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…
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, I reserve the balance of my time.
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, I reserve the balance of my time.
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.