrat and Republican, basically to vote yes on this
resolution and allow us to continue to work towards a bipartisan,
commonsense solution instead of a more partisan, political position.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, the Senate will soon vote on the
Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval, hoping to overturn
the Biden administration's new joint employer rule. This policy
threatens the viability of the American franchise model in favor of
coerced unionization.
There are 800,000 franchise businesses operating in our communities.
They employ over 9 million Americans. The franchise model has
particularly empowered underrepresented groups in the business
community, such as women and people of color. This allows them to
become a successful business owner, to live the American dream, and to
create an opportunity for their own family and for their employees.
President Biden's new joint employer rule threatens this critical
business model. It forces legal liability onto franchisers for the
labor decisions of individual franchise owners despite the franchiser
having no operational authority over the business's employees.
Saddling franchisers with liability for thousands of franchise owners
that operate as small businesses is a sure way to destroy the system of
franchising. According to the International Franchise Association, when
the Obama administration imposed a similar policy, small businesses
lost $33 billion per year collectively due to increased liability
costs.
The Biden administration's policy has strong opposition from
Republicans and Democrats. It is also opposed by over 100
organizations, including those representing small businesses and
workers who will be severely impacted.
It is not surprising that the joint employer rule is a major priority
for large labor unions. It is easier for unions when they only have to
negotiate with one major entity rather than with each individual small
business. This allows the union to wield more influence in the
collective bargaining process.
President Biden promised to have the most pro-union administration in
history. This priority should not be making it easier to forcibly and
coercively unionize workers while undermining the business model of the
establishments they work for. It should be supporting workers and
increasing economic opportunity. Unfortunately, this policy does the
opposite. It threatens the jobs of the over 9 million American workers
employed by and earning a living from the franchise business model.
[[Page S2703]]
I close by encouraging all my colleagues to pass this bipartisan CRA
resolution and support those Americans who otherwise would not be able
to own a business without the franchise model. Let's stop this harmful
overreach that only hurts jobs and economic development in our
communities and denies opportunities for Americans seeking a better
life.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
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. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez) is necessarily absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Lee).
Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) would
have voted ``yea.''
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 122 Leg.]
YEAS--50
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Braun
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Kennedy
King
Lankford
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sinema
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Vance
Wicker
Young
NAYS--48
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Butler
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gillibrand
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Lee
Menendez
The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 98) was passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). The Senator from New Hampshire.
____________________