Impeaching Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This impeachment resolution was supposed to be our second rule of the day. We had an emergency meeting last week in the Rules Committee about fixing SALT. Everybody hurry up, it is an emergency. Better do it right away so we can vote quickly. Then--get this--last night a change was made to pull their emergency bill from the schedule. It was such an emergency that Republicans decided it is not an emergency at all.

Not only did their bill not even fix the problem that they, themselves, created, it is not even going to come to the floor now because of their inability to govern. This majority is so incompetent, they couldn't even manufacture a fake vote to pretend New York Republicans are good at legislating.

We wasted hours last Thursday at the Rules Committee debating a rule that has now been pulled from consideration--and for what? Will the gentleman from Texas tell us next that he is glad he had to sit through a hearing on a rule his leadership can't even bring up because they are so bad at governing? This Republican-led House is an unmitigated disaster. I would say it is a clown show, but that would be a disservice to actual working clowns.

That brings us to the second emergency rule. Mr. Speaker, impeachment is one of the most solemn, serious, somber things that we can do in this body. It is not something that ought to get thrown around lightly or invoked when you disagree with someone or you don't like their policies or you think they are doing a bad job.

It is something that should happen after a grave constitutional offense has been committed, a crime against the Republic. The Founders in Article I reserve it only for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Consequently, today, I am very confused because our Republican colleagues have presented zero evidence for impeachment. This could be the first time in American history an impeachment will go to the floor of the United States House of Representatives with no evidence, no proof, no elements of a crime, nothing at all.

You don't have to take my word for it. Listen to the lead Republican for immigration policy, our colleague, Tom McClintock. He says: ``The problem is they [the Articles] fail to identify an impeachable crime that Mayorkas has committed. In effect, they stretch and distort the Constitution in order to hold the administration accountable. . . .''

Another Republican, Ken Buck, says: Secretary Mayorkas did not commit an impeachable offense and is not guilty of high crimes or misdemeanors.

These are not my words. These are your fellow colleagues, Mr. Speaker, openly admitting that these vague, unprecedented Articles of Impeachment trivialize this process and make a total mockery of this institution. What does this impeachment have to do with fixing our challenges at the border? Nothing at all.

They say this is about securing the border, and their plan to secure the border is to impeach the guy responsible for securing the border and replace him with--now wait for this, wait for it--they aren't sure. The chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security couldn't tell us during our Rules Committee meeting who will replace Secretary Mayorkas if he were removed. I mean, you can't make this stuff up.

For months and months and months, Republicans have said that they would shut down the government, they would default on our debt, refuse to do anything unless we passed a border bill. Well, good news. Senate Republicans worked out a border bill, and the person who negotiated it for Republicans, Senator Lankford, was someone Donald Trump endorsed. Donald Trump said that Senator Lankford is ``strong on the border.'' Therefore, I am shocked by the Republican rejection of Senator Lankford's bill.

Before we even saw what was in it, before the ink was even dry on the discussion draft, Donald Trump came out, and he ordered them to kill it. He ordered them to do nothing to fix our broken immigration system. They would rather let chaos prevail than work with Democrats to have a conversation about a path forward.

Here is the truth, Mr. Speaker. Republicans simply do not want to participate in government. They want to create chaos. They want to create confusion, and they want to create a campaign issue for Donald Trump going into the next election. They are not interested in solving problems. They only want to gain power.

That is the real dereliction of duty here: House Republicans' refusal to address our challenges at the border because Donald Trump told them he wants a crisis so he can help his campaign, so he can hide from his crimes.

Well, they own this now. Republicans own this now. They own the border. They own the fentanyl crisis. They own it all because they refuse to behave like adults. They are acting like spoiled, rotten children who got what they want and still can't take ``yes'' for an answer, but they own all of this now.

If anyone needs more proof than that, look no further than the sponsor of this resolution--Marjorie Taylor Greene, a MAGA extremist who amplifies Holocaust deniers, who said 9/11 was a hoax, who says wildfires are started by Jewish space lasers. That is the legislative and intellectual force behind this impeachment resolution. In fact, if it passes, she is going to be an impeachment manager on the floor of the United States Senate. God help us.

It is just more proof that this is fraudulent, unconstitutional garbage, but Donald Trump wants another fraudulent impeachment, another distraction from his own legal troubles, another excuse to kill a bipartisan border deal instead of working across the aisle to get something done.

Here we are, because Trump calls the shots around here. He directed Speaker Johnson and extreme MAGA Republicans not to work with Democrats to address challenges at the border. One thing we know, Republicans work for Trump, not for the voters. They worship and they work for Donald Trump, who doesn't care about anybody but himself. They are frightened to death of the former President.

Mr. Speaker, Secretary Mayorkas is a good man, a decent man, someone who is trying to do his job despite the fact that Republicans refuse to give him the tools needed to do what they are asking him to do. He is an honorable public servant who respects law enforcement and takes seriously his oath of office and his obligation to uphold and enforce the law.

In smearing his good name, Republicans are only impeaching themselves and showing that all their rhetoric about the border has been nothing more than a bunch of BS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas just took almost 10 minutes--10 minutes of my life which I will never get back--and still didn't get it right, which is basically that this move to impeach Secretary Mayorkas is a sham. There is no basis for this.

Just because you don't like the guy or disagree with the policies of this administration is not a reason--it is not a high crime and misdemeanor. It is not a reason to move forward on impeachment.

I am listening to the gentleman and also my colleague from Texas. Republicans are really good about complaining about things, talking about what the problems are. We agree with

some of the things that have been highlighted, that they are problems. What my Republican friends are not really good at is actually solving a problem or getting to yes on anything.

The gentleman from Texas said: Oh, we are asked to consider a Senate bill that the Senate hasn't acted on. Wait a minute. The Speaker of this House of Representatives has already said he will not have a vote in this House, no matter what happens in the United States Senate.

Donald Trump, the guy you are all afraid of, has been making calls saying: You better not do this. You better not do this.

The author of this Senate bill--again, I haven't read it all--there is lots of stuff in it that gives me heartburn, from what I can tell, but the guy who wrote it was a Senator from Oklahoma who Donald Trump says is strong on the border.

I will repeat what I said before: What we are doing today does nothing to help anything at the border--not a thing, not one thing.

Any opportunity to do something requires working in a bipartisan way to move a bill forward, which apparently my Republican friends here in the House do not want to do.

That is a shame, but here is the deal: You now own this. This is a problem that you are maintaining, that you have deliberately decided that you will own, because you will do nothing.

You are blocking any attempt for any kind of legislation to come to this floor that has a chance of passing in a bipartisan way and getting signed into law. You are doing it. Even the Border Patrol union has endorsed what the Senate is doing.

I haven't read the whole thing yet. I bet you none of you have either. Even before the ink was dry on the draft copy, Trump gave you the orders to kill it, and that is where we are.

Complaining about a problem, I get it. Maybe it used to be good politics, but here is what I am predicting. The American people are watching. They are now seeing how this works. If we want a bill, if we want to work in a bipartisan way, there is a bipartisan coalition that developed in the Senate, led by a very conservative Republican Senator, and they come up with a bill. As soon as they do: No, we don't want to solve the problem. We want to continue the problem for political purposes.

So now you own all of this. You own all of this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas to ask this question:

Does he agree or disagree that to change enforcement we must change the law? Does he agree that we need to change the law if we are going to change enforcement?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am using Dr. Burgess' words from 6/18/2018 when he said: We know that to change enforcement we must change the law.

Then he went on to talk about immigration bills that we might consider in Congress, and he talked about the importance of legislation, and this is how democracy works.

So the bottom line is, Republicans are really good about complaining but they are not so good at legislating. They are not so good at getting things done. When things begin to move in the direction where we may get something done, then they back away and they say no. They can't get to yes on anything.

That is not leadership. That is not governing. That is, frankly, incompetence. When Trump was President my friends were saying one thing, and now that Biden is President, they are saying another thing.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is if we are going to get something done, we need to come together in a bipartisan way. That is what has begun to happen over in the Senate.

For the life of me, I do not understand why the Speaker of the House of Representatives, why my colleagues on the Republican side, one after another after another do not want to do anything.

Well, you know what, if you do not want to do anything, that means you are satisfied with the status quo and you own this problem. This is a problem of your creation because we are trying to fix it and we are trying to work in a bipartisan way.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would ensure every American has full access to a central reproductive healthcare, including abortion care.

Far too many States have enacted laws to either ban some or all abortions, which many Republicans have declared numerous times is their goal.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick) to discuss that proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, again, the gentleman from Texas confuses me because not too long ago--and I will use one of his quotes--he said: ``President Trump has presented a clear path forward; however, he cannot solve this crisis alone.''

Those are the gentleman's words.

Congress must stand ready to put partisan politics aside and pass meaningful solutions, but now all of a sudden Joe Biden can do it alone?

I mean, when Trump was President, he needed Congress, according to the gentleman, to give him the ability to be able to do what he wants on the border. Now, all of a sudden, it is a different story because it is a different President.

Mr. Speaker, let me also address something that the other gentleman from Texas mentioned in his 10 minutes of remarks when he said something about this isn't about politics.

I would point out that in April of 2023, Chairman Green, who is the chair of the Homeland Security Committee, promised Republican donors that he would produce an impeachment case against Secretary Mayorkas-- before donors.

According to a recording of Chairman Green's remarks to campaign contributors, he said: ``On April 19, next week, get the popcorn-- Alejandro Mayorkas comes before our committee, and it's going to be fun.''

Chairman Green also said: ``That'll really be just the beginning for him.''

The chairman said those things 2 months prior to the committee formally announcing its so-called investigation--2 months prior, Mr. Speaker.

He already promised his Republican donors that he would deliver impeachment charges.

To be clear, this entire impeachment process has had a predetermined outcome. This has nothing to do with a legitimate case for impeachment, but it has everything to do with Republicans' mission to distract, deflect, and exact revenge for President Biden winning the 2022 election.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the New York Times article titled: ``Key Republican Tells Donors He Will Pursue Impeachment of Mayorkas.''

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I am very distressed about is that many of my Republican colleagues who are upset that Donald Trump lost the last election and they were not able to overturn the free and fair results of that election, they are upset that they didn't get their way, and they weren't able to overturn the results.

So now this is kind of a continuation of that effort to deny the legitimate results of the election. This in many respects is a continuation of what happened here on January 6, and it really is sad.

There is another election coming up in November. I predict that my friends will understand better then that their policy of obstruction, impeachment, distraction, and not wanting to solve problems, I think they will realize that when people go to the ballot box, that is not what they want.

The American people want us to work together to get something done. We have a serious situation at the border. We are trying to provide President Biden with the tools to be able to act. Just as my friend said that Donald Trump needed the legislative tools to be able to get what he wanted to get done--and unfortunately, notwithstanding some very impressive bipartisan cooperation in the Senate--my friends here have decided to reject everything; anything that might solve the problem; anything that might ease the situation at the border; anything that might help our Border Patrol agents, anything that will do anything to be able to solve this problem they are against.

It is pathetic that that is the state that we are in right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this is not about Secretary Mayorkas or a high crime and misdemeanor. It is about a policy disagreement with President Biden.

Again, it is interesting to point out that when Trump was President, he couldn't do things because Congress didn't give him the tools. Biden is asking for more tools, and my Republican friends don't want to do anything.

Mr. Speaker, I have a memo here, released today on the arguments regarding impeaching Secretary Mayorkas, offered by the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement, Mr. McClintock.

In listening to my friends on the other side of the aisle, surely you would assume that the chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, the lead Republican on immigration issues, would conclude in his memo that this impeachment is necessary and warranted. But, no, you would be wrong.

In fact, he concludes the exact opposite, and Mr. McClintock has said he will vote ``no'' on impeaching the Secretary.

Now, I would ask unanimous consent to put the entire memo into the Record, but it is so exhaustive in its analysis of how this impeachment is a bunch of garbage, that the memo exceeds the page limit for the Congressional Record.

Let me just read a quick excerpt instead.

He writes: ``The problem is that they fail to identify an impeachable crime that Mayorkas has committed. In effect, they stretch and distort the Constitution in order to hold the administration accountable. . . .''

``Stretch and distort'': Those are the words of the Republican chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my colleague from California, who came to the well and basically called it as he sees it. He told the truth.

We need some more truth around here. This is a sham. This is a dangerous precedent to go down.

To impeach somebody because of a policy disagreement, I tell you, this is not what we should be doing. I am hoping that there are Republicans on the other side of the aisle who still believe in the Constitution and in this institution and who will reject this.

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

Mr. Speaker, Michael Chertoff, the former Republican- appointed Homeland Security Secretary, the first-ever Homeland Security Secretary, has also come out in support of Secretary Mayorkas.

He said: ``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.''

He went on to say: ``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.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record an opinion piece written by Michael Chertoff and published by the Wall Street Journal titled: ``Don't Impeach Alejandro Mayorkas.''

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record an editorial piece from the Wall Street Journal titled: ``Impeaching Mayorkas Achieves Nothing.''

Mr. Speaker, everything we have heard from the other side has confirmed that this impeachment is a predetermined political stunt. Again, this is the first time in American history an impeachment could go to the floor of the United States House of Representatives with no evidence, no proof, no elements of a crime, nothing at all. Not my words, Mr. Speaker. It is your own colleagues who say that.

Here are a few more quotes. Jonathan Turley, a top Republican legal adviser, says: ``There is also no current evidence that he [meaning Secretary Mayorkas] is corrupt or committed an impeachable offense.''

Donald Trump's own impeachment defense lawyer, Alan Dershowitz: ``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.''

Republican leaders told their donors behind closed doors that they were going to impeach Mayorkas before they even began their sham investigation. They raise money off of this. They promised Marjorie Taylor Greene last year that they were going to impeach, no matter what, in order to help Donald Trump, to distract from his legal troubles and their own incompetence.

I get why they need to change the subject. Trump was the worst President in my lifetime, probably in history. He tried to overturn the election results when he lost. He said he wants to be a dictator ``on day one'' and he invokes Adolph Hitler, saying: Immigrants poison the blood of our country.

He had the worst jobs record since the Great Depression. He told everyone to drink bleach and take horse medicine during COVID. He has been indicted more times than elected and is currently in trial for 91 felony charges. That is after being ordered to pay $83 million after a jury of his peers decided he was a rapist.

That is the leader of the Republican Party. That is who this impeachment is about, Donald Trump; not Secretary Mayorkas, a good, honorable, decent man. Donald Trump is a corrupt, dishonorable, disgraceful man.

This is all about helping Republicans rile up MAGA voters and distracting from their inability to govern and address the critical issues facing our country.

Instead of legislating, they are being led by Marjorie Taylor Greene and the extreme MAGA chock-full-of-nuts caucus to pursue this baseless, extreme, and harmful impeachment charade that distracts from actually securing the border.

Do we have a problem at the border? Absolutely. Democrats and President Biden want real, comprehensive solutions to fix it, but the MAGA extremists have shown no interest in working with House Democrats to address the challenges facing the American people.

What we need is Republicans to stop playing political games. That is the exact opposite of what is happening here, the exact opposite of this cynical, reckless, impeachment stunt.

We are going to continue, as Democrats, to put people over politics, to fight for issues that matter, to try to lower costs, grow our economy, and, yes, to secure our border.

If Republicans decide they want to join us as partners in government to solve these challenges, we welcome that. If they don't, there is an election coming up in November.

I would say history is going to judge this Republican majority, but I don't think we need to wait for that. The voters are going to judge us all in November, and I think people are going to look at this fraudulent impeachment and they are going to look at Republicans' lack of accomplishments and they are going to vote them out because of their incompetence, their extremism, and their refusal to work with Democrats to address the challenges our country faces, including the border.

As I said before, this entire impeachment stunt is an absurd, cynical exercise in extremism. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, smoke and mirrors have never been the foundation of the Constitution. That is all we have today to misrepresent to the American people that we are doing serious work.

It comes to mind as to whether or not Secretary Mayorkas is being charged with Articles of Impeachment because he is a Cuban immigrant who came to the United States with his family as political refugees, that they spent time fleeing the Nazis, and that he came here to do his very best for the American people. Yet we attempt to charge him with willful violation of the law.

Operational control of the border means zero persons coming across. This has not been the case as relates to any Secretary no matter what administration. Yet we have failed in this process of false smoke and mirrors to allow us to be able to articulate any charge that might constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. We failed to provide evidence to support the charges such as they are.

We have failed to name the proper target for impeachment in a policy dispute. We have failed to process anything against Secretary Mayorkas, and we could not, in any way, bring anything to suggest that he violated the law or that he benefited from any aspect of his work.

This Secretary has been denied due process. This is smoke and mirrors. The Constitution, which is the foundation of this land, is true. There have been no high crimes and misdemeanors or bribery. This is an impeachment that should be immediately dismissed.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Articles of Impeachment.

Madam Speaker, it is a sad day that the House has been convened to consider an impeachment bill against the current Secretary of Homeland Security--a measure that is without merit or consideration of the consequences to the agency or how this action may undermine the current challenges the nation is facing.

While this impeachment resolution bears no meaningful or serious merits, I offered an amendment for consideration by the Rules Committee that would strike Article 1 of H. Res 863--Impeaching Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, because he is not accused of committing any high crimes or misdemeanors.

Article I of the bill accuses him of ``Willful and Systematic Refusal to Comply with the Law.

Secretary Mayorkas has not committed ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors''--the United States Constitution's standard, for an impeachment.

Secretary Mayorkas is carrying out his duties faithfully.

House Republicans may not approve of the Biden administration's policies, but policy differences are not grounds for impeachment under the Constitution.

House Republicans are trying to distract from their inability to govern and score political points with their extreme political base by impeaching the Secretary.

Rather than abusing their power as the majority in the House of Representatives with an unjustified impeachment process, they should focus on keeping the government open and join with Democrats to provide border personnel the funding they need to do their job.

I regret that of the two hearings held that they did not include any majority witnesses that were Constitutional Scholars nor a minority hearing to allow opposing views to be aired, nor the target of the impeachment Secretary Mayorkas being allowed to come before the committee in his defense.

This is the standard set by prior impeachment proceedings but ignored by the majority-controlled Homeland Security Committee.

In 1776 the Framers declared the self-evident and later the universal truth that all persons are created equal and endowed by their Creator with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As important, the Framers declared that ``to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed.''

This genius of self-government is the Framers' gift to us and America's gift to the world, and for nearly 250 years the world has looked upon the United States with wonder, awe, and envy not just for its awesome powers and achievements, but for being the exemplar to which most freedom-loving nations aspire.

But as President Lincoln reminded us at Gettysburg, the proposition that a people can govern themselves is not to be taken for granted; it is a proposition that will be tested time and again and it is for us, the living, to highly resolve to commit ourselves to the great task always before us, that government of the people, by the people, and for the people not perish from the earth.

As Thomas Paine said in his time, the past fourteen years were times that tried one's soul. The nation was tested, severely so, by what can only be described as the modern-day Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: a deadly pandemic, economic devastation unseen since the Great Depression, social justice unrest, and the very real threat of authoritarianism.

While the threat posed by these challenges are still with us to varying extent, we can all rejoice that the nation withstood the challenge, e pluribus unum, by standing together as ``We The People.''

President Lincoln reminded us that in times of testing and challenge that ``the fiery trial through which we pass will mark us down in honor or dishonor until the latest generation'' but that so long as the people ``retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government' in the short space of four years.''

And Lincoln was right, for on Election Day 2020, Americans by a substantial majority, voted to withhold consent to govern from an incumbent administration and confer it upon another.

That act of self-government and sovereign expression was solemnized on January 20, 2021, at noon when Joseph R. Biden and Kamala D. Harris took the oath of office as the 46th President and 59th Vice-President of the United States.

The Philadelphia Miracle of 1789 endures but only because we Americans resolve that it does and work to make it so.

The President takes the oath of office pledging to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

As does every one of my congressional colleagues, I have sacredly pledged true faith and allegiance in defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to execute the duties of the office well and faithfully I hold. I do this ever mindful that the purpose of our form of government is ``to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, to ensure domestic tranquility, to provide for the common defense, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty for posterity.''

But we all have a responsibility to preserve and strengthen this constitutional republic and pass it on to the next generation by engaging in robust, lawful, and peaceful civic activity to hold our government to account and to peaceably assemble when necessary to petition for a redress of grievances as shown by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. at the March on Washington, following the example of Mahatma Gandhi; by John Lewis and the Civil Rights foot soldiers at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama; by Elizabeth Cady Staton and Lucretia Mott at Seneca Falls; by Cesar Chavez leading the fight for human dignity of farmworkers, and by Black Lives Matter demonstrators protesting inequalities in the criminal justice system.

For the work of democracy is never complete, our union is always in the process of being made more perfect.

The ingredients for good policy are competence, capability, and willingness to put aside partisanship and place national interest first.

At this moment in our nation's history Republicans are attempting to impeach Secretary Mayorkas not for any malfeasance or wrongdoing--but because they disagree with his actions carrying out the Biden administration's border and immigration policies.

Using policy differences as grounds for impeachment is an abusive political action that the Founders rejected as antithetical to the U.S. Constitution.

Republicans have not alleged that the Secretary has committed an impeacbable offense, so their ``reports'' attempting to legitimize their unfounded case for impeachment effort contain blatant misinformation and politically motivated rhetoric, such as criticizing the termination of harmful but barely utilized Trump-era immigration and border policies, which were not laws--a fact they either do not understand or willfully ignore.

Such a political theater has no basis in the history of American constitutional law, as Article II of the U.S. Constitution sets the standard for impeachment of ``civil officers'' as ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.''

The Biden administration's departure from the failed, cruel, and sometimes unlawful border and immigration policies of the previous administration is certainly not an impeachable offense.

Impeachment under these circumstances is not a constitutional remedy for political and policy differences.

Impeachment is an extraordinary remedy reserved for the most egregious political offenses, not policy differences. Indeed, Madison objected to the term ``maladministration'' being added to the list of impeachable offenses during the Constitutional Convention because it would upset the separation of powers.

The first and only impeachment of a Cabinet official occurred in 1876 following extensive evidence of corruption.

Republican Congressman Tom McClintock, the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement, described Rep. Greene's attempt to impeach Secretary Mayorkas over policy disagreements as a ``perilous path'' for future governance.

Chairman McClintock went on to argue that the redefinition of impeachment found in H. Res. 863 ``would utterly destroy the separation of powers at the heart of our Constitution.

While these are the basis for this Committee not moving forward in the process, there are compelling reasons why the Committee should be actively engaged in Immigration Reform.

Impeachment is not a punishment, sought to be inflicted when one branch of government merely disagrees with or dislikes what a coordinate branch has done.

It is a serious remedy designed to prevent abuses of power and is designed to ensure that ours remains a government of, by, and for the people.

This is about the duty of the President of the United States--you do not impeach people because you disagree with their approach to their service to the country or to the provisions on their policy. We do not impeach people on that basis.

No, this resolution does not provide any meaningful or sincere effort to protect the American people.

Rather, this resolution sets forth nothing more than a partisan fishing expedition and should be rebuked as such.

Impeachment is serious, yet here we are engaged in a baseless political stunt to impeach our current President.

The U.S. Constitution governs the order of our Nation, and it dictates the work of the Congress.

Article I detail the powers of the House and the exercising of these powers as they relate to the coordinate, coequa1 branches of government, codified in Article II, and Article III: three equal branches of government coexisting and cohesively working to provide oversight to the respective actions of the Congress, the Executive and Judiciary.

Specifically, Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 indicates that the ``House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole power of impeachment.'' Article II states that the ``The President . . . shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors''; Article II also requires that the ``President take care that the laws are faithfully executed.''

That language is stark and clear--and throughout our history it has been used in varying periods where the assessment was that the law has been breached.

Sometimes Congresses are concerned that the weight and view of the American people should be considered. Sometimes they are moved by the urgency of the matter.

This has worked, with challenges of course, since 1789, yet the outright abuse of our constitution to use impeachment as a political tool is an abomination of our congressional duties.

As constitutional scholars have long laid out the historical guardrails and mandates upon which must heed, I would like to point to a few salient remarks from the September 28, 2023, Committee on Oversight and Accountability hearing entitled ``The Basis for the Impeachment Inquiry of President Joseph R. Biden'' as reminders for us all here today.

In the testimony of Michael J. Gerhardt, Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, he highlighted the clear warning from Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, and what he foresaw in the dangers of trivializing impeachment through petty partisanship.

As quoted in Alexander Hamilton, No. 65, the Federalist Papers (1961), he states that impeachment may ``agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with preexisting 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 relative strength of the parties, than by the demonstrations of innocence or guilt.''

As Professor Gerhardt noted, ``in other words, an impeachment proceeding, including the initiation of an impeachment inquiry, must rise above petty partisanship in order to ensure its legitimacy.''

And as aptly stated in the testimony of Johnathon Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University School of Law, in highlighting the carefully crafted powers vested in the House of Representatives pursuant to Art. I, Sec. 2, Cl. 5 is that:

``The Framers debated and crafted this standard and process to avoid an ``anything goes'' mentality. That was the reason our Framers opposed the ``maladministration'' standards as too malleable and indeterminate. While we continue to have passionate and good-faith debates over the meaning of the high crimes and misdemeanors standard, it is not intended to give the House carte blanche for any impulsive impeachment theory.''

Nearly fifty years ago, my predecessor, Barbara Jordan, of Texas' 18th Congressional District, declared, in the first presidential impeachment inquiry in more than a century, that:

My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.'' She noted ``those are impeachable `who behave amiss or betray their public trust'' (quoting from the North Carolina ratification convention).

In this vein, we should not be here today in efforts to betray and diminish our Constitution and rule of law.

The unsubstantiated accusations, that the President of the United States has abused his powers and that his conduct is in dereliction of his duties as President is flatly outrageous.

When the Framers of our Constitution designed our government, they bifurcated power between the federal and state governments, and divided among the branches.

They vested in Congress the capacity to make the laws, and in the Executive the power to faithfully execute those laws.

Because the House enjoyed a natural superiority, as most representatives of the passions of the populace, the Framers vested in the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment and made the Senate the judges.

Yet, entirely unlike the incredulous and now confirmed illegality of President Trump's behavior while in office, President Biden has certainly not earned the same stain of impeachment from the House of Representatives and his conduct absolutely does not merit conviction and removal from office by the Senate.

When the Founders inserted the Impeachment Clause in Article I, Section 2, Clause 5, they did so to preserve our democracy, protect the American people, and to prevent the abuses and excesses of the Chief Executive.

The Constitution has served our nation well for over two hundred years.

Yes, in order to keep faith with the Framers and with our future, we must preserve, protect and defend that Constitution and its provisions.

This impeachment resolution, however, is not one that is within the national interest but a disgrace to our government and its entrusted duties.

The reason given for the Impeachment is the border crisis, one that this body has not taken any steps to address, but the Senate has sent over a border bill to address the border policy issues raised during the two Impeachment hearings.

The response from the House is to stay the Senate Border bill is dead on arrival-sight unseen and no counteroffer made.

As a result of lack of Congressional action, the Biden Administration is using the tools it has available to secure the border and build a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system.

Secretary Mayorkas as head of DHS began a whole-of-government approach in Fall 2021 to prepare for the end of Title 42.

In May 2022, Secretary Mayorkas issued the six-pillar plan that outlined preparations to prepare for surges in migration and the lifting of Title 42.

The plan showed measurable success.

The power of immigration reform to reduce unlawful entry is proven through the Biden Administration method of promoting the largest expansion of legal pathways for safe, orderly, and humane migration in decades, and put in new rules to encourage people to use those lawful pathways instead of making the dangerous journey to try to enter unlawfully.

The success of the lifting of Title 42 was not sustainable without resources and changes being made to immigration laws.

Instead, Republican governors have become the poster children for increased irregular migration because of their work to send people from the Southern Border to New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, which sent a message that unlawful border crossings were welcomed.

The final ingredient is legislative action by Congress to address increasing the capacity of immigration courts to prioritize the orderly and fair processing of asylum claims of certain recent arrivals, while ensuring those not seeking protection or who don't qualify are promptly returned to their country of origin.

The Administration is continuing to aggressively increase legal pathways, enforce our immigration laws, target smugglers who prey and profit on vulnerable migrants and seek to traffic drugs into our country, and work collaboratively with cities and states that are impacted.

Republicans who have used immigration as a wedge issue attempted to derail the President's efforts.

It is time to focus on the places and communities receiving new residents and families to make sure the transition a win--win for new immigrants and communities.

Providing Resources to Larger Urban Areas and Rural Areas.

Democrats have proposed legislation, such as the Dream Act and the American Dream and Promise Act, that would provide a pathway to citizenship for young undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, also known as Dreamers.

Democrats are focused on providing resources to communities receiving migrants, implementing policies to ensure an orderly, humane border, and keeping the government funded.

Democrats also recognize that while there are near-term costs to receiving migrants, immigrants contribute significantly to the U.S. economy, fuel our growth, and provide a net benefit to our country's finances by paying billions in taxes annually.

Democrats also support comprehensive immigration reform that would create a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and improve border security measures while respecting the rights and dignity of all individuals.

In July 2021, the House passed a bill that would create a pathway to citizenship for undocumented farmworkers and their families, called the Farm Workforce Modernization Act.

This would protect workers from exploitation and abuse and would provide stability for the agricultural industry.

Democrats have advocated for a comprehensive immigration reform package that would address the root causes of migration, improve border security, and create legal pathways for people to enter the U.S. lawfully.

The Biden-Harris Administration, under the direction of Secretary Mayorkas, are showing Congress, the nation and the world what is indeed possible when immigration is not treated like an offense to the nation instead of the fuel that drives our economy and injects vitality into our communities.

Because of joint Congressional and White House support since early 2021, DHS and CBP increased their border holding capacity by over a third through the construction of new facilities.

CBP has increased the efficiency of migrant processing and reduced the time noncitizens spend in temporary holding by 30 percent.

Over the years, I worked with my fellow Democrats and Republican Members of this Committee to make sure that these unaccompanied children stay safe and have a legal documentation in the United States, while the Republican Party sadly has steadfastly opposed all the legislations that benefits these children.

I ask the Rules Committee to reject this Impeachment and begin plans to consider the bill sent from the Senate for a resolution to the Border crisis.

Mr. Speaker, extreme MAGA Republicans have engaged in a cynical and unserious attempt to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas. Their report to accompany H. Res. 863 resorted to sloppy misrepresentations in an attempt to justify this baseless, political stunt.

For example, the report misquoted Professor Frank Bowman, who testified before the Committee on Homeland Security on January 10, 2024. Professor Bowman testified that the Constitution did not support the impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas over mere policy differences. The majority report, however, twists a passage of Professor Bowman's book on impeachment and uses it out of context to suggest policy differences were grounds for impeachment.

Republicans also tried to misrepresent Professor Bowman's writings during the hearing, but they did not afford Professor Bowman an opportunity to explain his work. I submitted clarifying questions to Professor Bowman to supplement the hearing record, but the majority did not transmit those questions to Professor Bowman before the legislative report was filed in the House.

I include in the Record Professor Bowman's responses to my questions to make the professor's thoughts on impeachment over policy differences abundantly clear, since the Republican majority cannot be bothered to conduct a proper investigation with a complete record.

Committee on Homeland Security, U.S. House of Representatives

Responses to Supplemental Questions

Frank O. Bowman III, University of Missouri Curators' Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Floyd R. Gibson Missouri Endowed Professor Emeritus

(Academic titles provided for identification purposes only. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author, do not reflect those of any other person or entity, and are not endorsed by the University

of Missouri.)

Question #1 from Mr. Thompson: Republicans have portrayed

your previous academic writing as confirming their position

that mere policy differences may be a ground for impeachment.

In particular, that ``displeasure with administration

personnel and policy'' may be sufficient to warrant

impeachment. Is that correct?

I have never written that mere policy differences would be

an adequate ground for impeachment. To the contrary, I join

with the consensus view of constitutional scholars that

ordinary policy differences are not a proper ground for

impeachment. Indeed, this general principle is particularly

applicable to a disagreement on policy between a presidential

administration and a political party controlling only one

house of Congress, and that by the very narrowest of margins.

The quotation to which the question alludes, one mentioned

by Chairman Green and Rep. Bishop, occurs in the final

paragraph of Chapter 4 of the second edition of my book, High

Crimes & Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age

of Trump (Cambridge Univ. Press 2023). Both congressmen take

the snippet of text they quote entirely out of context.

In the referenced section of Chapter 4, I discuss the only

prior impeachment of a U.S. cabinet officer, President

Ulysses Grant's Secretary of War, William Belknap. Prior to

the quoted passage, I explained why no cabinet officer before

or after Belknap has been impeached. The primary, and

obvious, reason is that, as I wrote, any cabinet officer

``whose behavior veered anywhere near an impeachable zone''

was simply removed by the President. Which is what happened

to Belknap. He took a bribe. When President Grant found out,

he fired Belknap. But the House, controlled by Democrats for

the first time since the Civil War, impeached the Secretary

anyway as a means of politically damaging President Grant and

by extension the Republicans in the upcoming 1876 election.

In the final paragraph of Chapter 4, I was, of course, not

saying that mere ``displeasure'' with either a person or a

policy is a constitutionally acceptable ground for

impeachment. Rather, when a subordinate official has actually

committed ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes and

misdemeanors''

(as Secretary of War Belknap incontestably did), Congress

might elect to proceed with impeachment to signal its

displeasure.

Secretary Mayorkas has not committed any impeachable

offense. Impeaching a cabinet officer innocent of ``treason,

bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors'' to indicate

displeasure with administration policy or the officer's

administration of that policy would be a profoundly anti-

constitutional act.

Question #2 from Mr. Thompson: In the past, you have

written that impeachable ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' can

be interpreted to include ``serious executive misconduct,

including . . . betrayal of the nation's foreign policy

interests'' such as when a president subordinates the

nation's interests to foreign interests. Republican Rep.

Guest suggested that you have written in the past about

foreign policy differences as grounds for the first

impeachment of President Trump--what you describe as Trump's

``rolling destruction of American foreign policy''--and that

your past writing contradicts your testimony at the January

10, 2024, hearing. Are foreign policy differences an

impeachable offense, and how do foreign policy differences

differ from ordinary policy differences?

I have written that one of the accepted historical

categories of impeachable conduct, in both the pre-1787

United Kingdom and in the United States, has been ``betrayal

of the nation's foreign policy interests.'' However, in

saying this, I was obviously not saying that ordinary policy

differences between a presidential administration and the

opposing political party become impeachable simply because

the subject matter of the disagreement is foreign, rather

than domestic, policy.

To the contrary, long precedent establishes that, in the

U.S. impeachment context, ``betrayal of the nation's foreign

policy interests'' has had certain identifying features.

First, for impeachment purposes, a nation's ``foreign

policy interests'' are not merely the transient preferences

of a political party or faction. Rather, they are enduring

interests about which there is a broad societal consensus,

ideally one embodied in statutes, treaties, the practice of

multiple presidential administrations, and (where applicable)

the views of a nation's diplomats, foreign policy experts or

professionals.

Second, the word ``betrayal'' implies, not merely changing

policy or adopting policy views contrary to one's political

adversaries, but subverting the national interest for

illegitimate, often personal, motives.

British impeachments that illustrate these features include

the following.

In 1667, after an expensive and unnecessary war with the

Dutch, the Earl of Clarendon was impeached in part for

seeking payments from France to the British crown to evade

parliamentary controls on royal finance.

In 1678, the Earl of Danby was impeached for soliciting--on

behalf of the English King Charles II--a bribe from Louis XIV

of France in return for English neutrality in the Franco-

Dutch War.

Both Clarendon and Danby's solicitations not only undercut

longstanding British foreign policy objectives and subjected

the British monarch to undue foreign influence, but were a

bald attempt to avoid a significant parliamentary constraint

on royal overreach--the requirement that the Crown obtain

``supplies'' (i.e., funding in addition to the monarch's

private wealth) through the legislature.

More relevant to the present case are the American

impeachments of Senator William Blount in 1797-98 and of

President Donald Trump in 2020.

Sen. William Blount: Blount, then a U.S. senator, concocted

a scheme to enrich himself by giving Great Britain control of

the territories of Louisiana and Florida. Blount's scheme was

obviously contrary to contemporary U.S. foreign policy

interests inasmuch as the American government and populace

wanted to expand into Louisiana and Florida, or at the very

least to prevent Great Britain from assuming control over

those territories. In addition, the articles of impeachment

against Blount charged him with violations of the Neutrality

Act of 1794, and also with violation of the Treaty of

Friendship, Limits, and Navigation between the United States

and Spain (because his scheme involved stirring up Native

American tribes to attack Spanish officials and interests).

Not only was Blount's scheme undeniably contrary to U.S.

foreign policy interests, and to multiple treaty obligations,

but it was a ``betrayal'' in the most obvious sense. Blount

tried to sell out the interests of his country for personal

financial gain.

Although Blount was acquitted by the Senate, the historical

consensus is that the verdict turned on the decision that

senators are not ``civil officers'' subject to the

impeachment remedy under Article II, Section 4 of the

Constitution.

President Donald Trump:

President Trump's first impeachment involved two articles,

the first charging that Trump committed ``high crimes and

misdemeanors'' in relation to his scheme to coerce the

government of Ukraine into announcing investigations into

Trump's likely presidential opponent, Joe Biden, and the

second charging obstruction of Congress. The first article

was captioned ``Abuse of Power,'' but as I have written, it

``braided together three themes . . . corruption, damage to

foreign policy interests, and injury to the democratic

process. As the first article of impeachment summarized the

matter:

``President Trump abused the powers of the Presidency by

ignoring and injuring national security and other vital

national interests to obtain an improper personal political

benefit. He has also betrayed the Nation by abusing his high

office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic

elections.''

The ``national security and other vital national

interests'' alluded to in the article were the interest of

the United States in supporting, militarily and

diplomatically, a country threatened, and indeed physically

invaded, by Russia, a longstanding geopolitical opponent of

the United States, together with the interest of the United

States in preventing Russian territorial expansion up to the

borders of the countries of the NATO alliance.

These objectives had been endorsed as national security

interests of the United States over multiple presidential

administrations through repeated bipartisan approval of

legislation authorizing military and security aid to Ukraine.

They were also endorsed by the entire diplomatic and national

security apparatus of the U.S government before and during

the Trump Administration itself. For example, when Trump's

White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) placed a

hold on congressionally mandated aid to Ukraine in the July

2019 as part of President Trump's scheme to coerce Ukraine,

every relevant agency of Trump's own administration except

OMB questioned the hold and supported military assistance to

Ukraine as being in the national security interest of the

United States.

Thus, Trump's first impeachment precisely matches the

template for ``betrayal of the nation's foreign policy

interests'' described above.

First, the foreign policy interests of the United States in

that case were enduring interests embraced by multiple

presidential administrations, endorsed by the foreign policy

professionals of the executive branch, and manifested in

bipartisan legislation enacted by multiple U.S. congresses.

Second, and critically, the ``betrayal'' of U.S. interests

consisted of subverting the national interest for

illegitimate personal motives--securing a personal political

advantage over a potential political rival. In Trump's case,

the betrayal was doubly severe because it amounted to an

effort to use presidential power to corrupt the democratic

electoral process.

Secretary Mayorkas: Nothing alleged against Secretary

Mayorkas meets the traditional criteria for impeachment based

on ``betrayal of the nation's foreign policy interests.'' The

most that can be said against him is that he has executed the

policy preferences of President Joe Biden in relation to

immigration and border control issues and that the political

party in control of the House of Representatives disapproves

of those policy preferences. There is no indication that the

Secretary's actions, or indeed the Biden Administration's

policy choices, are contrary to established national foreign

policy interests. To the contrary, U.S. policy regarding

immigration and border control has varied from administration

to administration and congress to congress as the challenges,

needs, and preferences of the country have varied. More

importantly, there is absolutely no indication that Secretary

Mayorkas has taken any official action for corrupt or

illegitimate personal motives.

To repeat the central point, ordinary policy differences

between a presidential administration and the opposing

political party do not become impeachable simply because the

subject matter of the disagreement is foreign, rather than

domestic, policy.

Question #3 from Mr. Thompson: Rep. Crane suggested that

Secretary Mayorkas has betrayed the Nation, and that betrayal

of the nation would be sufficient to warrant impeachment. Are

you aware of any evidence that Secretary Mayorkas has

betrayed the United States? And Rep. Crane further suggested

that you said ``betrayal of the Nation'' is a potential

ground for impeachment, whereas you actually said ``betrayal

of the nation's foreign policy interests'' is a ground for

impeachment. What precisely did you mean?

I did not say in my testimony to the Committee or elsewhere

that that ``betrayal of the nation'' is a ground for

impeachment. I have agreed with Charles Black that one decent

definition of ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' that covers

most cases is offenses ``which are extremely serious, which

in some way corrupt or subvert the political and governmental

process, and which are plainly wrong in themselves to a

person of honor, or to a good citizen, regardless of words on

the statute books.'' Nothing alleged against Secretary

Mayorkas meets this general definition of impeachable

conduct.

I have also written that one specific category of

impeachable ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' is ``betrayal of

the nation's foreign policy interests.'' In my previous

answer, I explain what is meant by that phrase for purposes

of impeachment and I demonstrate why Secretary Mayorkas'

conduct does not fall within it.

Finally, I am aware of no evidence that Secretary Mayorkas

has betrayed the nation. To the contrary, based on the facts

of which I am aware, Secretary Mayorkas appears to be a

capable, dedicated public servant trying as best he can to

carry out the policy priorities of the President of the

United States and to manage the perennial and intractable

problems related to immigration and control of the U.S.

southern border.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5856) to reauthorize the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, more than 20 years ago, the U.S. Congress approved and the President signed historic legislation that I authored known as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, a comprehensive, whole-of- government initiative to combat sex and labor trafficking in the United States and around the world.

The TVPA created a bold, new domestic and international antihuman trafficking strategy and established numerous new programs to protect victims, prosecute traffickers, and to the extent possible, prevent human trafficking in the first place--what we call the three Ps.

Though it is hard to believe now, the TVPA was met with a wall of skepticism and opposition--dismissed by

many as a solution in search of a problem. For most people at that time, including some lawmakers, the term ``trafficking'' applied almost exclusively to drugs and weapons, not to human beings.

Reports of vulnerable persons, especially women and children, being reduced to commodities for sale were often met with surprise, incredulity, or indifference.

The bill was finally signed into law on October 28, 2000, and within a year after enactment, no one was arguing anymore that the Trafficking Victims Protection Act's integrated 3Ps strategy--prevention, protection for victims, and prosecution of the traffickers--was flawed, unworkable, unnecessary, or counterproductive.

The TVPA included several sea change criminal code reforms, including treating as a victim--and not a perpetrator of a crime--anyone exploited by a commercial sex act who had not attained the age of 18 and anyone older where there was an element of force, fraud, or coercion.

The TVPA radically reformed the U.S. criminal code to authorize asset confiscation, as well as jail sentences of up to life imprisonment.

Thousands of human traffickers have been prosecuted and jailed pursuant to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, including--although he never came to trial--all charges brought against Jeffrey Epstein.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the number of persons prosecuted for human trafficking more than doubled from 2011 to 2021-- from 729 persons to 1,672 persons, respectively.

Among its many provisions, the Act also created the President's Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, the U.S. State Department's Trafficking in Persons Office, and the annual TIP Report. I encourage my colleagues to look at it and read it, at least when they are traveling, especially, or meeting with delegations from other countries. Read the TIP Report and find out where that country that you are going to visit or whose lawmakers or diplomats you are going to meet, where they stand in terms of what they are doing with regards to trafficking.

It also calls for serious and sustained efforts to eliminate human trafficking. If they don't, and if they have a really horrific record, they get put on Tier 3 for egregious violators, and they are subject to sanctions.

Over the years, I have authored four additional laws, including in 2003, 2005, 2016--that was the International Megan's Law--and in 2019, Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Act. We are reauthorizing that and the underlying TVPA today.

Today, the House considers a 5-year reauthorization named after and in honor of the great abolitionist and civil rights leader, Frederick Douglass.

Special thanks are in order to our original cosponsors, including Chairman McCaul; subcommittee Ranking Member Susan Wild; as well as Kathy Manning, who is managing over on the Democratic side tonight; Ann Wagner; Henry Cuellar; Joe Wilson; Amata Radewagen; and Michael Burgess, all original cosponsors of the bill.

A special thank you to the extraordinarily talented staffers, including Mary Vigil, to my left, who did an amazing job on this; Janice Kaguyutan; Mary Noonan; Doug Anderson; and survivors Bella Hanoukey and Robert Lung, who also provided tremendous insight.

A heartfelt thanks to the over 20 organizations that have provided insight, recommendations, and have endorsed this legislation.

Terry FitzPatrick, for example, the director of the Alliance to End Slavery and Trafficking, a consortium of various groups, has said on behalf of them: The U.S. has the world's most comprehensive governmental effort to fight human trafficking, and this law is the reason why. It is the blueprint for comprehensive action at home and abroad. Updating and reauthorizing the act is essential to maintaining America's leadership.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops strongly endorsed the legislation and asked Congress to approve the measure ``without further delay.'' Bishop Mark Seitz of El Paso stated: We must unite to identify and address conditions that lead to human trafficking and promote efforts to prevent it.

A great big thank you to Kenneth Morris. This man is the great-great- great-grandson of Frederick Douglass and the great-great grandson of Booker T. Washington. He runs a group called Family Initiatives, and he has been such a great source and inspiration for this legislation.

He has said that this legislation, named after his ancestor, emphasizes education and resilience as an effective means to prevent human trafficking among children, prevent retrafficking of survivors, and provide support and hope to survivors in their journeys toward self-empowerment.

Mr. Morris goes on to say: In the words of my great-great-great grandfather and the great American abolitionist Fred Douglass: Enslavement is a scourge on humanity. To expose it is to kill it. Slavery is one of those monsters of darkness to whom the light of truth is death. Expose slavery, he goes on to say, and it dies.

He goes on to say: This wisdom is in the form of human trafficking, which is modern-day slavery. Since 2008, he points out that they have helped and trained 60,000 adults and 500,000 children in the skills of keeping themselves safe from harm.

This legislation has provisions in it to make our young people situationally aware, from elementary and secondary school, so that everyone knows what the traffickers do, how horrible their schemes are, their nefarious organizations, what they do with drugs, and other ways of enticing young people. The next thing you know, they are trafficked and are in modern-day slavery.

Let me also point out that the bill seeks to promote, as I said, situational awareness. It also authorizes survivors' employment, housing, and education programs. It authorizes a program for housing. One of the things we find is that when a woman or a man--most are women--are liberated, where do they go? They need help. We do have programs in existence. This will redirect some of those funds to help them get a house, a home, so that they are less likely and less vulnerable to being retrafficked.

It makes scalable programs through training of the trainers, in collaboration with the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. It encourages the usage of prevention efforts to include accessible, age- appropriate, and trauma-informed approaches for USAID beneficiaries and further incorporates counter-trafficking efforts across our development portfolio.

We know for a fact that it is a problem in developing countries, where sometimes even the peacekeepers engage. I had hearings and worked on it. There was another one the other day that John James chaired about peacekeepers, the fact that sometimes they become the ones who engage in trafficking and abuse young people.

It streamlines statutory language for the Tier 2 Watch List and reauthorizes the Department of State Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons.

There is also language in it about organ harvesting. Last March, we passed legislation to really combat this horrible organ harvesting debacle where, especially in China, they are killing 28-year-olds, the average age, whether it be Falun Gong or Uyghurs, to steal their hearts, lungs, and livers, especially livers. Unfortunately, it is a big business for the Chinese Communist Party, so we put language in this that will be part of the TIP report.

It also reauthorizes the International Megan's Law. What is that? Back in 1994, a little girl who used to be in my district, Hamilton Township, New Jersey, was killed by a convicted pedophile who was out of prison and lived across the street, who buried her after horribly abusing her.

Every one of our States has a Megan's law, and they work really well. We found that many of the convicted pedophiles get a passport and travel in child sex tourism.

I wrote a law that took 8 years to get passed. Three times it passed in the House. The Senate did not want to hear about it, but it finally got passed. That said a number of things, including before they travel, these individuals have

to register with the U.S. Government, and we inform the country of destination that they soon will be coming. If they want to say no, you can't come in, that is exactly what happens; they don't get to go to that country.

It is run by the Angel Watch Center. They do a magnificent job and I thank them. The law is working. According to Homeland Security Investigations, HSI, the U.S. Government has notified foreign governments of the planned travel of 27,679 covered sex offenders, and it has not been in effect that long. As of late January, 9,489 individuals convicted of sex crimes against children were denied entry into those nations.

We have taken the secrecy out of traveling, to some extent, and these countries are empowered to say: Look who is coming. You are not getting in to abuse our children.

We also put language in it that allows for stamping the passport to make sure that if they do lie and they get in, it is on the passport that they are a covered sex offender.

Mr. Speaker, I have much more to say, but I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, November 29, 2023.

Hon. Michael McCaul,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman McCaul: I write regarding H.R. 5856, the

Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and

Protection Reauthorization Act of 2023. Provisions of this

bill fall within the Judiciary Committee's Rule X

jurisdiction, and I appreciate that you consulted with us on

those provisions. The Judiciary Committee agrees that it

shall be discharged from further consideration of the bill so

that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor.

The Committee takes this action with the understanding that

forgoing further consideration of this measure does not in

any way alter the Committee's jurisdiction or waive any

future jurisdictional claim over these provisions or their

subject matter. We also reserve the right to seek appointment

of an appropriate number of conferees in the event of a

conference with the Senate involving this measure or similar

legislation.

I ask that you please include this letter in your

committee's report to accompany this legislation or insert

this letter in the Congressional Record during consideration

of H.R. 5856 on the House floor. I appreciate the cooperative

manner in which our committees have worked on this matter,

and I look forward to working collaboratively in the future

on matters of shared jurisdiction. Thank you for your

attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Jim Jordan,

Chairman.