Recognizing the courageous actions of Reverend Nat Turner in his fight to abolish slavery and make the majestic words of the Jeffersonian Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", apply to the enslaved, and for other purposes.

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.

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).

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).

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).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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. 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).

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).

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. 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. 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).

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. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).

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. 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

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.

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 https://democrats-homeland.house.gov/imo/media/doc/ dhs_letter_to_rules.pdf.

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

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. 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

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

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. 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,

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. 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. 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. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Fallon).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Guest).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Ciscomani).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains for each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Ezell).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

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. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi.

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

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. 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.

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. 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

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.