[Pages H459-H476]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the
gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation
of the rules of the House.
Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Fallon).
Mr. FALLON. Madam Speaker, how many Democrats or open border caucus
members--I apologize for my redundancy there--are willing to house
migrants in their own homes, Madam Speaker? None. Zero. Nada. They seem
to all be for providing sanctuary, provided they don't have to provide
it.
Alejandro Mayorkas, under oath, testified before Congress and claimed
the border is no less secure than it was previously. Does anyone in
this Chamber
[[Page H460]]
actually believe that? Does anyone in this country believe that?
Let's compare the first 3 years of President Trump's and Biden's
tenures: President Trump in his first 3 years, 1.6 million illegal
crossings; Joe Biden, 8.3 million, a 519 percent increase. Terror watch
list suspects apprehended under Trump were 8 in 3 years; under Joe
Biden, 361. That is a 4,512 percent increase. Chinese nationals, men
mostly of military age entering illegally, last year under President
Trump it was 450, and under Joe Biden it is over 24,000. That is a
5,333 percent increase.
No less secure. Is that the new math?
Opioid deaths have doubled. The Mexican drug cartels are enjoying
record profits.
Alejandro Mayorkas fostered this mayhem, and he facilitated
cataclysmic chaos. He is inept. He is weak. He is impotent. He has
violated Federal law. He has perjured himself in front of Congress. He
has lied to the American people. He has undermined his own Border
Patrol agents.
Mayorkas has shown the world who he is. He is a sheep in sheep's
clothing. The cartel wolves and our enemies across the world are
circling.
This impeachment is richly deserved, and we must fire this bum, this
second coming of Benedict Arnold, forthwith.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, let's look at the facts.
Since May 12, 2023, when title 42 ended, DHS has removed more than
500,000 individuals. That is more people than Donald Trump removed in
any given year. The border is not open.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Raskin), the ranking member of the Oversight and Accountability
Committee.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, we are here because the madcap wild goose
chase to impeach Joe Biden has produced no wild geese. Even FOX News is
lampooning the fact that their own expert witnesses repeatedly say that
President Biden did nothing wrong and that there are no grounds for
impeachment. More than a dozen GOP Members in Biden majority districts
don't want to go anywhere near that fantasy production.
So, the Trump-Putin-MAGA faction, headed up by the distinguished
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene), has been given this worthless
trinket of a consolation prize--the opportunity to bring this slapstick
impeachment drive against a Cabinet member of unimpeachable integrity
who has obviously committed no treason, no bribery, no high crimes, no
misdemeanors, nothing indictable or even ``in-dict-able,'' if you
prefer.
What makes this farce a tragedy is that Secretary Mayorkas and the
U.S. Senate have been working for months to achieve precisely the
immigration and border compromise the GOP has been demanding.
Miraculously, they got to a bipartisan immigration agreement for
billions of dollars for more Border Patrol officers, immigration
judges, and fentanyl detection machines--a far tougher border.
It was good enough for Senator Mitch McConnell and dozens of GOP
Senators, and it was good enough for The Wall Street Journal, but the
House MAGAs would not take ``yes'' for an answer. Why? Because Donald
Trump doesn't want a border solution. He wants a border problem.
Nothing else to run on.
{time} 1545
Vladimir Putin certainly doesn't want $60 billion going to the heroic
people of Ukraine defying his filthy imperialist invasion. All over the
world, democracy and freedom are under siege today and all our
colleagues can think to do is to sell out our democratic allies and
sell out the cause of human rights, and then impeach a Cabinet
Secretary working diligently to solve the immigration problem that they
claim to care about.
Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose).
Mr. ROSE. Madam Speaker, Secretary Mayorkas swore an oath to defend
the U.S. Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Unfortunately, it seems as though he hasn't defended it from a single
one.
Since President Biden took office, there have been more than 7
million illegal encounters at our southern border and more than 1.7
million known got-aways. Not once has Secretary Mayorkas issued a
statement, signed a policy, or taken action to discourage this from
happening.
In fact, he has doubled down and encouraged the invasion by endorsing
catch and release policies, ending title 42, and stopping remain in
Mexico. This subversion of our Constitution, willful disregard of our
country's laws, and unfettered dedication to exacerbating the self-
inflicted crisis have left the House with no other option than to
impeach Secretary Mayorkas.
Madam Speaker, I urge the House to join me in voting to impeach
Secretary Mayorkas and I urge the Senate to remove him from his
position.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I remind my colleagues
that they voted to terminate the COVID-19 national emergency and thus
voted to end title 42. In addition, DHS has no role in ending this
policy.
Madam Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Magaziner).
Mr. MAGAZINER. Madam Speaker, the American people want us to be
working together to solve our challenges at the border. We could be
working together to vote on President Biden's proposal for $14 billion
of funding that would add over 1,000 Border Patrol officers. We could
be working with the Senate on real immigration reform that Republicans
claimed they wanted until Donald Trump told them that they didn't, but
instead we are wasting time and energy on an impeachment with no legal
basis just because it is what Donald Trump wants.
The facts are this: Congress has allocated funding for 34,000 beds at
detention centers. The average daily census last year was 37,000. The
centers are full, and so the Secretary, under the law, uses his legal
discretion to decide who to detain and who to release--the same legal
discretion that all of his predecessors have used.
In the last 2 years of the Trump administration, 52 percent of
migrants were released, nearly a million people, and I did not hear my
House Republican colleagues calling to impeach that Homeland Security
Secretary.
No. This is about one thing--politics. There are no high crimes, no
misdemeanors, no treason, no bribery. I would remind my colleagues, our
oath is to the Constitution, not to Donald Trump.
Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz).
Mr. BENTZ. Madam Speaker, it has been said that Secretary Mayorkas is
dishonest, duplicitous, and derelict in his duties, and I agree.
However, he has also willfully refused to comply with and enforce our
Nation's immigration laws and explicitly instructed his employees to
not enforce these laws.
Additionally, the Secretary has willfully obstructed inquiries of the
Judiciary Committee regarding entry of illegal aliens into our country.
The constitutional standard for impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas has
been satisfied.
I commend Chair Mark Green for his excellent work in managing this
important constitutional matter, and in following regular order while
doing so.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, despite what Republicans
want us to believe, the courts at the highest level have not found that
Secretary Mayorkas is violating the law. Courts are where we go to
determine whether a Cabinet Secretary is following the law Congress
wrote, not a partisan impeachment.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Escobar).
Ms. ESCOBAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the
GOP's political stunt of the day: impeaching Secretary of Homeland
Security Alejandro Mayorkas.
The real problem here is congressional inaction on immigration
reform. My community of El Paso, Texas, on the U.S.-Mexico border has
been on the front lines of this issue and living with the consequences
of Congress' failure to act.
Our Federal personnel, local governments, and shelters are all
overwhelmed, and Republicans continue to withhold vital funding that
would help address this issue.
As a border legislator, I have never met a more committed, accessible
Cabinet member than Secretary Mayorkas.
[[Page H461]]
He is a great public servant doing everything he can with the limited
resources Congress has given to him.
Madam Speaker, I invite my Republican colleagues who really want to
solve this to join the bipartisan coalition supporting the Dignity Act.
Stop playing games and do your job.
Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Guest).
Mr. GUEST. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for
impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for reasons
outlined in both Articles of Impeachment, but specifically for Article
II, breach of public trust.
Secretary Mayorkas has repeatedly testified falsely, misleading
Congress and the American people. He has done so by saying that the
southwest border is secure and that his department has operational
control of the border.
Secretary Mayorkas in his previous appearances before the Committee
on Homeland Security has told me personally multiple times, testifying
while under oath, that the border is secure.
Time and time again, Secretary Mayorkas has appeared before Congress,
both the United States House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and
has repeated that the southwest border is secure.
These declarations, Madam Speaker, are patently untrue, and they
contradict statements made by both his former Border Patrol Chief, Raul
Ortiz, and by the President himself.
President Biden just recently said and admitted that the border was
not secure, and he went on to say that the border has not been secure
for almost a decade.
Madam Speaker, Secretary Mayorkas' dealings with Congress indicate a
lack of transparency and an attempt to mislead the public on the true
conditions that exist at the border, and we, as Congress, must now hold
Secretary Mayorkas accountable.
This is a grave day in our history, a grave day for this Nation, and
not one that we take lightly. However, in light of all the facts, I
urge my colleagues to join me in voting to impeach Secretary Mayorkas.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues
won't admit that this impeachment is a sham, but their favorite
conservative legal experts will.
President Trump's impeachment attorney, Alan Dershowitz, accused
Republicans of ``distorting the Constitution;'' and Republicans'
favorite legal witness, Jonathan Turley, said that: ``There is also no
current evidence that [Mayorkas] is corrupt or committed an impeachable
offense. . . . `'
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez).
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the partisan sham
impeachment proceedings against a dedicated and honorable public
servant, Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
Secretary Mayorkas has done his job while operating within a broken
immigration system that this Congress has refused to fix. Instead of
working with House Democrats and the Biden administration on serious
solutions, House Republicans are focused on one thing: appeasing former
President Donald Trump.
This impeachment is an unconstitutional abuse of power. It is clear
that policy differences are not grounds for impeachment. Even worse, in
the partisan nature of these proceedings are the alleged facts that
they are based on. To build their case, House Republicans work with and
cite reports from groups such as the Center for Immigration Studies, a
Southern Poverty Law Center designated hate group.
When I attempted to introduce an amendment to point this out, it was
rejected by House Republicans twice in committee--once in Homeland and
once in Rules.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30
seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam Speaker, Republicans don't want Americans to know
the baseless and completely unprecedented nature of this impeachment,
and that is that antimigrant hate groups form the foundation of the
case that we are listening to today.
I stand with my Democratic colleagues against this partisan
impeachment, and I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to vote ``no.''
Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, James Iredell, one of the Founders from
North Carolina, talking about this impeachment clause said: ``The power
of impeachment is given by this Constitution, to bring great offenders
to punishment. It is calculated to bring them to punishment for crime
which it is not easy to describe, but which everyone must be convinced
is a high crime and misdemeanor against the government.''
For instance, corruption. ``Its exercise''--the impeachment--``will
arise from acts of great injury to the community, and the objects of it
may be such as cannot be easily reached by an ordinary tribunal.''
That is why you have impeachment. It is necessary here because what
you have is a Secretary who came into Judiciary, he was given the
language from the Secure Fence Act of 2006. I said: Is the border under
operational control? He says: Well, no. We have redefined it ourselves.
We are comfortable with the new definition that we have made. That is a
violation of the separation of powers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30
seconds to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, this is the same Secretary who tells his
ICE agents you cannot remove 1 million, 1.2 million people who have
actually had due process through the courts and have active removal
orders.
He is the same Secretary who said that we don't have to adhere to
title 8.
That has resulted in great injury to our communities, and that is why
he must be impeached--because he falls on the definitions that one of
the Founders, James Iredell, said. He is right on the money, and I urge
everyone to support this movement to impeach.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, the definition of
``operational control'' in the Secure Fence Act of 2006 has never been
achieved under any administration, including the Trump administration.
This is not grounds for impeachment.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Garcia).
Mr. ROBERT GARCIA of California. Madam Speaker, today, Republicans
are engaging in yet another impeachment scam.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On February 6, 2024, page H461, in the third column, the
following appeared: the gentleman from California (Mr.GARCIA). Mr.
MIKE GARCIA of California.
The online version has been corrected to read: the gentleman
from California (Mr.GARCIA). Mr. ROBERT GARCIA of California.
========================= END NOTE =========================
We are here today because the majority wants to attack President
Biden and Secretary Mayorkas all to elect Donald Trump. The insane
leader of their party claims that immigrants, like me, pollute the
blood of this country.
Donald Trump's rhetoric is just like Hitler's, and he wants chaos. He
thinks the border crisis helps him, so he wants it to continue.
In fact, Border Patrol apprehensions more than tripled in the last 8
months of the Trump Presidency, but let's remember the Donald Trump and
MAGA vision for border security.
These are actually some of their ideas: Donald Trump wants to build
alligator moats. He has proposed bombing Mexico. He has actually said
we should shoot migrants in the legs and maybe even electrify the
fence.
These are cruel and ridiculous ideas, but they are proposals of
Donald Trump and the MAGA right. This extreme political stunt should
fail.
{time} 1600
Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I respect my colleagues across
the aisle who have voiced their opposition. It is important that we
clarify the legacy that some of us would condemn by impeaching the
Secretary responsible for this legacy; and, by contrast, the legacy
that my colleagues who oppose the impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas
will support:
300,000 Americans dead from cartel drugs;
100,000 teenage girls and boys missing, lost by the Mayorkas system
into the unspeakable horror of sex slavery networks across the
filthiest corners of criminal organizations in our cities;
[[Page H462]]
American sovereignty disintegrated, American soil lost to cartel
human and drug trafficking bases;
Millions of single military-aged men from over 100 countries
unvetted, released into our country, creeping into every corner of
American society, every city, every town;
Our schools overrun by illegals granted free access to American
education infrastructure in hundreds of reports with no room left for
our children;
Hundreds of thousands of violent criminals released into our Nation,
despite Federal law stating that DHS shall detain known criminals who
enter America illegally;
A thousand or more known or suspected terrorists allowed to pass
freely into the heart of our Nation, into my State, into yours.
This is the legacy of Alejandro Mayorkas. By our oath, we must
impeach this man who has presented an arrogant, defiant tone of denial
and lies to Congress for 3 years, seemingly content or even proud to
destroy America day by day. So it is that on this day, it shall be
written in the historical record of the people's House that Secretary
of the Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, has been
impeached. So shall it be written, so shall it be done.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues
are starving DHS of necessary border security resources while accusing
Secretary Mayorkas of not doing his job.
House Republicans refuse to consider the White House's $13.6 billion
border supplemental funding request that would pay for more border
agents and officers and detention beds.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington
(Ms. Jayapal).
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
resolution to impeach Secretary Mayorkas.
This resolution is as ridiculous as it is dangerous. It has no
evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors. Are we really debating
impeaching a Cabinet Secretary because House Republicans don't like the
policies that he advances under a democratically elected President?
Far from alleging true high crimes and misdemeanors, this resolution
relies on the same tired and untrue Republican talking points that
Democrats have demonstrated for months are not true. With this Marjorie
Taylor Greene sham impeachment resolution, the majority is bending to
the will of the most extreme members of their Conference simply because
they don't like the policies that Secretary Mayorkas is pursuing.
Secretary Mayorkas is an excellent and dedicated public servant,
working tirelessly to protect our national security and to address a
broken immigration system.
This Republican Congress, the least productive Congress in the
history of the United States, having passed only 27 bills that have
been signed into law, despite over 700 votes in this body, is simply
trying to distract the American people from the fact that they are not
doing a single thing to address the lives of ordinary Americans across
this country.
I keep thinking that the House cannot debase itself further, Mr.
Speaker, but it appears that we have not reached rock bottom yet. Vote
``no'' on this sham of an impeachment.
Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Ciscomani).
Mr. CISCOMANI. Mr. Speaker, let me start with this: The House is
pursuing impeachment because there is no option left. Secretary
Mayorkas has abandoned his job, and he has abandoned the American
people.
As the charges describe, the Secretary has willfully and systemically
refused to comply with the law, and he has put our communities and our
country at risk by doing so.
This is not an action we take lightly. The last time a Cabinet
Secretary was impeached was in 1876. This is a historic impeachment for
someone with historic failures.
The time has run out for Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to be able to
do his job. In order to secure our communities, protect our homeland,
and keep Americans safe, Secretary Mayorkas has got to go.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record op-
eds from frequent conservative legal commentators Jonathan Turley and
Alan Dershowitz opposing the Mayorkas impeachment, despite their policy
disagreements with the Biden administration; and a January 30, 2024,
editorial by the conservative Wall Street Journal titled: ``Impeaching
Mayorkas Achieves Nothing.''
[From the Daily Beast, Jan. 29, 2024]
Homeland Security Chief Alejandro Mayorkas' Failures Are Not
Impeachable
(By Jonathan Turley)
Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas has been
denounced as dishonest, duplicitous, and derelict by his
critics. In my view, all of those things are manifestly true.
It is also true, in my opinion, that none of those things
amount to high crimes and misdemeanors warranting his
impeachment.
The Republican push to impeach Mayorkas has been gaining
steam as record numbers of undocumented migrants pour over
our Southern border. Even many Democrats are now alarmed by
the numbers and the threat that they pose to our national
security and to our economy. Sanctuary cities from Chicago to
New York are actively trying to prevent new migrants from
seeking sanctuary within their own borders.
At the center of all of this is Mayorkas, who has long been
viewed as an enabling figure for illegal migrations. He is
also accused of implementing Biden policy changes that
removed barriers to migrants, including rescinding the ``Stay
in Mexico'' rule.
Some of us have also questioned his integrity, particularly
in controversies like the false claims that border agents
whipped migrants in Texas.
Mayorkas knew the allegations against his own personnel
were debunked, but showed little concern or compassion for
agents, particularly after President Joe Biden promised they
would be punished before any investigation had even begun.
However, being a bad person is not impeachable--or many
cabinets would be largely empty.
Moreover, being bad at your job is not an impeachable
offense. Even really bad. Even Mayorkas' level of bad. If
that were the case, he would be only the latest in a long
line of cabinet officers frog-marched into Congress for
constitutional termination.
In history, there has only been one cabinet member
impeached. That was Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876.
That alone should concentrate the mind of members. Despite
decades of controversial cabinet members accused of flaunting
the law or abusing their positions, Congress has only crossed
this Rubicon once. There has existed a certain detente
between the parties; an understanding that policy-based
impeachments could open up endless tit-for-tat impeachment
politics.
The charges against Belknap were serious, in that he had
allegedly ``disregarded his duty as Secretary of War, and
basely prostituted his high office to his lust for private
gain.'' The alleged bribes in contracts in the Indian
territories would have constituted impeachable offenses, but
Belknap had already left office. His case raised the question
of retroactive impeachments for former federal officers.
The jurisdictional concerns made the difference for
Belknap. The final vote on the closest article was 37 to 25
in favor of impeachment--four votes short of the number
needed for conviction.
There is no jurisdictional question for Mayorkas, but there
is also no current evidence that he is corrupt or committed
an impeachable offense. He can be legitimately accused of
effectuating an open border policy, but that is a
disagreement on policy that is traced to the President.
In fairness to the GOP, they allege that Mayorkas is
violating federal law in releasing what he now reportedly
admits is over 85 percent of illegal migrants into the
country as well as alleged false statements to Congress. Such
releases, however, occurred in prior administrations and the
merits of these claims are still being argued in court.
The courts have long recognized that presidents are allowed
to establish priorities in the enforcement of federal laws,
even when those priorities tend to lower enforcement for
certain groups or areas. It is a matter of discretion.
Indeed, even under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) which
holds the government liable for civil damages, there is a
discretionary function exception codified under 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 2680 (a) for policy-based judgments.
Immigration has long been an area of intense policy
disagreements. Trump policies were denounced by critics as
draconian or even racist. Biden's policies have been
denounced as fueling illegal crossings and frustrating
efforts to curtail the flow, particularly by border states.
In my view, Biden has been dead wrong on immigration, but
voters will soon have an opportunity to render a judgment on
those policies in the election. Mayorkas has carried out
those policies. What has not been shown is conduct by the
secretary that could be viewed as criminal or impeachable.
If Mayorkas is violating federal law, he can be brought to
court to enjoin his actions. A prior case seeking to prevent
the termination of the ``Stay in Mexico'' policy resulted in
a win for the Biden administration in Biden v. Texas, when
the Supreme Court
[[Page H463]]
ruled the president had the authority to revoke the Migrant
Protection Protocols.
During the Constitutional Convention, there was a debate
over the grounds for impeachment with George Mason arguing
for a broad scope of offenses that could ``subvert the
Constitution.'' His view was rejected. Most notably, there
was a rejection of ``maladministration'' as a basis for
impeachment.
An English trial of Warren Hastings weighed heavily on the
forging of the impeachment standard. The former governor of
India was charged with various offenses including
``mismanagement and misgovernment...and mistreatment of
various provinces.'' While figures like Mason saw the need
for the adoption of a similarly broad definition, his
suggestion of maladministration was rejected as too broad.
What Mayorkas is guilty of is maladministration. He has
failed to secure the Southern border and has long denied the
gravity of this crisis, including refusing to call it a
crisis even as daily and monthly crossings reached
unprecedented levels.
None of this means that a cabinet member cannot be
impeached. However, not like this. Not for maladministration.
I hold no brief for Alejandro Mayorkas. However, I hold the
Constitution more dearly than I despise his tenure. Absent
some new evidence, I cannot see the limiting principle that
would allow the House to impeach Mayorkas without potentially
making any policy disagreement with a cabinet member a high
crime and misdemeanor. That is a slippery slope that we would
be wise to avoid. Indeed, it is precisely the temptation that
the Framers thought they had avoided by rejecting standards
like maladministration.
That is why the case has not been made to impeach Alejandro
Mayorkas.
[From The Hill, Jan. 30, 2024]
Republicans Who Voted Against Impeaching Trump Should Not Vote To
Impeach Mayorkas
(By Alan Dershowitz)
When I represented then-President Donald Trump in his first
impeachment case, many Republicans praised me for
demonstrating that the Constitution permits impeachment only
for ``treason, bribery, and other high crimes or
misdemeanors.'' Trump had not been charged with any of those
offenses, but rather with vague allegations of abuse of power
and obstruction of Congress. The Senate voted to acquit Trump
of the unconstitutional charges brought by Democrats.
Republicans applauded that result.
Now many of the same Republicans are seeking to impeach
Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas on equally
vague and unconstitutional grounds. Whatever else Mayorkas
may or may not have done, he has not committed bribery,
treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. Testifying to his
opinion that the borders are secure is a far cry from
perjury. Nor is failure to enforce laws a crime. Indeed, most
Republicans do not even claim that his actions or inactions
meet these daunting constitutional standards, but they are
prepared to apply a double standard based on partisan
considerations.
Double standards are anathema to justice under our
Constitution. There must be one Constitution for all,
regardless of party affiliation. If Republicans want to amend
the Constitution, let them try, but neither the Republicans
nor the Democrats have the right to redefine constitutional
standards on an ad hoc basis in order to serve their partisan
interests.
So, let's hear from some principled Republicans who may
dislike what Mayorkas is doing but who understand that they
have previously voted for a standard that has not come close
to being met.
The philosopher La Rochefoucauld said that ``Hypocrisy is
the tribute that vice pays to virtue.'' It is also the
currency of politics in present-day Washington. But it is
wrong regardless of which side promotes it.
Congress has the power to issue a statement condemning
Mayorkas, just as it had the power to issue a statement
condemning Trump. But the extraordinary power of impeachment
should be reserved for constitutionally impeachable offences
and not invoked simply because one party has the votes to do
so.
In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton warned that
the ``greatest danger'' regarding the power to impeach would
be if it were ``regulated more by the comparative strength of
parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or
guilt.''
We experienced that danger when President Clinton was
impeached by Republicans and when Trump was impeached by
Democrats. Now we are seeing it play out once again with
Republicans in control of the House of Representatives.
Hopefully there will be enough principled Republicans to
prevent this abuse of the Constitution. But even if not, our
system of checks and balances--which requires a two-thirds
vote for conviction by the Senate--will prevent Mayorkas's
unconstitutional removal. Even if Mayorkas remains in office,
a House vote to impeach him would add to the dangerous
precedents established by previous partisan abuses of the
impeachment provision.
The time has come, indeed it is overdue, for members of
Congress who claim to be originalists when it comes to
constitutional interpretation to recognize that the Framers
explicitly refused to allow impeachment and removal for
``maladministration'' or other such vague abuses of duty. It
is the voters who are allocated the power to vote against
those who fail at governance.
Just because the Democrats were hypocritical when they
impeached Trump on nonconstitutional grounds does not give
Republicans the right to do the same. Two wrongs make a
fight, not a right. And the real losers are the American
people, who count on Congress to uphold the Constitution,
especially in areas of impeachment, where the courts have
taken a hands-off view.
We live in an age in which partisanship too often trumps
principle, and in which noble ends are thought to justify
ignoble means. There is a reasonable dispute about how to
achieve border security. I may agree with some Republicans
who are critical of the current administration's border
policies and who place the blame on Mayorkas. But these
criticisms--whether one agrees or disagrees with them--do not
justify distorting the Constitution.
It is particularly essential in an age of partisan division
that the nonpartisan principles of our Constitution be
scrupulously obeyed. So I urge principled Republicans who
care about the Constitution to oppose those in their party
who are seeking to impeach and remove Mayorkas based on
nonconstitutional accusations.
____
[From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 30, 2024]
Impeaching Mayorkas Achieves Nothing
(By The Editorial Board)
House Republicans are marking up articles of impeachment
against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and
the question is why? As much as we share the frustration with
the Biden border mess, impeaching Mr. Mayorkas won't change
enforcement policy and is a bad precedent that will open the
gates to more cabinet impeachments by both parties.
The Homeland Security Committee on Tuesday began marking up
two articles of impeachment against Mr. Mayorkas--one for
breach of trust and the other for ``willful and systemic
refusal to comply with the law.'' The articles say these are
``high crimes and misdemeanors'' that justify removal from
office.
The 20-page political indictment certainly is a sorry list
of policy failings on Mr. Mayorkas's watch and their damaging
consequences for American cities and states. These include
the entry of migrants on the terrorism watch list, and an
increase in average encounters at the border from 590,000 in
fiscal years 2017-2020--to 1.4 million in 2021, 2.3 million
in 2022 and 2.4 million in 2023.
These are failures of policy and execution, but are they
impeachable offenses? That seems doubtful. The first article
cites Mr. Mayorkas for refusing to implement a law that
requires detention of aliens. It says his policy of ``catch
and release'' is impeachable.
Yet the Supreme Court has not ruled that the Biden policies
are illegal. The High Court in 2022 let the Biden
Administration end Donald Trump's Remain in Mexico policy,
and last year it ruled 8-1 that states don't necessarily have
standing to challenge the federal government's enforcement
priorities.
As for catch and release, one problem is the statutory
``credible fear'' standard for claiming asylum in the U.S.
The standard is too low, but it isn't clear under the law
that the Administration can legally deport people claiming
asylum before they get a hearing. The U.S. lacks the
facilities to hold asylum claimants, so they are released to
await their hearing--and that can take years. But the problem
is asylum law, as Republicans have long argued.
Article I also claims Mr. Mayorkas has violated the law by
expanding humanitarian parole beyond Congress's intent.
That's probably true, but the law puts no cap on parole
numbers. Texas and other states challenged the President's
authority to use parole for large classes of migrants, but
the Supreme Court ruled against them.
House Republicans dislike how the Administration is
interpreting immigration law. But Congress has failed to
reform asylum standards or humanitarian parole, or to
otherwise tighten immigration rules. That's why Senators are
now negotiating over language to reform both the asylum
standard and parole.
If Congress holds Mr. Mayorkas impeachable for policy
failure, what's the limiting principle? Are his deputies also
guilty of ``high crimes'' for implementing the Biden
immigration agenda? Career officials? How many GOP cabinet
secretaries will the next Democratic House line up to
impeach? Policy disputes are for the voting booth, not
impeachment.
All the more so because the main architect of the border-
security fiasco isn't Mr. Mayorkas. It's his boss, President
Biden. ``If you want to flee and you are fleeing oppression,
you should come,'' said Candidate Joe Biden in a 2019 debate.
Mr. Mayorkas is following White House orders.
Impeaching Mr. Mayorkas won't have any effect on policy, or
even on the politics of border security. Most voters don't
know who Mr. Mayorkas is. Even if the House passes the
articles, on a largely partisan vote, there is no chance the
Democratic Senate will convict him. Impeaching Mr. Mayorkas
would be the political equivalent of a no-confidence vote.
This would continue Congress's recent trend of defining
impeachment down.
Grandstanding is easier than governing, and Republicans
have to decide whether to accomplish anything other than
impeaching Democrats. Mr. Mayorkas is an easy political
target, but impeaching him accomplishes nothing beyond
political symbolism.
[[Page H464]]
A better idea is to strike a deal with Mr. Biden on serious
border-security reforms that would restrict his discretion on
parole, rewrite the asylum standard, and give the executive
other tools to control the border. If Messrs. Mayorkas and
Biden refuse to use them, the GOP will have an election
issue. And the tools will be there for the next President to
use.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, this is so frustrating because today we are,
in fact, impeaching upon. We are impeaching upon for the President. The
Secretary is being impeached for what he did wrong. He is, in fact,
guilty as alleged, but, in fact, he is just part of the high crimes and
misdemeanors of the President of the United States.
It was the President's decision to, in fact, undo policies that were
working, to reverse, to make a systemic change that in my district,
with over 55 miles of Mexican border, my border agents are reduced to
being Uber drivers for everyone coming over the border.
I am perfectly willing to listen to people say that this is a policy
difference, but it is not. To faithfully execute the mission, you can
have differences in how to do it. To thwart the very execution of that
mission, which Secretary Mayorkas has done, is, in fact, an impeachable
offense.
I have some sympathy for him because I believe he is just obeying the
orders of his boss, but that has been said before. That excuse has been
used. The fact is, he took an oath. He must faithfully execute that
oath. If he cannot, because the President will not let him do it, then
he needs to resign.
As we impeach the first Cabinet officer in well over 100 years, the
fact is, he should have resigned rather than to do things which were
adverse to the Constitution, adverse to his oath, but upon the orders
and duty of the President.
The President can be wrong. The President can order high crimes and
misdemeanors. The President can be guilty of them. This President is,
in fact, guilty of that which we are impeaching the Secretary for
today, but so is the Secretary, and for that reason, I urge a ``yes''
vote.
Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time
remains for each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. DesJarlais). The gentleman from
Tennessee has 22\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Mississippi has 24 minutes remaining.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, this baseless sham
impeachment fails to articulate a single charge that rises to the level
of high crimes and misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for
impeachment. Mere policy differences do not amount to impeachable
offenses.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter by eminent
constitutional scholars opposed to this political stunt, as well as The
Washington Post op-ed by Joshua Matz and Norman Eisen titled, ``Why
impeaching Mayorkas would violate the Constitution.''
January 10, 2024.
Speaker Mike Johnson,
The Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Chairman Mark Green,
Washington, DC.
Constitutional Law Experts on the Impeachment Proceedings Against
Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas
Senior Republicans in the House of Representatives--
including Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and Chairman Mark
Green of the Committee on Homeland Security--have stated that
they intend to pursue an impeachment of Homeland Security
Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. This proceeding will apparently
occur in the Committee on Homeland Security on an accelerated
timeframe. As scholars of the Constitution, considering the
facts currently known and the charges publicly described, we
hereby express our view that an impeachment of Secretary
Mayorkas would be utterly unjustified as a matter of
constitutional law.
Although House Republicans have offered various
justifications for an impeachment, the underlying basis
appears to be their view that Secretary Mayorkas's policy
decisions have degraded border security and involved
objectionable uses of enforcement discretion. House
Republicans have also publicly asserted that Secretary
Mayorkas testified falsely in stating that he is enforcing
existing federal law and that the southern border is closed
and secure.
When the Framers designed the Constitution's impeachment
provisions, they made a conscious choice not to allow
impeachment for mere ``maladministration''--in other words,
for incompetence, poor judgment, or bad policy. Instead, they
provided that impeachment could be justified only by truly
extraordinary misconduct: ``Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' U.S. Const., art. II, Sec. 4.
Thus, as Charles L. Black, Jr. noted in his influential
handbook, impeachment is not permitted for ``mere inefficient
administration, or administration that [does] not accord with
Congress's view of good policy.'' Simply put, the
Constitution forbids impeachment based on policy
disagreements between the House and the Executive Branch, no
matter how intense or high stakes those differences of
opinion.
Yet that is exactly what House Republicans appear poised to
undertake. The charges they have publicly described come
nowhere close to meeting the constitutional threshold for
impeachment. Their proposed grounds for impeaching Secretary
Mayorkas are the stuff of ordinary (albeit impassioned)
policy disagreement in the field of immigration enforcement.
If allegations like this were sufficient to justify
impeachment, the separation of powers would be permanently
destabilized. It is telling that there is absolutely no
historical precedent for the impeachment charges that House
Republicans have articulated. To the contrary, on the rare
occasions that Members of the House have proposed impeaching
executive officials for their handling of immigration
matters, the House has properly retreated from that grave
step.
We hold a wide range of views on the wisdom and success of
Secretary Mayorkas's approach to immigration policy. But we
are in agreement that impeaching him based on the charges set
forth by House Republicans would be a stark departure from
the Constitution.
Of course, our institutional affiliations are listed for
identification purposes only, and our signatures reflect our
personal capacity, not any position on behalf of our
employers.
Sincerely,
Laurence H. Tribe, Carl M. Loeb University Professor,
Emeritus, Harvard University; Joshua Matz, Partner I Kaplan
Hecker & Fink LLP, Adjunct Professor of Law | Georgetown Law
School; Donald Ayer, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown Law
School; Philip C. Bobbitt, Herbert Wechsler Professor of
Federal Jurisprudence, Columbia Law School; Corey
Brettschneider, Professor of Political Science, Brown
University; Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper
Distinguished Professor of Law, Berkeley Law; Gabriel J.
Chin, Edward L. Barrett Jr. Chair of Law, Martin Luther King
Jr. Professor of Law, Director of Clinical Legal Education,
UC Davis School of Law; Rosalind Dixon, Professor of Law,
University of New South Wales; Michael Dorf, Robert S.
Stevens Professor of Law, Cornell Law School.
Amanda Frost, John A. Ewald Jr. Research Professor of Law,
University of Virginia School of Law; Michael Gerhardt,
Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, UNC
School of Law; Stuart Gerson, Trustee, Society for the Rule
of Law; Aziz Huq, Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of
Law, University of Chicago Law School; Kevin R. Johnson, Dean
and Mabie-Apallas Professor of Public Interest Law and
Chicana/o Studies, UC Davis School of Law; Pamela S. Karlan,
Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest
Law, Stanford Law School; Jon D. Michaels, Professor of Law,
UCLA School of Law; Timothy Naftali, Senior Research Scholar,
Columbia University School of International and Public
Affairs.
Victoria Nourse, Ralph V. Whitworth Professor in Law,
Georgetown Law School; Deborah Pearlstein, Director,
Princeton Program on Law and Public Policy, Charles and Marie
Robertson Visiting Professor of Law and Public Affairs,
Princeton University; Robert Post, Sterling Professor of Law,
Yale Law School; Cristina Rodriguez, Leighton Homer Surbeck
Professor of Law, Yale Law School; Jack Rakove, William
Robertson Coe Professor of History and American Studies,
Professor of Political Science, Emeritus, Stanford
University; Kermit Roosevelt, David Berger Professor for the
Administration of Justice, Penn Carey Law School; Peter
Shane, Professor and Jacob E. Davis and Jacob E. Davis II
Chair in Law Emeritus, The Ohio State University Moritz
College of Law; David A. Strauss, Gerald Ratner Distinguished
Service Professor of Law, Faculty Director, Supreme Court and
Appellate Clinic, University of Chicago Law School.
____
[From the Washington Post, Jan. 9, 2024]
Why Impeaching Mayorkas Would Violate the Constitution
(By Joshua Matz and Norman Eisen)
House Republicans appear poised to rush through a partisan
impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas, the secretary of homeland
security. They do not allege corrupt, abusive or criminal
conduct; they accuse him merely of poor judgment, believing
he could better use his legal authority and enforcement
discretion to safeguard the southern border.
Whatever the wisdom of Mayorkas's policy decisions, the
claim that he should be impeached is indefensible as a matter
of constitutional law.
In designing the U.S. Constitution, the framers adapted the
impeachment power from England but made several key changes.
Parliament had historically impeached royal ministers for
``maladministration''--for bad policy or poor performance in
office. The
[[Page H465]]
framers rejected that vision. For impeachments of ``the
President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the
United States,'' they instead required proof of egregious
malfeasance: ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors.''
This decision was fundamental to the separation of powers.
Congress has many tools it can use to shape public policy and
express disagreement with the executive. Impeachment,
however, is not one of them. To ensure that the president
could govern--and that he could select a Cabinet to execute
his vision--the framers forbade impeachment over policy
disagreements, no matter how fierce or consequential.
That understanding has endured throughout American history.
Despite centuries of heated policy disagreements between
Congress and the executive, there has been only a single
impeachment of a Cabinet official. In 1876, War Secretary
William Belknap was impeached for a corrupt kickback scheme;
although he resigned minutes before the House vote, that did
not deter House members from impeaching him anyway.
Of course, not all executive branch officials are angels.
But in practice, miscreant Cabinet officials are not
corralled through congressional impeachment. They are fired
by the president, or they simply resign.
No official who maintained the president's support has ever
been impeached for carrying out policy in ways the House
found objectionable. Impeaching Mayorkas on that basis would
offend the Constitution and unbalance the separation of
powers. Future Cabinet officials would be unduly chilled in
doing their job, and presidents would fear that heated policy
disputes might engulf their most senior officials in an
impeachment quagmire.
This concern applies with full force in the homeland
security setting. The rule that we do not impeach over policy
disagreements has had its strongest expression in disputes
over immigration enforcement. There are two illuminating
precedents.
The first occurred in 1920, when the House considered
impeaching Assistant Secretary of Labor Louis Post. Over the
previous year, Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer had
carried out his infamous ``Palmer Raids,'' indiscriminately
rounding up suspected radicals, anarchists and communists for
deportation. When those deportation orders reached Post's
desk (the Labor Department then oversaw immigration matters),
he canceled more than 1,000 of them, citing the absence of
evidence justifying removal.
The response was explosive. A New York Times editorial
claimed that Post ``let loose on the country these public
enemies, some of them fugitives from justice.'' Rep. Homer
Hoch, a Republican from Kansas, put forward an impeachment
resolution, which was referred to the House Rules Committee.
Post was outraged. He viewed an initial report accusing him
of misconduct as ``mental dullness at high tension.'' As Post
later wrote, ``I had offended by deporting such aliens as
were proved guilty and releasing the others, instead of
pitching all of them out of the country indiscriminately.''
Post's ensuing testimony before the Rules Committee was
electric. As one observer remarked, the committee ``had very
much the aspect of a group of gentlemen who had picked up a
very hot poker and were looking for some place to cool it.''
The drive to impeach collapsed.
A similar tale unfolded less than two decades later. In
1938, Martin Dies Jr., the chairman of the House Un-American
Activities Committee, accused Labor Secretary Frances Perkins
of wrongly failing to deport an accused communist. As Dies
escalated his attacks against Perkins's immigration policies,
she bitingly responded: ``It is not usual for the legislative
branch which has so many duties to attempt to usurp the
functions and duties of the administrative branch.''
Undeterred, another member of Dies's committee introduced
an impeachment resolution. Among other things, and
reminiscent of the latest attacks against Mayorkas, it
accused Perkins of ``having failed, neglected, and refused to
enforce the . . . immigration laws of the United States.''
Perkins was shaken. But she maintained support from
President Franklin D. Roosevelt and vigorously defended her
handling of immigration matters, including in closed-door
testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.
Ultimately, the committee concluded that ``sufficient facts
have not been presented or adduced to warrant the
interposition of the constitutional powers of impeachment by
the House.'' The decision was unanimous. With respect to
Perkins's handling of a particularly controversial
deportation decision, it found that her decision ``involved a
question of judgment, and there is no evidence that it was
not exercised in good faith.''
As these cases confirm, disagreement over a Cabinet
official's good-faith exercise of enforcement discretion is
not a valid basis for impeachment. In launching an
impeachment attack against Mayorkas, House Republicans not
only violate the Constitution but also defy long-standing
precedents. They should step back from the brink.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice).
Mrs. BICE. Mr. Speaker, earlier in this debate, the gentleman from
Mississippi noted that there has been more fentanyl seized at our
southern border than ever before, but what he did not recognize is that
there are now more fentanyl deaths in this country than ever before,
and that is a direct result of what is happening across our southern
border.
I rise today in support of the impeachment of Secretary Alejandro
Mayorkas. This is one of the most solemn and consequential actions the
United States House of Representatives can take, and I do not take it
lightly.
However, under the watch of Secretary Mayorkas, we have witnessed the
degradation of our border security and the willful and consistent
refusal to comply with and enforce Federal immigration laws.
Today, fentanyl is the leading cause of death for those aged 18 to
45, terrorists on the FBI watch list are being released into the
interior of the country, and the cartels are a multibillion-dollar
business.
The crisis we face today is a threat to every single American,
causing our communities to be less safe, and it is a direct result of
Secretary Mayorkas' actions. A clear message must be sent to the
executive branch that they no longer get to break the law without
consequences. Secretary Mayorkas must be held accountable.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, today three bipartisan
former Secretaries of Homeland Security wrote to Speaker Johnson
voicing their opposition to impeaching Secretary Mayorkas. They agree
that impeachment for policy is not constitutionally permissible. They
further warn that allowing impeachment of Cabinet officials over policy
differences would jeopardize our national security.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letter from Secretaries
Chertoff, Napolitano, and Johnson.
February 6, 2024.
Hon. Mike Johnson,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Johnson: As former Secretaries of Homeland
Security who served in Republican and Democratic
Administrations, we write to oppose the House of
Representatives' effort to impeach Secretary Alejandro
Mayorkas.
We have differing views among us on the policies pursued by
President Biden and implemented by Secretary Mayorkas. But we
collectively agree that policy differences are not
Constitutionally permissible impeachment offenses. Rather,
they are issues to be resolved via legislation or elections.
During our respective terms, when members of Congress of
both parties disagreed with the policy choices made by the
Presidents we served, they would make their views known,
often vociferously, bring us to the Capitol for hearings, and
consider new laws. That is the way our political system is
supposed to work.
To instead allow impeachments of cabinet officials over
political disagreements would jeopardize our national
security; make Cabinet-level positions more difficult to fill
under future administrations; and undermine the ability of
future officials to fulfill their vital missions.
And one cannot ignore that the Department of Homeland
Security is responsible for much more than managing our
immigration system. Impeaching Secretary Mayorkas could
undermine the mission for which the Department was created--
preventing terrorism--as well as our cybersecurity, aviation
security, maritime security, our response to natural
disasters, and the protection of our national leaders, among
many other things.
If you want a solution to strengthen our border security--
and a solution is badly needed--you would be well advised to
work with the Senate on the bipartisan bill they have put
forward. Impeaching Secretary Mayorkas solves nothing and
leaves our outdated immigration system exactly where it is
now--broken.
We urge you to set aside this groundless impeachment effort
and get back to solving America's real problems.
Sincerely,
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary of Homeland Security, 2005-2009.
Janet Napolitano,
Secretary of Homeland Security, 2009-2013.
Jeh Charles Johnson,
Secretary of Homeland Security, 2013-2017.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).
Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn this
rushed, baseless sham impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas that will go
down in history as one of Congress' darkest moments.
The Republican argument for impeachment boils down to their view
[[Page H466]]
that Secretary Mayorkas has intentionally caused the influx of
immigrants over our southern border. Never mind that, even if true,
this is not a high crime or misdemeanor that has ever been used before
in the history of our country. Never mind that, no court has found the
Secretary or the Department of Homeland Security to have violated the
law. In fact, the United States v. Texas case, which my friends on the
other side of the aisle like to cite so frequently, actually reversed a
district court ruling and held that there must be discretion given to
the Secretary as there has been given to every single Department
Secretary for 27 years.
Never mind that every one of those Department of Homeland Security
Secretaries has interpreted the law the exact same way that Secretary
Mayorkas has. Never mind that Republicans have sued him to stop him
from implementing the policy changes that the administration has tried
to put in effect to address the situation at the border. Never mind
that House Republicans are impeaching him for failing to address the
problems at the border while he has spent months negotiating a
bipartisan bill in the Senate to do just that.
{time} 1615
The reason for this partisan stunt is simple. Donald Trump and House
Republicans want to use the border as an election year issue rather
than actually solve the problems through necessary legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues who care about the Constitution,
the rule of law, and this institution to vote ``no.'' They will
otherwise come to regret this.
Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman).
Mr. BERGMAN. Mr. Speaker, the last Secretary of Homeland Security
appointed by a Democratic President once described a border crisis as
more than 1,000 Border Patrol encounters per day. In December last
year, we averaged nearly 10 times that number.
Perhaps most worryingly, 2023 saw a record-setting 860,000, just a
little bit shy of a million got-aways, border crossers who were
detected but who were never apprehended. That is nearly a million
potential felons, cartel members, terrorists, and drug traffickers
freely allowed into our country and currently residing in our
communities and our neighborhoods.
This crisis has been aided and abetted through the unprecedented
dereliction of duty of Secretary Mayorkas. As the House Homeland
Security Committee has uncovered, Mayorkas has repeatedly violated,
subverted, and simply ignored multiple laws set forth by Congress that
he swore an oath to uphold, all while ignoring court orders and lying
to Congress and the American people.
The evidence of his wrongdoings is damning. His abuse of power goes
well beyond simple bureaucratic incompetence. His actions, which have
put our Nation at extreme risk, cannot go unanswered.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are exploiting
impeachment power to distract from their inability to pass legislation.
Here is what Republican Representative Chip Roy said in November: ``I
want my Republican colleagues to give me one thing--one--that I can go
campaign on and say we did. One. . . . [E]xplain to me one material,
meaningful, significant thing the Republican majority has done.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Jeffries), the Democratic leader.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the distinguished
gentleman from the great State of Mississippi for yielding, for his
leadership, for his dignity, for his decency, for his continued defense
of our democracy in the face of the extreme attacks coming from the
other side of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this political
stunt, this reckless Republican effort to impeach Secretary Mayorkas.
Let's be clear: Secretary Mayorkas is a good man, a patriotic man,
and a hardworking man doing the best he can under very difficult
circumstances. That is not an impeachable offense.
Extreme MAGA Republicans have produced no evidence that Secretary
Mayorkas has engaged in a high crime or misdemeanor, no evidence that
Secretary Mayorkas has engaged in an impeachable offense, and no
evidence that Secretary Mayorkas has broken the law or violated the
Constitution--not a shred of evidence, not a scintilla of evidence,
nothing but extreme MAGA Republican chaos and confusion and the effort
to avoid doing the hard work necessary to find common ground to
actually address the challenges at the border.
What do these impeachment articles have to do with the issue of
addressing our broken immigration system? Nothing.
What do these impeachment articles have to do with building a healthy
economy for everyday Americans? Nothing.
What do these impeachment articles have to do with addressing the
inflationary challenges and affordability issues that the American
people are experiencing day after day as we work to continue to emerge
from a once-in-a-century pandemic that shut down the economy?
Absolutely nothing.
Extreme MAGA Republicans have spent this entire Congress not
advancing any ideas, acting on any agenda, deciding to work together
with us to solve problems for the American people.
You have brought Articles of Impeachment that are not anchored in
reality. You have brought Articles of Impeachment for one simple
reason: Because you really want to impeach Joe Biden.
That is what you were directed to do by the puppet master, the former
President of the United States, Donald Trump.
You really want to impeach Joe Biden, but you realize that that is
politically unpopular, so you have brilliantly come up with, in your
minds, plan B. Let's go after Secretary Mayorkas. No evidence that he
engaged in wrongdoing, committed a crime, or violated the Constitution,
but let's go after Secretary Mayorkas.
Maybe that will satisfy the quest for revenge of the puppet master
because when the puppet master, Donald Trump, says jump, extreme MAGA
Republicans respond: How high? We just got evidence of that over the
last few weeks because extreme MAGA Republicans have been lecturing
America that we have to deal with the challenges at the border.
We agree. A bipartisan process has been underway in the Senate for
months to try to fix our broken immigration system, but as soon as
Donald Trump says no, we actually don't want to do anything about the
challenges at the border because, politically, that might not be good
for us, you walked away from working together in a commonsense fashion
to fix our broken immigration system. Instead, what you have to offer
the American people is this sham impeachment, this political stunt,
this waste of time.
You will not fool the American people. You will actually be held
accountable for your inaction and your affirmative leaning into doing
things that don't advance progress in any way, shape, or form for the
American people.
No reasonable American can conclude that you are making life better
for them with this sham impeachment, but you will live with this like a
scarlet letter.
It may succeed. It may not. Secretary Mayorkas should wear this like
a badge of honor because it is worthless. It means nothing.
It is fake. It is fraudulent. It is foolish.
Mr. Speaker, I urge everybody to vote ``no,'' so we can get back to
doing the real business of the American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for
yielding and for his great work on this impeachment resolution.
Mr. Speaker, Secretary Mayorkas' political career is on the chopping
block, where it rightfully belongs. He has failed to apply the laws
that would stop this invasion at the southern border.
[[Page H467]]
To those who claim that this impeachment is for purely political
purposes, you are dead wrong. This is about upholding the rule of law
that governs our Republic, the same rule of law that Secretary Mayorkas
has ignored and forsaken every day.
Secretary Mayorkas has had innumerable opportunities to enforce the
laws that are already on the books but has chosen not to. He has earned
his own impeachment.
Let's be clear: Our entire constitutional system is predicated on the
idea that Congress creates laws, and the executive branch enforces
those laws.
Allowing this abuse of our constitutional system to go unchecked
could spell the beginning of the end for our Republic.
I am proud to serve as a cosponsor of these impeachment articles. The
rule of law must be restored at the border immediately.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, Republicans use the
language of invasion and great replacement theory, but invasion in the
Constitution means invasion during an act of war by a foreign nation or
insurrection from within.
I direct my Republican colleagues to Federalist Papers Nos. 4 and 43
if they want to learn why the entry of migrants escaping crisis for a
better life is not invasion.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank our fearless leader and the good
gentleman from Tennessee for yielding time.
Just a comment about this not being an invasion: No honest or
objective American, from sea to shining sea, could characterize what is
happening at our southern border in any way other than an invasion, and
it is destroying our country.
It is because of willful neglect. It is because of dereliction of
duty. It is because of the faithlessness to this Constitution and its
first job: to provide a common defense.
I thank Chairman Green for restoring the dignity and integrity of the
impeachment process. I think it is important that we are careful and
that we make the fullness of due process an important feature,
restoring what has happened over the last two impeachments.
This is a yearlong process, and I appreciate his fidelity to the
Constitution and the integrity of this institution.
The bottom line, Mr. Speaker: I believe that the Impeachment Clause
in the Constitution, according to our Founders, was to give remedy for
this very circumstance, to remove someone who had violated their public
trust in a way that resulted in serious and systemic injury to society.
I thank Chairman Green, again, for his leadership. I stand with him.
This is the right and responsible thing to do in faithfulness to the
Constitution, in the protection of the American people, and in defense
of the sovereignty of the greatest Nation in human history.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, the extreme MAGA Republican
stunt to impeach Secretary Mayorkas is baseless.
The Democratic staff of the Committee on Homeland Security thoroughly
documented the many failures of fact and law in the Articles of
Impeachment contained in H. Res. 863.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the key findings and
introduction of the Democratic staff report, which can be found online
at: https://democrats-homeland.house.gov/download/ homelanddemimpeachmentreportfinal.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee).
{time} 1630
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for
yielding.
In the time that we have had to debate one of the most sacred and
deliberative responsibilities of the United States Congress--that is,
impeachment proceedings--there has not been one iota of truth and/or
facts that would suggest that Secretary Mayorkas is, in fact, guilty of
the Articles of Impeachment against him: One, the willful violation of
the law, and the benefit to himself from anything that he might have
done or that he did not do.
What it has done is given to this Nation, a Nation of laws and a
Nation of immigrants, the sense that you cannot flee Nazism, you cannot
flee Cuba, and come to this country to serve your beloved adopted
country for more than two decades, that you cannot be the Justice
Department U.S. attorney, you cannot be a Deputy Secretary and now the
Secretary of Homeland Security without those who find it strange to
have you, with your diversity, to be able to lead in this way.
This is a question of stunts over solutions, and the Constitution was
created to create a more perfect order, and that is that, under that
Constitution, precious rights fall under the Fifth Amendment and the
14th Amendment, due process.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that this Secretary of Homeland Security was
not allowed to bring his own witnesses. The majority did not allow the
minority to have its day of witnesses. There were no constitutional
scholars who pointed to the fact in large numbers, as they would have,
that this is, in fact, a fraud, and it is fraught with
misrepresentations.
Operational control is zero people crossing the border. That means
they are not crossing for entertainment, they are not crossing for
business, they are just there.
This is wrong. This is wrongheaded. This is a stunt, and this does
not bequeath or equal to the Constitution, which is to create a more
perfect Union.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against these Articles of
Impeachment.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke).
Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 863, the
impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas.
Mr. Speaker, Montana is about the same size as from here to Chicago
plus 2 miles. It is a long, long border. The few border people we have
generally are deployed down south.
My friend and the gentleman from New York said: What evidence do we
offer? What evidence of negligence? What evidence of wrongdoing? I
would say it is pretty easy to find. It is found in every street, every
city, every county, every State across this Nation.
The evidence is found in every fentanyl pill and death. The evidence
is found in every woman that is raped along our border. The evidence is
found in every child-trafficking case that is in every city, to include
Billings, Missoula, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. It is found in every
evidence of children being sex trafficked, and I could go on.
The evidence of negligence is the willful blindness to the horror
that we have on our southern border.
Our northern border, while not discussed a lot, is wide open, because
this country doesn't have a border. In Montana, this administration
can't even prevent a balloon. So the evidence is clear, compelling, and
not in dispute. The lack of action, willful blindness, and willingness
to do nothing is deserving of no less than impeachment.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, Secretary Mayorkas is doing
his job with the resources allotted by this Congress. Not only has no
administration detained all border crossers, but Congress has never
appropriated sufficient resources to detain all individuals who should
be detained under the Republicans' reading of the law.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this impeachment against Secretary Mayorkas is a sham.
The process was a sham. The charges are a sham.
You might wonder, if that is the case, then why go through all of
this trouble?
Well, last November, a colleague of mine from the State of Texas
stood up in this Chamber and asked for one meaningful accomplishment
that the Republican Congress has accomplished this session.
The answer was nothing. That colleague was not a Democrat on this
side of the aisle, but a Republican--a Republican, who asked the
question whether somebody could name one meaningful accomplishment.
[[Page H468]]
Therefore, the answer to my question: Why does this happen? When you
have no record of accomplishment to run on--nothing on education,
nothing on healthcare, nothing about creating jobs, nothing on the
environment, nothing about keeping people safe--this is what you do.
You put on a circus, and that is why we are here today.
If we need an example, let's look to the last few days. For years,
Republicans have used immigrants as political scarecrows. They are
using them like scarecrows to put up in the face of Americans and scare
Americans that every single one of these people, including the 6-year-
old children, are coming to harm you and hurt you.
Since my Republican colleagues have no positive policy solutions,
they sell that really hard. You hear it on every radio interview, every
television interview. You hear it from the people in here. You hear it
on television on FOX News. Every single place, these people are used to
scare Americans. That is how Republicans want to win.
That is why we are here, because there is nothing else--nothing else
left.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30
seconds to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle
have claimed that we need to secure the border. Even when President
Biden made the comment that he would be willing to shut down the border
because it is overwhelmed, the Republican Speaker says that proposal--
which would allow for what Republicans have been asking for, supposedly
for years--is dead on arrival. The Republicans are not going to do it.
Mr. Speaker, this is a show trial. It is a sham.
Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Ezell).
Mr. EZELL. Mr. Speaker, before coming to Congress, I spent 8 years as
a sheriff in my home county and 42 years as a law enforcement officer.
If I hadn't done my job as a sheriff, I would have been fired and
removed from office.
Mr. Speaker, Secretary Mayorkas has not done his job. He has
willfully ignored immigration laws passed by Congress and allowed our
southern border to turn into utter chaos.
His breach of public trust cannot go unanswered. I voted to hold him
accountable in committee last week, and I will do so today on the
floor.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this
impeachment and hold Secretary Mayorkas accountable for his actions.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).
Ms. BARRAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise to oppose this baseless, politically driven impeachment of
Secretary Mayorkas by extreme MAGA Republicans.
House Republicans have failed to meet the constitutional standard for
impeachment and have failed to provide evidence for high crimes and
misdemeanors because no evidence exists.
Republicans rant about the challenges at the southern border, and
their only solution is to remove the person who has been in the room
trying to work on a bipartisan basis to get tough on border policies
that I don't even agree with. Republicans are not serious about border
security. This is all about politics for my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle.
House Republicans have consistently opposed legislation to increase
funding for more Border Patrol agents at the southern border, more
Customs and Border Protection, more money to combat fentanyl from
coming across the southern border, something Republicans love to talk
about, but they want to give no resources to make sure that it is not
coming over.
Of course, they have even said no to a billion dollars in ICE
detention beds. This is a Republican talking point, and they have said
no to this, too.
So why are we wasting floor time on political games with a fact-free
impeachment resolution instead of legislation to improve the lives of
Americans?
It is because House Republicans can't govern. They want to distract
from their weekly embarrassments. Their own Members admit they have not
accomplished anything.
Mr. Speaker, this sham impeachment is not an accomplishment. It is
just another embarrassment because they are a do-nothing Congress.
Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much
time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee has 12\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Mississippi has 12 minutes
remaining.
Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I will address some of the, at a minimum, misinformation that has
been provided by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This
notion that Republicans have somehow cut Border Patrol is absolutely
false.
In fact, it has been the administration that has brought decreasing
budget requests, for example, for ICE detention beds every single year,
and we wound up giving them more than they asked for.
Our bill, H.R. 2, actually would provide 3,000 new Border Patrol
agents, and the supplemental request by the President asks for
approximately 1,400. You can't say we are resourcing less when we are
actually providing numbers for more. That is just disinformation. It is
false.
This notion that seizures are up, if you pour more water through a
small pipe, there is more volume coming at the fence. They are going to
seize more. I get that. However, tell me why the price for a hit of
fentanyl on the street in Tennessee went from $95 a hit when this
President took office to $28 a hit.
It is because of the supply and demand of fentanyl. It is the supply
and demand curve. That is because it is pouring across our southern
border. It is pouring across our southern border because the cartels
are jamming folks through the crossing sites. The Border Patrol agents
are having to move off the border to cover that, and we have a wide-
open southern border.
We have shown this in our five-phases investigation, videos of
camouflage-wearing, carpet-shoe-wearing people with backpacks full of
drugs coming through the remote parts of the country or the border. To
suggest that just because seizures are up somebody is doing their job,
that is meaningless.
I want to make a point here, because several people have said, if we
were concerned about border protection, we would bring up the Senate
negotiated bill. Well, I thought the Senate had to pass it before we
could bring it up. I haven't heard that the bill has even passed
the Senate. Therefore, this accusation that we somehow aren't for
Border Patrol because we haven't taken up this bill is false because it
hasn't even passed the Senate yet.
I heard someone say Mr. Mayorkas has done his job. The last poll I
saw indicated approximately 85 percent of Americans think the Secretary
is failing, but, yes, keep singing that song.
Rushed? We have been at this for almost a year.
One gentleman said: No court has actually ruled that Mr. Mayorkas is
breaking the law.
The Fifth Circuit court absolutely ruled it. Then the gentleman who
mentioned that actually said that the Supreme Court overturned that.
No, they didn't. They decided they weren't going to decide. They
said: We don't have standing here, or you don't have standing here, so
their case technically wasn't even heard. They said: You don't have
standing. Have a nice day.
To suggest that that was overturned, the Fifth Circuit court's ruling
on the lawlessness of this Secretary, is just wrong. It is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Guest).
Mr. GUEST. Mr. Speaker, I want to push back.
What is happening here is not political theater, as my friends on the
other side of the aisle wish to make this.
The Democrats have sought to blame Republicans, saying that our
inaction has helped cause this border crisis, but I will tell you that
nothing is farther from the truth. Almost a year ago, this body passed
H.R. 2, a border security bill, a border security bill that would find
a record number of Customs and
[[Page H469]]
Border Patrol agents, a bill which would give raises to those men and
women who were there on the front lines trying to secure our border, a
bill which would invest in technology to stop the flow of illegal drugs
coming across our border, a bill which would have restarted wall
construction.
That bill, for almost a year, has sat in the other Chamber, has sat
in the Senate, and Mr. Schumer has refused to bring that bill to the
floor.
{time} 1645
This body also passed the Homeland Security appropriations bill,
giving the Department of Homeland Security more money than that
Department has ever received. We funded those additional agents. We
funded those pay raises. We funded additional detention beds. What has
happened to that appropriations bill? It also sits in the Senate
waiting for the Senate to take action.
Today, my friends across the aisle seek to hide behind this Senate
bill that was crafted behind closed doors, in the cover of darkness, a
bill that did not include any input from the House of Representatives,
did not include Homeland Security Chair Mark Green or Ranking Member
Bennie Thompson from Mississippi. Three Senators out of 100 got behind
closed doors for weeks, and they sat down and crafted a bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute
to the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. GUEST. Mr. Speaker, with no input on behalf of the House of
Representatives, we are now supposed to adopt that bill before it even
passes the Senate.
I want to give you a number, Mr. Speaker. That number is 370,000.
That is the number of immigrants who came into our country last month
alone. That is not a year; that is not 6 months; that is a single
month, 370,000 people, yet our Homeland Security Secretary continues to
maintain that the border is secure.
My friends across the aisle seek to blame Republicans for this
crisis. I will tell you that their blame is misplaced. If they want to
blame someone for what is happening on the southwest border, they need
to look in the mirror. They need to look at what their Secretary has
done, and they need to look at what their President has done. They can
no longer blame Republicans for their failures.
I will close with this, Mr. Speaker. If we are unable to hold
Secretary Mayorkas accountable for his failures, for his failure to
enforce the law, we can hold no one accountable. Secretary Mayorkas
must be impeached.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, the administration is
enforcing the law. ICE is currently detaining over 38,000 people. This
is 4,000 more than Congress has provided funding for. If Republicans
want DHS to detain more people, they should provide the funds the
administration has asked for in the supplemental request.
Under former President Trump, Republicans cheered the doubling of
drug seizures. Now, they view it as a problem. This is hypocrisy at its
finest.
Under Secretary Mayorkas' leadership, DHS has seized more fentanyl
and arrested more criminals for fentanyl-related crimes in the last 2
years than in the previous 5 years. This impeachment has been a
preplanned political stunt from the beginning.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a New York Times article
detailing how Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green promised
donors that the House would impeach Secretary Mayorkas prior to
launching any type of inquiry. He said: ``Get the popcorn.''
[From the New York Times, Apr. 18, 2023]
Key Republican Tells Donors He Will Pursue Impeachment of Mayorkas
(By Karoun Demirjian)
Washington.--The Republican chairman of the House Homeland
Security Committee promised donors this month that he would
produce an impeachment case against the Biden
administration's homeland security chief, Alejandro N.
Mayorkas, saying that the secretary's appearance before the
panel this week would be the beginning of his demise.
Representative Mark E. Green told an enthusiastic crowd in
his home state of Tennessee last week that his committee
would expose Mr. Mayorkas's ``dereliction of duty and his
intentional destruction of our country through the open
southern border.'' He said the panel would deliver charges to
the House Judiciary Committee, which handles impeachment
proceedings, according to an audio recording of a House
Freedom Caucus fund-raiser obtained by The New York Times.
He said he had a ``five-phase plan'' for doing so and that
the Homeland Security Committee would ``put together a
packet, and we will hand it to Jim Jordan and let Jim do what
Jim does best.''
Mr. Green apparently was referring to Representative Jim
Jordan, the Ohio Republican who leads the Judiciary panel.
His comments made clear that G.O.P. leaders are serious about
their threats to impeach Mr. Mayorkas. He said the plan would
start with an appearance by the secretary before his
committee on Wednesday.
On April 19, next week, get the popcorn--Alejandro Mayorkas
comes before our committee, and it's going to be fun,'' Mr.
Green told the room, adding: ``That'll really be just the
beginning for him.''
A spokeswoman for Mr. Green did not respond to requests for
comment.
Mr. Green and other Republican leaders have made no secret
of their desire to pursue impeachment charges against Mr.
Mayorkas. Speaker Kevin McCarthy began threatening to impeach
him months before Mr. McCarthy won his gavel. But their
ambitions have been limited thus far by the political
realities of the House; not every Republican wants to
demonize Mr. Mayorkas as solely responsible for the country's
immigration problems, and with a slim majority, party leaders
do not yet have the votes to impeach him.
As a result, Mr. Green and other House Republicans in
positions of authority have been careful to avoid promising
publicly that they would find evidence against Mr. Mayorkas
worthy of prosecution. Behind closed doors with core
supporters, however, Mr. Green was less cautious, using the
issue to whip up the crowd.
During a public session on Capitol Hill on Tuesday before
the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee,
Republicans hammered Mr. Mayorkas both for the border
situation and for recent revelations, documented in an
investigation by The New York Times, that unaccompanied
migrant children have been exploited as laborers. Both
Senators Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Josh Hawley of Missouri
demanded that the secretary resign.
Mr. Mayorkas pushed back, saying his department was not
responsible for the child labor crisis.
``You are incorrectly attributing it to our policies,'' he
told Mr. Hawley. He also disputed the idea that he could be
held personally responsible for the problems at the border,
telling senators: ``Our asylum system is broken, our entire
immigration system is broken, and in desperate need of
reform--and it's been so for years and years.''
The Department of Homeland Security has dismissed calls for
Mr. Mayorkas to step down as ``baseless'' and ``reckless,''
and Mr. Mayorkas has suggested in past interviews that the
efforts to impeach him were simply a way of turbocharging
policy disputes with the administration.
Mr. Green made his comments at an event billed as a
``V.I.P. Reception and Conversation with Conservative
Heroes,'' where he appeared behind closed doors alongside Mr.
Jordan and other hard-right Republicans. He pointed to recent
testimony before his panel by Raul L. Ortiz, the Border
Patrol chief, who detailed ``an increase in flow'' in five of
the nine sectors along the U.S.-Mexico border and said it had
``caused a considerable strain on our resources.''
He also recalled Mr. Ortiz's testimony that the United
States does not have ``operational control'' of the southern
border, which Republicans seized on to accuse Mr. Mayorkas,
who had testified that the border is secure, of dishonesty.
Mr. Mayorkas addressed the apparent discrepancy during a
separate hearing last month, telling senators that he was
using a different definition of ``operational security,'' and
that the two statements were not in conflict.
Mr. Green nonetheless trumpeted Mr. Ortiz's words as a kill
shot against Mr. Mayorkas, telling the donors that ``he'll
see that video a couple of times'' during the upcoming
hearing before the Homeland Security panel.
The secretary's appearances on Capitol Hill this week come
as the Republican House is barreling ahead with what Mr.
Green told donors would be ``the most conservative border
security bill that this Congress has ever seen, or any
Congress has ever seen.'' The panel is expected to debate
that bill next week.
On Wednesday, while Mr. Mayorkas is testifying before the
Homeland Security panel, the Judiciary Committee is scheduled
to debate a second border security bill aimed at restricting
migrant inflows, including by restricting access to asylum
and requiring all employers to adopt an electronic system
that screens prospective employees' eligibility to work.
Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think that most of my colleagues here and a lot of
people back home certainly know that I had the unbelievable privilege
to interview Saddam Hussein on the night of his capture.
As I was sitting there talking to Saddam Hussein, I asked him why he
invaded Kuwait. He gave me all these
[[Page H470]]
justifications about who owned which oil field. Then he held up the
palm of his hand and he pointed to the palm of his hand and said: All
human civilization is from the Tigress and Euphrates Rivers. Every
person on the planet is an Iraqi, and I am the President of Iraq.
What Saddam Hussein was saying was he was the king of the world. The
thought struck me: How does a person get there? Well, the old adage
came to mind that absolute power corrupts absolutely. When you
concentrate power into the hands of fewer and fewer people, you get
tyranny every time. In this case, one man.
Our Founders were brilliant. They were following the philosophies of
Montesquieu, and they decided they would divide power out; they would
separate three branch of government. Then with the 10th Amendment, they
would separate power between the Federal Government, the States, and
the local governments. They did develop three equal and separate
branches of government, with the legislative branch writing the laws
and the executive branch executing the laws.
Interestingly enough, in the Iran-Contra hearing, the Democrats said
in their report: You can't pick and choose which law you want to
enforce. It is also fascinating that here we are and they say it is
about policy. This is about a systemic, planned mechanism to undo the
immigration laws passed before, just because the current Secretary
doesn't think that is what they ought to be.
This Secretary is supposed to execute those laws, but he has chosen
not to. It says, shall detain criminal felons, and he has directed his
DHS employees not to do that, violating the laws passed by this body,
telling this separate but equal branch of government: I don't care what
you say or have passed as law. I don't care that you represent the
voice of the American people. I am the guy who knows the best way to do
it, and I am going to do it my way. That is the road to tyranny, that
is power in one man's hands, and that is not what our Constitution says
it is supposed to be.
He took an oath to that Constitution to defend that Constitution that
says this branch writes, that branch executes. He has violated his oath
of office. He has subverted the laws that this body has passed and,
thus, basically said: I don't care about the Congress. That is
unacceptable. Whether he were a Republican or a Democrat standing that
way, I would be here today doing everything I could to remove him from
office.
When I was 17, I took an oath to that Constitution for the first time
and served for 24 years, willing to take a bullet for that Constitution
and the people of this country. I will not stand idly by while he
throws it in the garbage.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time for closing.
Even some House Republicans have acknowledged that there is no
constitutional basis for impeachment. Representative McClintock called
this effort an unconstitutional abuse of power and reckless, partisan,
and unserious. Representative Buck said: It is not an impeachable
offense. This is a policy difference.
Mr. Speaker, besides failing to articulate a single cognizable charge
that would meet the constitutional impeachment standard of high crimes
and misdemeanors, this sham impeachment has been marred by procedural
failures.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record documentation of those
procedural failures.
Committee on Homeland Security,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, January 26, 2024.
Hon. Mark E. Green,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Your ill-advised decision to rush to a
markup of an impeachment resolution of Secretary Alejandro
Mayorkas without any form of due process or Democrats'
properly requested minority-day hearing is disappointing yet
expected.
Nothing about this sham impeachment has abided by House
precedent, but all of it has been done to reach the
predetermined outcome you promised your donors last year.
1. This impeachment inquiry was not authorized by the full
House. Until this Congress, Republicans have railed against
pursuing impeachment without formal authorization by the full
House. The last time a Cabinet official was impeached--the
1876 case of Secretary of War William W. Belknap--the full
House authorized several committees to investigate well-
publicized cases of fraud in the Federal Government. In this
case, however, the full House was not permitted to debate the
merits (or lack thereof) of impeaching Secretary Mayorkas or
consider the proper procedures for any such investigation.
2. Secretary Mayorkas was not afforded any rights in the
absence of an authorized impeachment inquiry. Authorizing
resolutions not only imbue investigative committees with
additional authority and legitimacy, but they also afford
subjects of such investigations the ability to respond to the
investigation. When the House authorized its impeachment
inquiry into former President Donald Trump during the 116th
Congress, for example, House Resolution 660 authorized the
Committee on the Judiciary to adopt rules allowing for the
participation of the President and his counsel. In the
Belknap impeachment, the committee of primary jurisdiction
``gave [Belknap] opportunity to explain, present witnesses,
and cross-examine witnesses.'' No such rights were afforded
to Secretary Mayorkas.
3. Secretary Mayorkas was not afforded the opportunity to
testify before the Committee despite his willingness to do
so. Secretary Mayorkas has testified at congressional
hearings 27 times during his tenure--more than any other
Cabinet secretary. The Secretary said he would ``make himself
available'' to testify before the House Homeland Security
Committee, but you refused to accommodate his request and
find a mutually agreeable date. Instead, on January 18, 2024,
you offered the Secretary the opportunity to include written
testimony for the record of that day's hearing. The window to
submit such testimony will still be open by the time the
Committee proceeds to markup a resolution impeaching him on
Tuesday, January 30, 2024.
4. Democrats' properly entered minority-day hearing request
will not be acted upon prior to the markup of an impeachment
resolution. At the January 18, 2024 Committee hearing, I
furnished you with a timely demand for a minority-day
hearing, signed by all Democratic Members of the Committee,
pursuant to clause 2(j)(1) of rule XI of the Rules of the
U.S. House of Representatives. The rule is clear: ``[T]he
minority members of the committee shall be entitled . . . to
call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with
respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of
hearing thereon.'' When presented with that demand, however,
you erroneously said, ``So as I understand the rules, the
request is only in order when you don't have a witness
present and today, you have a witness present, so this not
[in] order.''
Nothing in the text of the rule supports that assertion.
Indeed, as I pointed out during our exchange, the rule states
the precise opposite: ``Although a majority of the minority
members of a committee are entitled to call witnesses
selected by the minority for at least one day of hearings, no
rule of the House requires the calling of witnesses on
opposing sides of an issue.'' The Chair is required to
schedule a minority-day hearing. Having a witness selected by
the Minority at a hearing does not preclude the request for a
minority-day hearing under rule XI.
Democrats intended to call additional Constitutional and
legal experts to continue to inform the Committee of the lack
of any grounds to proceed with the impeachment of Secretary
Mayorkas. Indeed, even frequent Republican impeachment expert
Jonathan Turley thinks that Secretary Mayorkas has not
committed an impeachable offense. The impeachment resolution
will proceed to markup without this hearing required under
House rules and the benefit of such testimony.
5. The Committee was used as a platform for Members to
campaign for other office. In blatant disregard for the House
Code of Official Conduct (House rule XXIII) and chapter 4 of
the House Ethics Manual, a Republican Member referenced his
campaign for State attorney general during his questioning
of hearing witnesses on January 10, 2024. As I pointed out
to you at the time, ``I just ask that if [the Member is]
going to run just go run, just don't run when the
committee is in session.'' This violation of ethical
standards underscores the political nature of this entire
impeachment farce: it bears no relationship to the
Constitution or whether Secretary Mayorkas has committed
an impeachable offense.
Despite these obvious defects and departures from
precedent, the Committee will regrettably proceed to a markup
of an impeachment resolution next week.
This unserious impeachment is a testament to partisan
politics over rules and reason. Just two legal experts
testified before the Committee, and both participated at the
invitation of Democrats. Both of these distinguished scholars
plainly stated that the Constitution did not support the
impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas. Given the grave importance
of impeachment--which you once described as ``probably the
most extreme remedy that our constitution affords for taking
someone out of office''--this Committee should do better. At
the very least, it should follow the rules and practices
established over more than two centuries of congressional
history.
In 1788, Alexander Hamilton wrote: ``In many cases
[impeachment] will connect
[[Page H471]]
itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all
their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on
one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always
be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated
more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real
demonstrations of innocence or guilt.''
In the inept and inappropriate ways you have handled the
Committee during this partisan sham, you have proven Hamilton
correct.
Sincerely,
Bennie G. Thompson,
Ranking Member.
____
Committee on Homeland Security,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, January 18, 2024.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Pursuant to clause 2(j)(1) of rule XI,
the Democratic Members of the Committee on Homeland Security
request a hearing to call witnesses selected by the minority
to testify with respect to the impeachment of Secretary
Alejandro N. Mayorkas, currently before the Committee.
Sincerely,
Bennie G. Thompson,
Ranking Member.
Sheila Jackson Lee,
Eric Swalwell,
Donald M. Payne, Jr.,
J. Luis Correa,
Troy A. Carter, Sr.,
Seth Magaziner,
Dan Goldman,
Delia C. Ramirez,
Dina Titus,
Shri Thanedar,
Glenn Ivey,
Robert Garcia,
Yvette D. Clarke,
Robert J. Menendez,
Members of Congress.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, the statements from the
other side this afternoon have misrepresented the facts and the laws of
this baseless, sham impeachment.
This extreme MAGA Republican majority is more about stunts rather
than solutions. This political stunt is about placating extreme
elements within the Republican Conference rather than doing what is
right for America, because it is clear that Republicans have failed to
make the case for impeachment. They have failed to articulate a single
high crime and misdemeanor. The other side of the aisle wreaks of
desperation.
Sadly, many Republicans appear willing to undermine the Constitution
they claim to hold dear to score cheap political points. I am holding
out hope that some of my colleagues across the aisle will do the right
thing, that they will join us in upholding the oath we all swore to the
Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject H. Res. 863. Vote ``no''
on this sham impeachment.
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Homeland Security has issued a
detailed rebuttal of this sham impeachment in a letter to the House
Rules Committee. I include in the Record an extract of the legal
analysis of the Department. The full letter can be found at
<a href='https://democrats-homeland.house.gov/imo/media/doc/
dhs_letter_to_rules.pdf'>https://democrats-homeland.house.gov/imo/media/doc/
dhs_letter_to_rules.pdf</a>.
Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, February 5, 2024.
Chairman Tom Cole,
Ranking Member Jim McGovern,
House Committee on Rules,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Cole and Ranking Member McGovern: We write in
connection with House Resolution 863 (the ``Resolution''),
which was introduced by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene
and approved along partisan lines by the Committee on
Homeland Security (the ``Committee''). The Resolution
contains two articles impeaching Secretary Mayorkas.
Passage of this Resolution by the House of Representatives
would be unconstitutional. The effort to impeach Secretary
Mayorkas represents a dramatic departure from over two
centuries of established understanding and precedent about
the meaning of the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution and
the proper exercise of that extraordinary tool. In addition
to lacking any basis in the Constitution, the impeachment
articles reflect a basic misrepresentation of key statutes
governing immigration law. Contrary to the Resolution's
charges, the Department of Homeland Security (``DHS'' or the
``Department'') under Secretary Mayorkas's leadership has
always followed the law in good faith, and any suggestion
otherwise is false.
I. Introduction and Summary
This letter explains why the proposed impeachment of
Secretary Mayorkas is illegitimate, invalid, and dangerous.
It proceeds in three parts. Part I describes the broad and
overwhelming consensus that the constitutional standard for
impeachment--``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors''--does not encompass mere disagreements with
policy decisions made in good faith or the lawful exercise of
enforcement discretion. Both the Constitution's text and the
Framers' explicit intent make clear that impeachment is not a
lawful remedy for partisan disputes, nor is it a permissible
means for Congress to voice its disapproval of how a Cabinet
Secretary is furthering the Administration's policies.
Indeed, Congress has twice rejected proposals to impeach
Executive Branch officials based on partisan disagreement
with their immigration enforcement decisions.
Part II explains why the effort to impeach the Secretary
lacks any basis in law and consists only of a thinly-veiled
dispute about border security and immigration policy. While
the Resolution has charged the Secretary in Article I with
``willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law,''
there is no legal or factual basis for that allegation. At
its core, the Article is nothing more than a simple list of
criticisms of the policies of the current Administration.
These assertions do not meet the Constitutional standard for
impeachment. The Secretary has followed the law in good faith
in each and every action that the Resolution cites as a
purported ground for impeachment, whether related to asylum,
detention, removals, parole processes, or any others. All of
those decisions find ample support in existing provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (``INA''). To the extent
Congress wants to change the Administration's policies, the
Constitution prescribes a different path: passing
legislation. In fact, the Secretary has worked for months
with Members of Congress from both parties to seek bipartisan
legislation--the draft of which was released yesterday--to
help solve the challenges faced at the border. There has been
no ``refusal to comply with the law,'' much less the kind of
deliberate malfeasance or personal corruption that the
Constitution requires for the extraordinary remedy of
impeachment.
Finally, Part III addresses the hodgepodge of claims under
Resolution Article II, entitled ``Breach of Public Trust.''
That Article claims that the Secretary made false statements
about ``operational control'' or border security, that he
inappropriately reversed Trump-era immigration policies, and
that he failed to comply with unidentified Congressional
subpoenas. These conclusory assertions are false, and the
Resolution provides no support for them. As detailed below,
the Secretary has not made false statements about conditions
at the border but rather transparently provided his opinions
about border security. His reversal of certain earlier
immigration policies is the result of a change of
Administrations, not a breach of the public's trust. And he
has not failed to comply with subpoenas or other oversight;
under his leadership, DHS has been extraordinarily
cooperative with Congress. It is the Committee, not the
Secretary, that has departed from regular order by abandoning
established standards and procedures that have characterized
every relevant impeachment effort in this Nation's history.
Impeachment in these circumstances, and on this record,
would represent a radical and dangerous step in violation of
the Constitution. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would
alter the balance between the Legislative and Executive
Branches and would disrupt the relationship between a
President and his or her Cabinet. The House of
Representatives should reject the proposed Articles of
Impeachment.
Impeachment Based on Partisan Policy Disputes is Unconstitutional and
Unprecedented
Under the Constitution, impeachment is an extraordinary
measure limited to ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes
and Misdemeanors.'' Although the Resolution alleges a
``Willful and Systemic Refusal to Comply with the Law'' and
``Breach of Public Trust,'' there is no basis to support
either Article. To the contrary, the entire Resolution
reduces to an expression of disagreement with and disapproval
of the Secretary's good-faith policy decisions, judgments,
and opinions about how best to pursue the Administration's
policy choices on border security and immigration enforcement
within legal bounds. Disagreement with an Administration's
policy positions and opinions is not a valid basis to impeach
a Cabinet Secretary, whose job is to execute those policies.
Constitutional text, historical precedent, and the
overwhelming body of scholarship--including every
Constitutional scholar who testified before the Committee and
dozens of others who have commented publicly on these
proceedings--confirm that impeachment of the Secretary in
these circumstances would be unconstitutional, unprecedented,
and destabilizing.
The Framers Established a High Bar for Impeachment That Does Not
Encompass Policy Disagreements
The Framers carefully erected a high bar for impeachment,
deliberately rejecting the more liberal use of that tool that
had characterized British Parliamentary practice. The Framers
specifically limited impeachment to a narrow set of
intentional and grave crimes against the public that could
undermine the constitutional order. In adopting the phrase
``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' as grounds for impeachment,
the Framers first considered, and squarely rejected, a lower
standard that would have encompassed less severe offenses
such as ``malpractice,'' ``neglect of duty,'' and
``maladministration.'' The Framers thereby sought to prevent
impeachment from becoming a mere partisan weapon that could
be
[[Page H472]]
used to supplant the President's policies for those favored
by the legislature. As the Constitution's text, the Founding
debates, and overwhelming weight of expert opinion make
clear, impeachment is not an appropriate means for Congress
to express disagreement with an official's exercise of his
duties or the policies he pursues. Rather, the Framers
determined that impeachable conduct would consist only of the
most serious intentional wrongdoing that regular elections
could not adequately remedy.
The Constitution's Text Makes Clear That Policy and Enforcement
Decisions Are Not ``High Crimes and Misdemeanors''
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution limits Congress's
power to impeach the President, Vice President and, as
relevant here, officer of the United States to: ``Treason,
Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' Because
Secretary Mayorkas has not been accused of either treason or
bribery, any article of impeachment against him must
establish that he committed ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors.''
The Framers of the Constitution intended that this term of
art encompass a narrow set of ``great'' and ``dangerous''
crimes against the public characterized by serious and
intentional ``abuses of official power.'' That was the kind
of ``breach of the public trust,'' in which the office-holder
pursued some illegitimate interest over his duty to country,
that the Framers deemed worthy of impeachment.
The Framers recognized treason and bribery as the most
serious offenses one could commit against the constitutional
system of government. The use of the word ``other'' before
``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' signaled that this category
comprises only those offenses that are similar to ``treason''
and ``bribery'' both in kind and degree. Any impeachable
``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' must involve an act of
deliberate malfeasance as serious and damaging to the
constitutional order as betraying the Nation in exchange for
personal gain, ``not merely a mistake in judgment or policy
or partisan differences.''
The Framers Rejected ``Maladministration'' and Good-Faith Policy
Disputes as a Basis for Impeachment
While American impeachment practice has roots in the
British Parliamentary system, the Framers intentionally
rejected the lower impeachment standard that system applied.
Consistent with the separation of powers established in the
Constitution, the Framers rejected ``maladministration'' as
grounds for impeachment, instead requiring deliberate and
egregious misconduct. The Framers thereby sought to prevent
Congress from employing impeachment as a mere political tool
that could subordinate the Executive to the will of Congress.
The Framers adapted the concept of impeachment from the
British Parliament, which first employed impeachment
procedures in the fourteenth century as a legislative check
against disfavored royal ministers. Because the hereditary
monarchy wielded absolute power that insulated it from direct
criticism, Parliaments dissatisfied with a monarch's policies
devised a method for removing ministers charged with carrying
out royal policies by alleging that the ministers were
incompetent or malicious in the execution of their duties. In
practice, this broad standard meant royal ministers served at
the pleasure of Parliament. Parliament's impeachment power
was limited to instances typically involving an abuse of
power exercised either through corruption or
maladministration. Because there was no formal codification
of the term, however, British officials were impeached for a
wide variety of misdeeds, ranging from personal corruption
and the commission of crimes to neglect of duty and even
providing bad advice.
Against this historical backdrop, the Framers debated
whether to adopt the British use of ``high crimes and
misdemeanors'' but decided to narrow it to willful and
egregious abuses of power. Under the resulting American
formulation, good-faith policy decisions or the exercise of
discretion do not constitute impeachable conduct.
Initially, some delegates to the Constitutional Convention
proposed that the Constitution provide for impeachment in
cases of ``mal-practice or neglect of duty.'' That language
was rejected in favor of the phrase ``treason, bribery, or
corruption,'' a revision that ``seemed to exclude mere
mismanagement or incompetence.'' George Mason then proposed
adding ``maladministration'' as a basis for impeachment. The
delegates also rejected that formulation, believing ``[a]n
election of every four years will prevent
maladministration.'' James Madison added that if the
Constitution made ``maladministration'' impeachable, ``[s]o
vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure
of the Senate'' rather than allowing officials to serve out
their terms and execute the policies that they were elected
to pursue. In other words, ``maladministration'' would create
an impeachment standard more analogous to the British
Parliamentary system. It would thereby subject the Executive
Branch to the will of Congress and allow for the removal of
the President or other Executive Branch officials for a wide
range of common transgressions, including ``inefficient
administration, or administration that did not accord with
Congress's view of good policy.'' Having created a government
executive power that, unlike the monarch in Britain, was
answerable to the voters, they concluded the impeachment
power should and need not be available for mere policy
differences or failure to perform the job adequately. The
Framers thus established that ``high Crimes and
Misdemeanors'' would not encompass mere
``maladministration.''
Additional historical records indicate that impeachment is
reserved for conduct characterized by intentional or
purposeful wrongdoing. For example, during the Virginia
Ratifying Convention, Edmund Randolph remarked that even in
England, ``[n]o man ever thought of impeaching a man for an
opinion.''
Scholars across the ideological spectrum agree that the
``Framers' rejection of `maladministration' as a basis for
impeachment was, in effect, a rejection of a standard'' that
lacked prerequisites such as bad faith or corrupt intent. As
Professor Charles Black explained in his seminal treatment of
impeachment, ``certainly the phrase `high Crimes and
Misdemeanors,' whatever its vagueness at the edges, seems
absolutely to forbid the removal of a president on the
grounds that Congress does not on the whole think his
administration of public affairs is good.'' Thus, ``whatever
may be the grounds for impeachment and removal, dislike of a
president's policy is definitely not one of them, and ought
to play no part in the decision on impeachment.'' Likewise,
impeachment scholar Professor Michael Gerhardt observed,
following a comprehensive review of historical impeachment
precedent, that the Senate has ``concluded that impeachable
offenses do not include errors of judgment or policy
differences.'' Professor Keith Whittington similarly
concluded that the adoption of the phrase ``high crimes and
misdemeanors'' ``seemed to capture the range of potential
dangers that concerned Madison and others, without leaving
the president vulnerable to impeachment over routine
political and policy disagreements.''
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, Homeland Security Committee
Chairman Mark Green denied Secretary Mayorkas the ability to testify
during the committee's sham impeachment ``investigation.'' Secretary
Mayorkas, however, wrote the Chairman to set the record straight. I
include in the Record the Secretary's January 30, 2024, letter to
Chairman Green.
U.S. Department of
Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, January 30, 2024.
Hon. Mark E. Green,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Green: On January 5, 2024, you sent a letter
to me requesting that I again appear before the House
Homeland Security Committee to provide testimony. I have
testified before this Committee seven times. I agreed to
testify again and asked to work with your staff to identify a
mutually agreeable date. You did not respond to my request,
changed course, and instead invited me to submit written
testimony. Two days later, you issued a statement
representing that every member of the Committee's majority
already had rendered their decision. I respectfully submit
this letter in response.
The problems with our broken and outdated immigration
system are not new. I assumed office in February 2021.
Immigration cases concluded that year reportedly had been
languishing in court for an average of 1,319 days. In 2010,
that average was 347 days. The Department of Justice's
Executive Office for Immigration Review reports that at the
end of Fiscal Year 2020, there were 1,261,144 cases in the
immigration court backlog. In 2017 that number was 656,383.
The DHS Office of Immigration Statistics reported that there
were approximately 11.4 million undocumented individuals
present in the United States in 2018. Our immigration laws
last received an overhaul in 1996. Our immigration laws were
simply not built for 21st century migration patterns.
In 2019, prior to the onset of COVID and as country
conditions in Latin America were on the decline, the number
of migrants encountered at our Southwest Border increased
almost 100 percent over the prior year. In this post-COVID
period, the challenges at our border have again intensified
as the world experiences the greatest displacement of people
since World War II and our entire hemisphere is gripped with
mass migration brought on by violence, food insecurity,
severe poverty, corruption, authoritarian regimes, and the
destruction of homes and communities by extreme weather
events. These movements are facilitated by human smuggling
organizations that exploit migrants as part of a billion-
dollar criminal enterprise. The depth of suffering that
migrants are willing to endure speaks to the desperation they
feel about their prospects at home.
We need a legislative solution and only Congress can
provide it. I have been privileged to join a bipartisan group
of United States Senators these past several months to
provide technical and operational expertise in support of
their efforts to strengthen our country's border security.
These efforts would yield significant new enforcement tools
and make a substantial difference at our border.
Our law enforcement personnel need additional resources to
execute our border security and enforcement strategy, which
is why the Administration requested supplemental funding in
August and then again in October 2023. That request included
the hiring of an additional 1,300 Border Patrol Agents, 1,000
law enforcement officers and the purchase and deployment of
over 100 cutting-edge
[[Page H473]]
Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) systems to prevent cartels
from moving fentanyl into the country, and 1,600 additional
asylum officers to rapidly adjudicate claims for asylum and
facilitate timely decisions so that those who are ineligible
can be quickly removed and those with valid claims can
receive prompt resolution.
Instead, you claim that we have failed to enforce our
immigration laws. That is false. We have provided Congress
and your Committee hours of testimony, thousands of
documents, hundreds of briefings, and much more information
that demonstrates quite clearly how we are enforcing the law.
The extensive material we have provided informed you that,
for example:
This Administration has removed, returned, or expelled more
migrants in three years than the prior Administration did in
four years.
Since May 12, 2023, DHS has removed or returned more than
500,000 individuals, the vast majority of whom crossed the
Southwest Border.
Total removals and returns since mid-May 2023 exceed
removals and returns in every full fiscal year since 2015.
Daily removals and returns are nearly double what they were
compared to the pre-pandemic average from 2014 to 2019. The
majority of individuals encountered at the Southwest Border
throughout this Administration have been removed, returned,
or expelled.
We have significantly increased the number of removal
flights within the Western Hemisphere since the end of Title
42, sending over 20 flights per week of individuals who have
been rapidly processed and determined to be removable. We
continue to repatriate individuals to more than 150
countries.
Before 2013, the majority of individuals attempting to
cross the border entered without being caught. Under this
Administration, the estimated annual apprehension rate has
averaged 78 percent, the same average rate of apprehension as
in the prior Administration.
We developed and implemented a regulation that created a
presumption of ineligibility for asylum if an individual who
crossed the Southwest Border without authorization traveled
through another country and failed to meet defined criteria,
including the use of lawful pathways made available to them.
We have been executing an unprecedented and high-impact
campaign to disrupt and dismantle the smuggling
organizations. More than 14,000 smugglers throughout the
region have been arrested and thousands have been prosecuted
under federal law.
We have worked with Mexico to conduct mirrored patrols
along the Southwest Border, and we have worked with Mexico
and other countries to increase interdictions along the
migratory routes, increase repatriation flights, and execute
the removal of third-country nationals.
Last year we secured funding to hire 300 more Border Patrol
Agents, the first increase in more than a decade. Last year I
was honored to promote Jason Owens, a career Border Patrol
Agent, as the new Chief of the United States Border Patrol.
Undoubtedly, we have policy disagreements on the
historically divisive issue of immigration. That has been the
case between Administrations and Members of Congress for much
longer than the past 38 years since the last overhaul of our
immigration system. I think it is unconscionable to separate
children from their parents as a tool of deterrence. I
believe that law enforcement at the border can be tough and
humane. It is our responsibility to the American people to
work through our differences and try to reach solutions
together. The bipartisan group of United States Senators is
currently doing just that.
The trafficking and use of illegal drugs are also not new
problems for our country. We have been fighting the war
against drugs for decades. When I was working to convict drug
dealers and traffickers as a federal prosecutor throughout
the 1990s--including the prosecution of the largest cocaine
money laundering operation in the country at the time--I saw
up close the loss and damage wreaked by black tar heroin,
methamphetamine, crack cocaine, and other illegal drugs. I
was dedicated then, as I am now, to defeating this scourge
upon our country.
What I saw for twelve years as a federal prosecutor does
not compare to what our country has experienced and what we
have been fighting for more than the past seven years. The
addictiveness and fatality of synthetic opioids have cost
hundreds of thousands of lives and have ravaged communities.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports
that overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids--primarily
fentanyl--began to climb in 2014 and have accelerated since.
Provisional data from the CDC reflects 28,659 overdose deaths
involving synthetic opioids in 2017, escalating to 56,894 in
2020; 71,143 in 2021; and 74,789 in 2022. Every death from
drug overdoses and poisoning is a tragedy.
The battle against fentanyl presents unique challenges
because fentanyl is cheap to make, easily concealed, and made
with precursor chemicals and materials that have legal uses.
We have intensified our efforts against the cartels and
developed new strategies in response. In Fiscal Year 2023 our
targeted operations seized more than 43,000 pounds of
fentanyl, 3,600 pill presses, and $16 million in currency. We
work closely with partners in other countries. Homeland
Security Investigations has established 16 Transnational
Criminal Investigative Units (TCIUs) that are successfully
supporting investigations and prosecutions abroad. In Fiscal
Year 2023, efforts by the Mexico TCIU resulted in more than
59 criminal arrests and the seizure of 64,138 pounds of
precursor chemicals.
To better detect smuggling, we are dramatically expanding
the use of NII technology at ports of entry, through which
more than 90 percent of fentanyl is smuggled into the United
States. We are adding new state-of-the-art NII systems to
complement those currently in use across Southwest Border
ports of entry, with 72 construction projects underway at 15
ports.
Our strategy has evolved to target not just fentanyl, but
also the tools and materials the transnational criminal
organizations use to make it. We are interdicting and seizing
precursor chemicals, pill press machines, die molds, and pill
press parts used in the manufacturing process. We are
targeting Chinese pill press and precursor supply chains,
Mexican pill press brokers, the Mexican transnational
criminal organizations and the domestic traffickers who are
producing and moving fentanyl, and the money launderers who
help facilitate this illicit trade. Our efforts over the past
year have resulted in the seizure of nearly 1 million pounds
of fentanyl and methamphetamine precursor chemicals.
Our Department is helping partners in the Western
Hemisphere and Asia build their own capacity to combat the
smuggling of illicit fentanyl. We recently established a
working group for ongoing communication and law enforcement
coordination with the People's Republic of China to increase
cooperation and information sharing.
We are innovating with the responsible use of artificial
intelligence at our ports of entry. This year alone, machine
learning models that help CBP Officers determine which
suspicious vehicles and passengers to refer to secondary
screening have led to 240 seizures, which included thousands
of pounds of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and fentanyl.
More details about our efforts to combat fentanyl can be
found in this recent DHS fact sheet.
There is much more to do in the fight against fentanyl and
other synthetic opioids. We must reduce both supply and
demand. To accomplish this, we must work together to tackle
what we all agree is a horrific problem that poses grave
danger to our citizens, our communities, and our nation.
The Chairman and Members of the Committee's majority have
harshly criticized the Department's responsiveness to
oversight. The allegations are baseless and inaccurate.
I take very seriously my responsibility to cooperate in
good faith with Congress's oversight function. I have devoted
significant Departmental resources and personal time to this
effort. I have testified publicly in 27 Congressional
hearings since I became DHS Secretary. Twelve of those
hearings were in the House of Representatives, including
seven before the House Homeland Security Committee. I have
testified more than any other member of the Cabinet.
In every House hearing, I was asked and I answered many
questions about immigration and the border. In all but one of
those hearings, I was asked and I answered questions about
our counter-fentanyl work. The Department has produced
thousands of pages of documents, provided countless
briefings, and sent dozens of witnesses to appear in hearings
and transcribed interviews. We have produced more than 13,000
pages of documents and data in response to this Committee's
requests alone. Further information evidencing the
Department's response to Congressional oversight is attached.
Whatever proceedings you initiate, however baseless, my
responsiveness to oversight requests will not waiver. The
Department has been committed to responding and will continue
to respond in good faith to Congressional oversight requests.
I will defer a discussion of the Constitutionality of your
current effort to the many respected scholars and experts
across the political spectrum who already have opined that it
is contrary to law. What I will not defer to others is a
response to the politically motivated accusations and
personal attacks you have made against me.
I have been privileged to serve our country for most of my
professional life. I have adhered scrupulously and fervently
to the Oath of Office I have taken six times in my public
service career.
My reverence for law enforcement was instilled in me by my
parents, who brought me to this country to escape the
Communist takeover of Cuba and allow me the freedoms and
opportunity that our democracy provides. My parents
experienced such loss at the fisted hands of authoritarianism
that the American law enforcement officer stood as a tangible
symbol of safety and the rule of law in our new home. When I
was a boy, my mother would have me jump out of the back seat
of our family's station wagon, approach a police officer in
uniform, extend my hand, and say thank you.
It was because of everything America meant and gave to my
family that I was motivated to enter public service. It was
because of my admiration and respect for the men and women
who wore a badge that I wanted to work with them to enforce
our country's laws. In 1989, I was privileged to take the
Oath of Office and be sworn-in as an Assistant United States
Attorney for the Central District of California.
For the next nearly nine years, I worked with federal,
state, and local law enforcement agents and officers in the
investigation and prosecution of federal crimes. We seized
[[Page H474]]
and forfeited property purchased with proceeds of drug deals,
and successfully prosecuted bank robbers; counterfeiters;
members of the MS-13, 18th Street, Crips, Bloods, and other
street gangs; cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana
traffickers; migrant smugglers; illegal border crossers (most
often criminals with multiple felonies, deportations, and
reentries); fraudulent document manufacturers; illegal
telemarketers; and many others. In 1996 I became the Chief of
our General Crimes Section, where I trained all new Assistant
United States Attorneys in the investigation and prosecution
of federal criminal cases and how to try them before a jury.
I have represented the United States in a federal courtroom
in hundreds of hard-fought criminal cases.
In 1998 I was confirmed to serve as the United States
Attorney for the Central District of California. I was the
first federal prosecutor in our office's history to be
promoted from within to the top leadership position. To have
my father at my side as I took the Oath to assume that role
was one of the proudest moments of my life.
Over the next three years, I prosecuted cases of national
and international significance, enforcing a wide breadth of
criminal statutes. I pursued the death penalty against
members of the Mexican mafia, brought RICO charges against a
Los Angeles street gang, and successfully prosecuted federal
cases of money laundering, public corruption, human
trafficking, foreign corrupt practices, drug trafficking,
securities fraud, violent crime, immigration fraud, organized
crime, and much more. A partial list of the recognition I
received for my work as an Assistant United States Attorney
and as the United States Attorney is attached.
I returned to public service in August 2009, upon my
confirmation as the Director of U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services. I vividly remember taking the Oath and
getting to work on a top-to-bottom review of the agency and
leading a subsequent realignment to best serve its mission.
As a result of that review, I created a new Directorate
within the agency--the Fraud Detection and National Security
Directorate--to prioritize and more effectively fulfill the
fundamental responsibilities of safeguarding our homeland and
protecting the integrity of our legal immigration system.
I served as the Director of U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services for four years, until I was nominated
and confirmed by the United States Senate to serve as the
Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security. My responsibilities as
the Deputy Secretary covered the entire expanse of the
Department's work, from going after the drug cartels,
building the Department's cybersecurity capabilities,
combating illegal immigration, and strengthening the
Department's partnerships with state and local law
enforcement, to negotiating security agreements with foreign
countries, implementing new trade and travel protocols, and
advancing our interests in the Arctic.
For my service as the Deputy Secretary of Homeland
Security, I was awarded the Distinguished Service Award, the
Department's highest civilian honor; the Distinguished Public
Service Award, the United States Coast Guard's highest
civilian honor; and recognition and awards from law
enforcement agencies across the Department and the federal
government.
On February 2, 2021, 1 took the Oath for the sixth time in
my public service career and was sworn-in as the Secretary of
Homeland Security. I am now in my 22nd year of service to our
country. I no longer introduce and argue evidence in a
federal courtroom to persuade the jury to convict a dangerous
criminal, but the mission to which I remain devoted is the
same: to safeguard the American people.
I assure you that your false accusations do not rattle me
and do not divert me from the law enforcement and broader
public service mission to which I have devoted most of my
career and to which I remain devoted. The privilege of
working alongside the 260,000 men and women who serve in the
Department of Homeland Security--the privilege of working
with incredibly talented and dedicated people on behalf of
the United States of America--is the greatest thing one can
do.
Secretary,
Alejandro N. Mayorkas,
Secretary.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, former Department of
Homeland Security officials recognize that this impeachment is baseless
and has the potential to distract from the ``actual business of
legislating.'' A divisive impeachment is far from a constructive
solution. I include in the Record a letter by former senior homeland
security officials who are opposed to this political stunt.
January 17, 2024.
Representative Mark E. Green, MD,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Representative Bennie G. Thompson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Opposition to the Impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas Sign-On Letter
As former senior homeland security officials who served in
administrations of both parties, we are compelled to express
our deep concern regarding the potential impeachment of
Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
Impeaching Secretary Mayorkas over long-standing political
differences on immigration and border policies would be a
grave mistake with far-reaching consequences for our national
security and economic prosperity. The U.S. southern border is
undeniably facing challenges, but assigning blame solely
based on political and partisan grounds will do little to
address the complex issues at hand.
It is imperative to consider the historical context;
Congress has not impeached a Cabinet Secretary in over a
century. Impeachment is a tool to remove officers of the
government for treason, bribery, and high crimes and
misdemeanors. The Founders never intended it to be used as a
tool for mitigating policy disagreements.
Initiating such proceedings not only threatens to undermine
national security but sets a perilous precedent that could
have dire implications for the stability of our government.
Impeaching Secretary Mayorkas would only serve to distract
from the pressing need to implement effective policy
solutions to rectify our immigration system and fortify
America's national security.
The bipartisan struggle to assert control over the southern
border has persisted for more than two decades, transcending
administrations of both Democratic and Republican
orientations. Resorting to a partisan impeachment would be
counterproductive, exacerbating the existing polarization
around this critical issue without addressing its root
causes.
Furthermore, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has
grappled with challenges in attracting and confirming senior
officials, a situation detrimental to its overall
functionality. Impeaching a Senate-confirmed Secretary would
only contribute to the chaotic leadership structure,
hindering the crucial mission of DHS in ensuring the security
and economic success of our nation.
The significance of DHS's mission cannot be overstated,
ranging from processing legal travelers at air and seaports
to confronting drug-related threats at the border to securing
aviation and other critical infrastructure to cybersecurity
and many other missions. The performance of DHS directly
impacts the lives of everyday Americans, and it is incumbent
upon us to navigate the current challenges with a focus on
constructive solutions rather than divisive measures.
We urge both Republicans and Democrats to set aside
political differences and collaborate to develop genuine and
meaningful changes to address the situation at the border.
Ongoing negotiations around border security and funding
present a potential opportunity for constructive development.
We advocate for legislative solutions, including adequate
funding, to replace the outdated policies that currently
characterize our immigration system. It is crucial that
Congress prioritizes solutions that strengthen our borders,
treat migrants with dignity, and reduce backlogs that delay
decisions on asylum claims, legal immigration petitions, and
other cases and applications.
To be clear, the signatories to this letter do not all
agree with the wisdom or effectiveness of all the immigration
and border policies Secretary Mayorkas oversees, just as we
often disagreed with policies his predecessors implemented.
However, escalating these policy disagreements into an
impeachment proceeding is a dangerous distraction from the
actual business of legislating, where Congress' focus should
lie.
We urge the House of Representatives not to initiate or
conclude impeachment proceedings against Secretary Mayorkas.
If the House completes such an impeachment, we urge the
Senate to reject the proposal.
Thank you,
Jayson Ahern, Former Commissioner (A), U.S. Customs and
Border Protection; Ross Ashley, Former Assistant
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency; Thomas
Atkin, Former Special Assistant to the President and Senior
Director for Border and Transportation Security Policy;
Douglas Baker, Former Special Assistant to the President for
Homeland Security and Senior Director for Border and
Transportation Security Policy; Alan Bersin, Former Assistant
Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; William Booher, Former
Public Affairs Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency;
Ed Cash, Former Director, Intergovernmental Affairs, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; Gus Coldebella, Former
Deputy and Acting General Counsel, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Gil Kerlikowske, Former Commissioner, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection.
Prakash Khatri, Former Citizenship and Immigration Services
Ombudsman, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Admiral
James M. Loy, Former Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; David A. Martin, Former Deputy and Acting
General Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Lynden
Melmed, Former Chief Counsel, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services; Robert Mocny, Former Senior Executive,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Michael Neifach, Former
Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; Elizabeth Neumann, Former Assistant Secretary
for Threat Prevention and Security Policy, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Leon Rodriguez, Former Director, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services.
W. Price Roe, Former Counselor to the Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; Paul Rosenzweig, Former
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Seth Stodder,
[[Page H475]]
Former Assistant Secretary for Borders, Immigration & Trade
Policy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; C. Stewart
Verdery, Jr., Former Assistant Secretary for Borders and
Transportation Security Policy and Planning, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security; Dave West, Former Advisor,
International Affairs, U.S. Department of Homeland Security;
Jim Williams, Former Director, US-VISIT, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Julie Myers Wood, Former Assistant
Secretary, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; James Ziglar, Former
Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, former Secretary of
Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, who was appointed by Republican
President George W. Bush, wrote an op-ed for the conservative Wall
Street Journal opposed to the baseless impeachment of Secretary
Mayorkas. Former Secretary Chertoff wrote that House Republicans have,
quote ``failed to put forth evidence that meets the bar'' for an
impeachable offense. I include in the Record the Chertoff op-ed.
[From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 28, 2024]
Don't Impeach Alejandro Mayorkas
(By Michael Chertoff)
Political and policy disagreements aren't impeachable
offenses. The Constitution gives Congress the power to
impeach federal officials for treason, bribery and ``other
high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' That's a high bar. In the
history of our republic, only one cabinet secretary has been
impeached (for receiving corrupt kickback payments).
The House Homeland Security Committee is moving toward a
Jan. 30 vote on articles of impeachment against Homeland
Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, with a possible vote
by the full House on Feb. 5. As homeland security secretary
under President George W. Bush--and as a former federal
judge, U.S. attorney and assistant attorney general--I can
say with confidence that, for all the investigating that the
House Committee on Homeland Security has done, they have
failed to put forth evidence that meets the bar.
This is why Republicans aren't seeking to hold Mr. Mayorkas
to the Constitution's ``high crimes and misdemeanors''
standard for impeachment. They make the unsupported argument
that he is derelict in his duty.
Since Mr. Mayorkas took office, the majority of migrants
encountered at the Southwest border have been removed,
returned or expelled. In fact, since the pandemic-era Title
42 policy was ended last May, DHS removed, returned or
expelled more noncitizens than in any five-month period in
the past 10 years. The truth is that our national immigration
system is outdated, and DHS leaders under both parties have
done their best to manage our immigration system without
adequate congressional support.
I don't agree with every policy decision the Biden
administration has made. There are aspects of immigration
strategy that are worthy of debate. But House Republicans are
ducking difficult policy work and hard-fought compromise.
Impeachment is a diversion from fixing our broken immigration
laws and giving DHS the resources needed to secure the
border.
Our nation is at its best when our leaders work together to
confront the seemingly intractable. The situation at our
border and our national security, demand such bipartisan
collaboration.
Despite our different parties, I know Mr. Mayorkas to be
fair and honest--dedicated to the safety and security of the
U.S. He has represented DHS to the country and to both
parties in Congress with integrity. Republicans in the House
should drop this impeachment charade and work with Mr.
Mayorkas to deliver for the American people.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, it comes as no surprise
that the Biden administration is opposed to this sham impeachment. The
Biden administration has done everything in its power to uphold the law
and have an orderly, humane approach to border security. I include in
the Record a Statement of Administration Policy opposing the baseless
impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas.
Statement of Administration Policy
H. Res. 863--Resolution Impeaching Secretary of Homeland Security
Alejandro Mayorkas--Rep. Greene, R-GA
The Administration strongly opposes H. Res. 863, a House
resolution introduced by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene to
impeach Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas.
Secretary Mayorkas, a Cuban immigrant who came to the
United States with his family as political refugees, has
spent more than two decades serving his country with honor
and integrity in a decorated career in law enforcement and
public service. From his time in the Justice Department as a
U.S. Attorney to his service as Deputy Secretary and now
Secretary of Homeland Security, he has upheld the rule of law
faithfully and has demonstrated a deep commitment to the
values that make our Nation great. Impeaching Secretary
Mayorkas would be an unprecedented and unconstitutional act
of political retribution that would do nothing to solve the
challenges our Nation faces in securing the border.
This impeachment effort clearly fails to meet the
Constitution's threshold for impeachable offenses. The
Constitution permits impeachment only for ``Treason, Bribery,
or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' The impeachment
power was never intended as a device for members of an
opposing political party to harass Executive Branch officials
over policy disputes. Legal scholars across the ideological
spectrum, including every scholar who testified to Congress
about the Resolution and conservatives who have previously
sided with Congressional Republicans on matters of
impeachment, agree that impeaching Secretary Mayorkas would
be an ``abuse of the Constitution'' and that there is no
``cognizable basis'' for it.''
The Resolution's purported grounds for impeachment have no
basis in law or fact. The Resolution does not demonstrate a
failure to follow the law in any respect, let alone a
``willful'' one. Nor does it demonstrate that Secretary
Mayorkas has ``breached the public trust.'' To the contrary,
the Secretary has scrupulously followed the law, faithfully
implemented policies to address the significant and
longstanding challenges at the border, and engaged with
Congress and the public in a manner that is truthful and
transparent.
Impeaching Secretary Mayorkas would trivialize this solemn
constitutional power and invite more partisan abuse of this
authority in the future. It would do nothing to solve the
challenges we face in securing our Nation's borders, nor
would it provide the funding the President has repeatedly
requested for more Border Patrol agents, immigration judges,
and cutting-edge tools to detect and stop fentanyl at the
border.
If the House of Representatives wishes to address these
challenges, the Constitution provides an obvious means:
passing legislation. The Administration will continue to
engage with Congress to enact bipartisan solutions for
securing our border and strengthening our immigration system
and strongly urges the House of Representatives to join us,
instead of supporting this baseless impeachment.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
As you have heard, the evidence against Secretary Mayorkas is
compelling, but so too is the constitutional justification for
impeachment. The constitutional history and the Framers' intent are
clear. We, the people's Representatives, have no option but to exercise
this duty when executive branch officials blatantly refuse to comply
with the laws we have passed, threaten the separation of powers,
imperil the constitutional order, and expose Americans to untold
suffering and death.
This historical record is unambiguous. From Madison to Hamilton, the
Framers uniformly believed that executive branch officials who fail to
defend the Constitution and enforce the law should no longer hold
office.
We know that Secretary Mayorkas has refused to comply with the law.
We know that he lied to Congress and breached the public trust. We all
witnessed the horrific consequences.
In closing, my question to my colleagues is this: If Secretary
Mayorkas' brazen, blatant disregard for the laws we have passed is not
enough to warrant action, why are we even here? What is the point of
passing laws if we allow the executive branch to violate those laws
with impunity?
Do we care so little for our constitutional role and responsibilities
that we would allow an official of either party to openly defy laws
passed by this House, the people's House? I truly hope not. That would
be a dangerous precedent and a serious abdication of our duty.
Willfully violating the law to open America's borders to millions of
unvetted migrants and breaching the public trust are grave offenses
against our country, our Constitution, and our constituents. It is,
therefore, incumbent upon us, on this solemn day, to fulfill our oaths
to the Constitution and exercise the power to impeach.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 863,
Republicans' sham effort to impeach Department of Homeland Security
Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
House Republicans are choosing to pursue an impeachment that has no
basis in wrongdoing by Secretary Mayorkas. Their cynical ploy has
everything to do with weaponizing a constitutional process in an
attempt to divert attention from their inability to provide viable
solutions to the border crisis. Secretary Mayorkas has not violated the
law, let alone committed ``high crimes and misdemeanors,''
[[Page H476]]
which is the constitutional standard for impeachment.
Rather than working toward bipartisan solutions, House Republicans
are doing the bidding of former President Donald Trump in a pointless
attempt to reinstate the Trump administration's failed and inhumane
border policies. They know these policies will not become law. They are
actively blocking real solutions for the complex issues that impact
border communities and migrants.
House Republicans should stop wasting time and taxpayer resources by
pushing lies and to score cheap political points with their MAGA base
and instead work together with Democrats to solve problems for the
American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the previous question is ordered on
the resolution, as amended.
Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of H. Res.
863 is postponed.
____________________