>> a quorum being present the committee will be in order to consider 863, impeaching alejandro nicholas mayorkas. without objection, the chair is authorized to put the committee and recess at any point. pursuant to committee role 7c, any votes may be postponed. i will now make a opening statement. we are here today not because we want to be, but because we have exhausted all other options, and our duty as members of congress compels us to exercise our constitutional duty and defended the separate but equal branch of government.

at the beginning of this congress, each of us took an oath to support and defend the constitution of the nine states against all enemies foreign and domestic, and that we would well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office. this is the same oath i took many years ago in the army. several of you also took the same oath in your service to this nation. homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas took a similar oath but he has not lived up to it. he has willfully and systematically refused to comply with the laws passed by congress and breached the trust of congress and the american people. the results have been catastrophic, and have endangered the lives and livelihoods of all americans. even some democrats are starting to get it. prominent pundit john judas quotes they have been the fact opened during the first three years of the biden administration.

end quote. we have a crisis at the border. pennsylvania senator john fetterman said this is a crisis. even secretary mayorkas's boss president biden recently threw him under the bus admitting that the border was not secure. for nearly a year, this committee conducted methodical, comprehensive, and fair investigation into the causes, costs, and consequences of the border crisis, producing six separate reports totaling around 400 pages. our members have seen firsthand numerous parts of the southwest border spend time with law enforcement officers on the front lines, and spoke with real americans about how this crisis is affecting them. we also conducted a field hearing that our democrat colleagues refused to attend, burying their heads in the sand is that there was not a crisis. we held many meetings at the committee and subcommittee level including senior dhs enforcement officials, state attorney general, the victims

of secretary mayorkas's crisis, and democrats have consistently claimed these hearings were a waste of time. tell that to the families of 150,000 americans who died from fresno poisoning in '21 and '22 along. we have also submitted thousands of requests to the department. at every turn, our democrat colleagues have met these oversight efforts with mockery. they labeled a recent committee hearing with a mother who lost her son to fentanyl poisoning as quote republican border hearing number 746, and when we heard from a mother who lost her daughter to fentanyl poisoning and another whose daughter was illegally raped by a gang member called it a sham on their website. are they actually saying that these things never occurred? what a slap in the face. during that same hearing, one member from across the aisle when so far as to claim that

her daughter was being used and did not have the background to understand before this congress. on the contrary, this brave american mother who lost her daughter because of the opened border is more qualified to speak on this issue than any of us today. for almost a year, committee democrats have turned a blind eye while parading us for what they said was too much time for secretary mayorkas's handling of the border. let me repeat that. democrat separated us for spending too much time on secretary mayorkas's border crisis. keep that in mind when you hear that this impeachment is somehow rushed. the truth is that this process has been painstakingly thorough. we made sure of it. our intent was to be fair, comprehensive, and meticulous. we take the use of impeachment extremely seriously. i am proud of the work my

republican uncovered a lot. phase one documented multiple laws, court orders, and rulings that secretary mayorkas ignored or abused, and the dozens of times he has been dishonest with both congress and the american people. in phase two, we learned that secretary mayorkas's actions and unlawful policies have surrender control of the southwest border to the drug cartels and enrich the cartels to the tune of $13 billion per year just from human smuggling along. the national security implications are dire. more than 300 individuals on the terrorist watch list have been caught crossing the southwest border. in phase three, we documented the devastating human cost of the border crisis. the frontal epidemic which is being fueled to the southwest border is tearing families apart and ravaging communities behind every dire statistic. it is a real human tragedy and a family that has been torn

apart. in phase four, we learned the exorbitant dollar cost including the increased cost to our healthcare system, our law enforcement. these are costs incurred by every american. as we heard from mayor eric adams, the crisis could destroy new york city. in phase five, we learned that secretary mayorkas' actions have been consistent misuse and waste of taxpayer resources. those investigations have led us to the impeachment process. in our first hearing, we have heard from three state attorney general who have informed us that in their legal opinion secretary mayorkas's conduct rises to the level of impeachable offenses. in the second here, we heard about two victims of the deadly consequences of secretary mayorkas's open border policies. we also heard from democrat witness in the past two hearings, not in their testimony but in previous impeachments that you do not need a crime. you need a breach of trust.

if you are refusing to obey the law and it leads to the death of your fellow americans, you no longer deserve to keep your job. you are breaking the people's trust. that is why the framers gave the congress the people's power and why the impeachment can be used to remove those unworthy from office. secretary mayorkas is a very type of public official that the framers feared. someone who would cast aside the laws by a coequal branch of government and replace him with his own preferences hurting fellow americans in the processed. house democrats and the 2019 impeachment of trump wrote that they were those that inflict a great harm on our political war, end quote. and i quote, the framing generation, moreover, abuse of

power was a well understood offense. took two basic forms. the first was when they exercise power far beyond what the law allowed or when they destroy checks on their own authority. the second occurred when a official exercise power to obtain a improper personal benefit while ignoring or injuring the national interests. end quote. the chairman continued speaking and executive branch officials and i quote, let me unpack that idea starting with the first category. conduct clearly inconsistent with the law including the law of checks and balances. the generation that rebelled against george iii new what absolute power it look like. they had a different idea in mind when they organized our government. most significantly, they placed the president under the law and not above it. that means the president may exercise only the powers vested in him by the constitution. he must also represent the legal limits on the exercise of those powers. a president who egregiously refuses to follow these

restrictions by engaging in wrongful conduct may be subject to impeachment by abuse of power, end quote. that has secretary mayorkas, differences at all. this goes far deeper. according to the democrat-led committee investigating iran- contra, quote, government officials must observe the law, even when they disagree with it, end quote, or when they think that, quote, congress is to blame for passing laws counter to administration policy, end quote. the case we are dealing with today is that simple. secretary mayorkas has put his political preferences above following the law, honoring arabs to the constitution and respecting the framers intent and following congressional precedent, including those set by house democrats.

it is therefore our obligation to hold secretary mayorkas accountable which brings me to today's

to defend his record in person each time he delayed. we even offer to accept his testimony in connection with our last hearing. there? took us up on it 4:48 a.m. this morning. this demonstrate the lack of seriousness with which secretary mayorkas views his responsibilities.

that part of the reason we are here is because on november 1320 23, 201 democrats including 13 democrats sitting here today voted to refer articles of impeachment to our committee. every democrat on the floor that night voted to do so. you don't get to vote for something and then cry foul when it happens. no democrat has a right to complain about the process without admitting they regret that though. today we will markup two articles of impeachment. willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law and breach of public trust. again, we are here because our oath and duty compel us to be here. the actions and decisions of secretary mayorkas have left us with no other option than to proceed with articles of impeachment. to quote madison once again, perhaps the greatest danger of abuse and executive power lies in the improper continuance of bad men in office. end quote. we cannot allow this man to remain in office any longer. the time for accountability is now. i know recognize the ranking

member to make an opening statement. >> thank you very much, of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it has distinguished itself to serious legislative leadership under both parties. republicans partisan rush to consider house resolution 863 today is a big trail of that hard-earned reckoning. this is a terrible thing for the committee. the united states constitution and our great country. republican members of congress were warned to support and defend the constitution are objecting to that framers' clear intent in over two centuries our president in favor of a sham impeachment. republicans have failed to make a constitutionally viable case to impeach secretary alejandro mayorkas, a dedicated public servant. a dedicated public

the sham impeachment of secretary mayorkas is a stunt by extreme maga republicans. marjorie taylor greene and others have pushed for and even fund raised on this preplanned, predetermined scapegoating of the secretary, in a process akin to throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks. republicans have cooked up unprecedented grounds to impeach secretary mayorkas for his refusal to follow the law and a breach of public trust. neither of the impeachment charges the committee will consider today are a high crime or demeanor under article 2 of the constitution. those serious persons believes that they are. refusal to follow the law was deliberately rejected by the framers as grounds for

impeachment. indeed, no official in american history has ever been convicted after impeachment or refusal to follow the law. these disputes are settled in the court system, not to impeachment. apparently republicans are upset they lost in court and are trying to relitigate their cases through impeachment. the constitution does not allow that. breach of public trust requires conduct intended to serve an official's on benefit or the benefit of a foreign power. no serious person can allege that secretary mayorkas's actions meet the standards of public trust under the constitution. nevertheless, throughout this truncated impeachment process, republicans have ignored the fact and misrepresented the law to justify their scheme.

but the law is there and so is the secretary's record. he has leveraged a full range of authorities at his disposal while stretching the resources provided by congress to secure the border. he has removed record levels of migrants detained by more people than congress has provided funding for. and they have prevented record- levels of fentanyl from entering our communities. constitutional law experts agree the secretary has not committed any impeachable offense. rather, he has faithfully implemented the administration's border policies, policies republicans apparently disagree with, but policy differences are not impeachable. house republicans and the consistent with congress. at a hearing before the committee this month,

constitutional scholar deborah phone steen said, quote, no branch of government has enough power on both to address matters of security. unquote. at every opportunity, republicans have turned their backs to provide resources to the department of homeland security, and in doing so they are turning their backs on border agents and offices. if house republicans were serious about improving conditions along the border, they would provide the department the funding necessary to do so. they have not. if house republicans were serious about improving conditions at the border, they would negotiate border security legislation with the white house and the senate. they have not. instead, they sit on their hands is a bipartisan group of

senators worked with the biden administration to hammer out a deal. extreme maga republicans who are running the house of representatives are deeply unserious people. they don't want progress. they don't want solutions. they want a political issue. and, most of all, they want to please their disgraced former president. house republicans take their marching orders from donald trump, who has directed them to reject the bipartisan border bill, and whose republican government defies the united states supreme court order assuring the border patrol can do its job. including members of this committee, also. impeachment of secretary mayorkas is designed to distract the public from the fact that republicans have ceded their power to donald trump.

when republicans cut control of the house of representatives, they had an opportunity to work with the white house and the senate to move the country forward. instead, they have consumed and consumed by petty infighting, doing multiple speaker contests, unenforced crisis over government shutdowns, and futile political exercises like impeachment is a baseless sham. and the house knows that, even if they refuse to admit that the american people deserve better. mr. chairman, i ask for unanimous consent to include in the record the democratic report on this-so-called impeachment. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i also ask for yam's consent to include in the record a

letter dated from today to you, chairman green comet detailing the actions the department has taken to secure the border and be responsive to congress. >> without objection, so ordered. >> your honor, history will judge republicans for what they are doing here today and it will not be favorable. this impeachment scheme is a dangerous attempt by house republicans to distort the constitution and the secretary of record. to cover up their inability and unwillingness to work with democrats for the betterment of our constituents. our service to this country demands that we be passionate in our beliefs and practical in our actions. the strength of our nation included in our commitment to democratic principles and our willingness to set partisan differences aside to protect them. there are a few better examples than former republican secretary michael chertoff who cautioned this week that impeaching secretary mayorkas over policy differences what damage the constitution.

he wisely observed, quote, our nation is at its best when the leaders work together to confront the seemingly intractable. the situation at our border and our national security demands such bipartisan collaboration. unquote. he went on to say, quote, despite our different parties, i know mr. mayorkas to be honest and dedicated to the security of the united states. he has represented dhs to the country and both parties in congress with integrity, unquote. that is the kind of bipartisanship we need to solve our border challenges. in fact, it appears our colleagues in the senate are on the verge of reaching a bipartisan border deal. it is not too late to work with them and get the deal signed into law.

i urge my colleagues to honor their oath to the constitution and drop this sham impeachment and to give my colleagues a chance to rethink their political stunt. mr. chairman, i move out of committee to now adjoin. >> emotion is privileged and not debatable. the question now occurs on the motion. all in favor, say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, say no. >> no. a recorded vote is requested. the clerk will call the role. >> mr. mccall? >> no. >> mr. mccall votes no. >> mr. higgins? mr. higgins votes no. >> mr. guest? >> no. >> mr. guest votes no.

>> mr. bishop. >> no. >> mr. bishop votes no. mr. pflueger? >> no. >> mr. pflueger votes no. mr. garbarino? >> no. >> mr. pflueger votes no. >> miscreant? >> no. >> miss green votes no. mr. rozelle? >> no. >> mr. ezzell votes no. >> no. >> miss lee? >> no. >> miss lee votes no. mr. letrell votes no. >> mr. strong? >> no. mr. strong votes no. mr. crane? mr. crane votes no. ranking member thompson? ranking member thompson votes aye. ms. jackson lee? ms. jackson lindley votes aye . aye.

mr. carter? >> aye. >> mr. jan guard? votes aye. mr. magaziner votes aye. mr. i.v.? >> had 29. >> notes i. mr. garcia? mr. garcia votes nay. mrs. ramirez? mrs. ramirez votes aye. mr. menendez? mr. menendez votes country nine. ms. clark? ms. clark notes nine. missed titus? ms. titus votes aye . and ira carter? >> the chair votes no. >> chairman green votes no. >> house mr. garcia recorded? >> mr. garcia is recorded as having voted no.

mr. garcia votes aye. >> the clerk will report the tally. >> chairman green, on that vote there were 14 ayes and 18 nos. that nos has it. that motion is not agreed to. you made that notion in the midst of your opening remarks. ranking member, i.e. done with your opening remarks? the gentleman yields. i think the ranking member. other members are reminded that opening statements may be submitted for the record. pursuant to notice, i now call up house resolution 863. the resolution was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. the clerk shall circulate the resolution.

863, impeaching alejandro mayorkas, the secretary of homeland security for high crimes and misdemeanors. without objection, the first reading is dispensed with. ranking member? for what purpose? >> i object with dispensing of the first reading of the deal. >> there has been a privileged motion persuade to cause 1 of rule 11. all those in favor say aye . >> yeah. >> i only objected that the motion be made. >> oh. you did not want a reading. >> no. somebody else will have to make

that. >> okay. what's that? >> mr. chairman, i moved to dismiss with the reading. the motion has been made to dispense with the reading. >> now, mr. chairman, the rules require that be in writing. >> there seems to be some parliamentary >> so, again, a privileged motion to dispense persuade to cause 1 of rule 11 has been made. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. a ayes have it in the first

reading shall be dispensed with. without objection, the resolution shall be a recorded -- recorded vote has been requested. the clerk will call the role. >> esther mccall votes aye. mr. higgins votes aye mr. guest votes aye. mr. bishop votes aye. mr. hernandez mr. hernandez votes aye mr. pflueger? mr. pflueger votes aye . mr. garbarino votes aye . ms. green? mr. gonzalez votes aye. mr. lollota votes aye. ms. lee votes aye. mr. latrel votes aye.

mr. bakeen votes aye. mr. crane votes aye. ranking member thompson votes no. ms. jackson-lee votes no. mr. pain? mr. pain votes now. mr. swallow? mr. correa? mr. korea votes no. mr. carter? mr. carter votes now. no. mr. goldman? mr. goldman votes no. mrs. ramirez? >> no. >> mrs. ramirez votes no. ms. clark? ms. clark votes no. ms. titus? ms. titus votes no. >> now, how am i recorded?

>> the chair votes aye. >> chairman green votes aye. please tally the role. >> on that vote, mr. chairman, there were 18 ayes and 14 nos. >> i now recognize myself. >> mr. chairman? i asked for unanimous consent to include in the record the text of rule 1, article 16, that members must reduced to writing any motion. >> cell without objection so ordered. >> i now recognize -- >> i now recognize myself for the purpose of -- for what

purpose? >> pursuant to clause 3 of rule 16, i raised the question of consideration. >> the committee will suspend.

>> gentleman, what is your question relating to? >> in terms of having the -- i raise the question of consideration. >> to which measure? >> 863. >> the gentleman from mississippi raises the question of consideration. the question is will the committee now consider h res. 836. >> aye. >> no. >> the ayes have it.

>> mr. mccal votes aye. mr. bishop? mr. bishop votes i. mr. pflueger? mr. pflueger votes aye. mr. garbarino? mr. garbarino votes i. mr. gonzalez votes ms. lee? ms. lee votes aye. mr. letrell votes aye. mr. strong? mr. strong votes aye. mr. mccain votes aye. mr. crane? mr. crane votes aye.

ranking member thompson? >> no. >> ranking member thompson votes no. ms. jackson lee? >> no. >> ms. jackson lee votes no. mr. pain? mr. pain votes no. mr. correa? mr. correa votes no. mr. carter? mr. carter votes no. mr. canada? mr. canada are votes no. mr. magaziner? mr. magaziner votes no. mr. ivy? mr. ivy votes no. mr. garcia votes no. mrs. ramirez? mrs. ramirez votes no. mr. menendez? mr. menendez votes no. ms. clark? ms. clark votes no. missed titus? ms. titus votes no. >> how am i recorded? or how is mr. loadout recorded? >> mr. alonna is not recorded. >> mr. alonna votes aye.

>> chairman green votes aye. >> on that vote, there were 18 ayes and 14 nos. >> that motion is agreed to. and i recognize myself is offering an amendment in the nature of the substitute personal >> order. >> what purpose are you recognize? >> mr. chairman, i reached a point of order against amendment in the nature of a substitute. cause 7 of rule 16 states that no motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted on the color of amendment. during this committees june 14th 2023 hearing, mr. chairman, you said, quote, but immigration is not our committee. we don't get to solve the immigration problems. end quote. this amendment falsely alleges

that secretary mayorkas has refused to comply with federal immigration laws, this amendment is not germane to the committee's jurisdiction according to the chair june 22 statement as well as clause 1j rule 10, and i insist on my point of order. >> it is overruled, and the reason is the house proceeded to vote this to committee so we will proceed. >> i appeal the ruling of the chair. >> the gentleman will appeal the ruling of the chair. we will not have a vote on the ruling. >> the clerk will call the roller. the gentleman from mississippi moves the table. >> i recognize clause 1 of rule 16. reduced to writing and report it by the clerk. >> the committee will suspend.

>> submit it for that record. >> submit it for the record. >> the movement to the table has been submitted in writing.

>> okay. >> the clerk will call the role on the motion to table. mr. mccall? aye. >> mr. mccall votes aye. mr. higgins? mr. higgins votes aye. mr. guest? mr. guest votes aye. mr. bishop? mr. bishop votes aye. mr. gimenez? mr. gimenez votes aye. mr. pflueger? >> aye. >> mr. pflueger votes aye. mr. garbarino? mr. garbarino votes aye. miscreant? i . mr. lolo do? mr. a lot of votes aye. votes aye. ms. lee? ms. lee votes aye. mr. letrell? mr. letrell votes aye. mr. straw? mr. straw votes aye. mr. makeen? mr. mccain votes aye.

mr. crane? mr. crane votes aye. ranking member thompson? ranking member thompson votes no. ms. jackson lee? ms. jackson lee votes no. mr. pain? mr. pain votes no. carter? mr. carter votes no. mr. magaziner? mr. ivy? mr. ivy votes no. mr. garcia? mr. garcia votes no. mrs. ramirez? mrs. ramirez votes no. mr. menendez? mr. menendez votes no. ms. clark? ms. clark votes no. missed titus? missed titus votes no. >> how is the chair recorded? >> the chair is not recorded. >> the chair votes aye.

>> report the tally? >> there were 18 ayes and 14 nos. >> the tabling motion stands and that motion is moved to the table. without objection, click report that amendment and nature of the substitute personal .a amendment in the nature of a substitute for 863 offered by mr. green of tennessee. without objection, the reading is dispensed with. i now recognize myself to explain the amendment and nature of the substitute. this is in the nature of a substitute and expansive the underlying resolution by 22 articles of impeachment. article one relates to secretary mayorkas's systemic refusal to apply the law and number two is for public trust. the amendment and the nature of the substitute also includes updated figures regarding illegal border crossings and

other statistics. with that, i yield. there any other further discussion on the amendment and the nature of a substitute? >> mr. chairman, may i be recognized? >> yes. you may. you are recognized for five minutes. >> we are here based on two completely fabricated, unsupported, and never-used- before articles of impeachment. this is completely debasing and demeaning the impeachment clause of the united states constitution. and it is a gross, gross injustice to the credibility of this institution. in your opening statement, you quoted james madison as saying the impeachment clause is

designed to remove bad men in office. but, notably, the impeachment clause is not designed to remove bad policy from the office. and the definition of bad men, as professor pearlstein said, is an individual who abuses his power for personal gain. there has never been an impeachment in the history of the united states for someone has been impeached for something other than the abuse of power for purposes outside of his official duties. that is for elections. and that is for legislation. this, on the other hand, is an impeachment process that you are moving forward because you claim that secretary mayorkas ,

who is obviously working under the direction of president biden, is failing to secure the border. the irony of the fact that secretary mayorkas has spent the last two months plus with a bipartisan group of senators negotiating legislation that would address the problems at the border should not be lost on any one. you are sitting here right now trying to impeach a secretary of homeland security for neglecting his duties, literally a while he is trying to perform his duties and negotiate legislation. now, the real reason we are here as we all know, is because donald trump wants to run on

immigration for his number one issue in the november 2024 election. and you don't have to take my word on it because he said it himself. and, last week, numerous republicans echoed his call. why would we actually solve the problems at the border when it is such a good political message to use for the election? and a leader mcconnell even reiterated in a closed door meeting of the republican members of the senate that we are in a quandary he said. because our candidate wants to run on immigration. and we don't want to get in the way of our candidate. i know this weekend i saw chairman mccall on tv and others. and you are changing her tune now because you said the quiet

part out loud that this is all about politics. now, oh, no, the president can do it without legislation. nevermind that you have been calling for hr 2 this entire congress. he has tried to do it himself. he has tried. he has passed numerous policies that would have streamlined the asylum process through ports of entry where migrants are vented that would have presumptively made an eligible anyone trying to cross the border in between ports of entry, and what have done a number of different things to address the problems. republicans went to court to sue him and stop him from implementing the policies to address the border. so your own party is sabotaging and undermining this

administration's efforts to address the border while you are trying to impeach him by saying that they are not addressing the border. the hypocrisy is the least of it. your attack on the rule of law and our democracy is the worst of it. and you had better be careful about the bed that you make. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields. and i appreciate the gentleman keeping his remarks within the five minutes because that day is going to be long. we are not going to do the typical over five minutes if you are continuing a thought. keep your comments to five minutes, please. i now recognize myself for five minutes. i would like to consider the supreme court's ruling of the united states versus texas. president biden's appointment of the general elizabeth aligarh made it certain that no business or individual has standing to challenge an

administrative administration as a blanket matcher. and not enforce any particular law. when pressed by justice brett kavanaugh, if states and individuals were precluded from challenging this lack of enforcement, the president's own solicitor general responded, that is correct. but the framers intended political checks and congress has tools at its disposal. justice cavanagh responded, i think your position is, instead of judicial review, congress has to resort to impeachment or dramatic steps in defiance of the laws passed by congress. in the face of dramatic abdication of statutory responsibility, by the executive branch, such steps would be warranted.

in other words, the biden administration's own legal position -- it is the biden administration's own legal position before the court that impeachment is a proper remedy for dramatic abdication of statutory responsibility. meaning, if a secretary is not adhering to the laws passed by congress, the only recourse because the states now don't have standing is for the congress to impeach. that is the rulings of the supreme court, and the argument brought forward by president biden's own solicitor general. >> while the gentleman yield on that point? >> i will finish and then you can be recognized, mr. ivy . i think it is pretty clear that in that supreme court ruling, the state wasn't given standing. now, the supreme court did not rule on whether or not the gentleman -- a secretary was adhering to the laws or not, but the discussion was about

what you do when they are not. and the majority opinion was both by alito and cavanaugh and impeachment are the only places for recourse in a situation like that. that is why we are where we are today. we have a secretary -- the law is very clear. shall detain. it does not say create policies to allow for people to immediately bitterly released into the country. it says shall detain and that is not dan. the system was created to do just the opposite of that. that is a violation of the immigration and nationality act. it is actually willful and systemic, and when courts ruled you can't do that, he just repackaged it and continued to do just that. and the supreme court agrees that the only recourse is for congress to take action. when a secretary -- and i will

use the solicitor general's own words. dramatic abdication of statutory responsibility. i yield. recognized. >> mr. ivy, your recognized. >> i refer the chairman and the committee to the actual opinion that was written by justice kavanaugh, which is the one that has the force of law. not necessarily the discussion with the solicitor general. but on this particular point, the allegation that is being made and the articles of impeachment is that there is a willful defiance of enforcing the law. justice kavanaugh, with respect to this point, wrote this. as the district report found,

the executive branch does not possess the resources necessary to our rest remove all of the instances covered by these two statutes. that reality is not a anomaly. it is a constant. for the last 27 years since the statues were enacted in their current form, all five presidential candidates have determined it. in other words, what he is saying -- and this is in reference to cases like wade. those are prosecutorial cases. refer to the branch about what to enforce or not to enforce and how to enforce it. and that is exactly what he is saying here. it is especially powerful here because this deals with enforcement of the immigration laws, which is given special deference to the executive branch, so the language you

just read and the article -- the first section of the impeachment, are totally negated not only by this language but by the long history of the supreme court deferring to the executive branch and deciding what to enforce and how to enforce it. and that is exactly what we have got here. i think the argument that secretary mayorkas has not enforced these laws may not like the way he has done it. but i think it is clear in the letter he sent to the committee. by the way, i thought it was totally appropriate for him to send the letter after the articles of impeachment had been released and his comments should be related to the articles. but, anyway, since may 12, 2023, dhs has returned with a proper thousand individuals. daily returns have nearly doubled compared to what they were to the pre-pandemic average of 2014-2019. i refer to page 2 of his later letter dated january 2024. the point is this.

the language you are talking about as the professor testified as a total failure to do the job. and the issues that she pointed to where things like addiction or, you know, physical inability to perform. we don't have that here. and the language that is in the letter that he sent and the data backed up by it shows that he is actually been working on the job and doing the work, as on the recognition by the senate. democrats and republicans who called him to the hilt to negotiate at their negotiating bipartisan solution to the problem. unfortunately, we have not done that. but they recognize he is doing the job. the last point i want to make is your reference to -- >> gentleman yields to question. >> i can't because i am running out of time. but your reference to

impeachment being the only tool available -- and this is page 14 of the opinion. this is still justice kavanaugh. for example -- this is where he is talking about options because there is no standing. d for example, congress possesses an array of tools to analyze and influence those policies. oversight? legislative process and senate confirmation. i don't see impeachment mentioned anywhere in the opinion he wrote. by the way, there is concurrence from justice course which. all three of the trump nominees to the supreme court agreed with this language. none of them supported the position you outlined. there was an 8-1 decision. the soul center at this case. based on the constitutional law, as explained by the

supreme court in the case that you cited in the article comes out exactly the opposite and undermines the claims that somebody could be impeached in the executive branch for following executive authority that the supreme court recognizes, especially in immigration cases and that has been true for decade after decade. i yield back. >> gentlemen yields. i now recognize ms. green for five minutes. >> congress has the responsibility to hold the executive branch accountable when they failed to uphold their oath of office, abuse their authority and, or, are dishonest with the american people. this is essential and a constitutional republic built on separation of powers. a 2023 ruling, united states versus texas, the supreme court left the house of representatives with little choice but to pursue

impeachment articles against secretary mayorkas. the majority did not address the secretary's policy to mandate the marriage but simply ruled the state did not have the standing to challenge them and the justices wrote that congress has political tools available to push back on the policies. the only one that makes sense in the current political environment is impeachment. democrats have completely rejected our strongest security bill for our border. the actions and decisions clearly meet the standards necessary for initiating impeachment proceedings. this historical evidence is overwhelming that the founding fathers intended impeachment to be used to deal with the commission of injectable crimes on the abuse of power. corruption and injury to the nation caused by public officials among others at the constitutional convention, the

framers purposely devised the impeachment power to include any offenses against the nation's security committed by high officials. stephen bradberry, former principal deputy and acting attorney general for the office of legal counsel at the department of justice, there is a settled understanding beyond dispute that impeachable offenses include both prosecutable crimes and all manner of gross misconduct in office that does serious harm to the u.s. political system more the u.s. constitutional order. the actions, policies, and statements of secretary mayorkas easily meet that standard and the american people completely agree, especially the witnesses we had before this committee, these parents that have had children murdered by fentanyl, murdered by illegal aliens, gang members

and so much more. there might be two constituents that were killed in a horrific car accident by a 17-year-old cartel member smuggling illegal aliens into texas. secretary mayorkas must be impeached for his failure to uphold his oath of office and for willfully breaking federal immigration laws. esther chairman, i yield back my time. >> i now recognize mr. garcia for five minutes of comments on the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think we should be embarrassed to be here today. this is a complete sham impeachment. i would also like to point out that the previous speaker on the committee has been spending a lot of her time fundraising off of this impeachment effort. the fact that she is a

posturing to taking it serious is quite a joke as well. in this congress, it is the least productive that we have had since the 1930s. we have only passed 23 laws and most of those have been generally terrible laws. and when amos geordie -- when he majority cannot pass laws, -- we have heard over and over from constitutional scholars including republicans that there is no basis for this impeachment. i want to take a moment to correct the record on a couple of things. i have heard my republic -- my republican colleagues say that trump has secured the border. immigrations tripled in the last eight months of the presidency, rising from more than 21,000 in may 2020 to over 71,000 in december as he was

leaving office. the migration spike started under donald trump. today, we are dealing with the fallout of historic crisis happening across latin america. venezuela has completely collapsed and is in crisis. ecuador is dealing with a historic bang crisis. cuba and haiti are also facing enormous challenges as well. the whole region is struggling to recover from extreme weather, drought, and covid-19. meanwhile, historic recovery and the u.s. has created a demand for workers. all of this impacts the border. we know that is not all. the majority blames secretary mayorkas for the policies of the people coming here to seek asylum that they won't accept any legislative proposal for funding to deal with the problem when the president and the secretary offer them. speaker johnson has told foxnews on multiple occasions now that he is taking his orders from trump on the border

and he just said recently, as of today, that he won't even take up the senate deal. donald trump speaks about immigrants with the same rhetoric that hitler did, claiming that immigrants like me and my family, and i quote, dilute the blood of this country. he wants chaos and he has admitted he even would like to see recession happening this year. i want to remind the public that donald trump and house republicans also have their own ideas for the border. let's review the majority of the border ideas that they have presented. here they are. donald trump has said that he wants the -- wants to build alligator motes along the border. another idea that donald trump has promoted is that he wants to electrify the border fence and maybe even put some spikes on the border. that is another donald trump and maga will majority border radio.

another idea is that he wants to bomb northern mexico with missiles. that is another trump idea. finally, one of the ones that is the most grotesque is that instead, we should just shoot migrants in the leg as they cross the border. once again, the donald trump and maga plan is alligator motes, bombing northern mexico, shooting migrants in the leg and electrifying the fence and putting spikes on them. that is the donald trump border plan. again, we are here today with these horrific ideas being presented constantly by the former president. this is all about trying to get donald trump reelected. donald trump himself is saying he wants no solution this year out of the congress and secretary mayorkas and president biden continue to offer solutions every day and are ready to talk about real immigration and border solutions in this country. with that, i yield back.

>> will you yield for a clarifying question? >> sure. >> can you clarify what you mean by the analogy that you just said that donald trump was hitler? >> when you say that you want to -- when immigrants are polluting this country, that is me and the blood of this country. that is absolutely reminiscent of things that adolf hitler said. is imagery, he supports white nationalism, the way he supports white supremacy and those kind of comments are completely offensive to immigrants and to all americans. >> but just to be clear, you are drawing an analysis to donald trump saying he's like hitler. >> the rhetoric that donald trump uses is very much the rhetoric that adolf hitler used. >> the gentlemen's time has expired. >> it is a sad day that we are here. i don't think anybody takes any pleasure in being here.

this is really the last resort that our founders intended to use, an impeachment as a check and they balance. i have wrestled with the appropriate congressional response to what has been a willful refusal to apply to the law to adhere to congressional directives and more importantly, to secure our homeland. the failure to secure the border has been so significant, so catastrophic, so egregious that congress must now use its power to provide accountability . we must be the check on the balance against such an extremely egregious breach of the trust. families around the country have lost confidence in the secretary, the government, and the administration. i show you this picture right here of this family. this is a button -- they set right there when secretary mayorkas was testifying.

the 71-year-old grandmother was killed. the 7-year-old granddaughter was killed by a human trafficker doing 100 miles per hour in west texas carrying 11 illegal aliens, evading capture and tragically slammed into their vehicle, instantly killing them. the daughter of maria sat with secretary mayorkas and said this is not political. we want you to secure the border and yet nothing has been done. we passed hr 2 in may of last year. when you go to the border, when you talk to border patrol, when you talk to i.c.e. agents, they tell you that there are no consequences. that, the secretary has willfully refused to enforce the laws that are on the books. i asked rhetorically, then how do you hold accountability?

do you think that this has been a success? we offer these articles of impeachment today to comply with the law, the egregious breach of public trust because we do take seriously our oath. there is been three years. this is the last resort. this is the sad day. the other side will say this is a policy difference. no, it is not. this is not a debate about taxes or spending. this is a debate about following the law, which the executive branch should be doing. yet, they are not. do you remember the 53 people that were killed in a tractor trailer south of san antonio in july of last year? they were locked up. smuggler left them to rot and perish in a tractor-trailer.

that is what this is about. the secretary has done nothing, has done absolutely nothing to make our country more secure. he has weakened us in every single case. >> just a couple of weeks ago, secretary mayorkas sat right there next to director wray and i asked the question to 300 people who have matched the terror watch list. are there still people at large in this country that you know match the terror watch list but you don't know where they are? director wray answered, yes. there are people still at large that match the watchlist. secretary mayorkas, i asked him, do you have a policy to detain people that match the terror watch list and he would not answer in the affirmative . that is why we are here today. he has willfully refused time and time again to enforce the

laws on the books. we have given many solutions. the senate has not taken them up. it is this type of behavior that brings us here. this is an extreme position. >> will the gentlemen yield for a question? >> no, i will not. my silence to you was the answer. the extreme position is that of my colleague, completely disregarding a mother who was here just a few weeks ago i lost her kids to fentanyl. that is why we are here. i've got to think that on the other side of the aisle, that you think this is a complete and utter failure to secure the homeland. that is why republicans are here and i hope you will join in calling it out and doing the right thing. >> i now recognize mr. for five minutes on the amendment on the

nature of the subject. >> thank you, chair. we are here with real challenges at the southern border and i wish that we were working on them together to solve them. instead, my republican colleagues are too focused on playing political games and not focused on working together to find a solution. here is a quote from this morning. the impeachment fight was front and center. house republicans' unyielding appetite for political drama over actual legislating. i think that sums it up very well. there is no constitutional basis to impeach secretary mayorkas. the constitution is very specific . it states that the grounds for impeachment are treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. there is no treason alleged or mentioned in these articles, no bribery is alleged or mentioned in these articles and no high crimes or misdemeanors either.

house republicans are playing politics instead of working together to find real solutions. if we were working together to find solutions to the border, we could be voting today on president biden's request for more funding for the border. his request would add 1300 border patrol officers and 1600 officers. we could be working with the senate to develop policies to address our immigration challenges but instead, we are wasting our time on impeachment because securing the border is not a priority for house republicans. donald trump's 2024 campaign as their priority. you know it from the way that this debate has shifted over the last year. originally, house republicans were saying we won't give a sent to ukraine unless they are funding for the border too. the administration said okay and proposed $14 billion of funding for the border and then house republicans said it is not money, we need policy changes and the administration said okay and has been working with the senate on policy

changes and now house republicans have said we don't want policy changes. we don't want money. we don't know what we want. we want to beat joe biden in 2024. they keep changing their story about what they want because what they want is the political drama and not a solution. the real truth is that the president and the secretary have taken steps to secure our borders despite house republicans' attempt to obstruct them every step of the way. there are two impeachment articles that we are being asked to consider today and i want to make sure that everyone understands what these articles actually say. the first one says, in a nutshell, that the secretary has refused to comply with the law because some of the migrants he has apprehended at the border have been released from detention while they were waiting for their claims to be heard. that is the argument of impeachment article 1 in a

nutshell. he is refusing to follow the law because he is releasing a portion of the migrants into the country while they are waiting for their claims to be heard. every administration has done this. every administration has released migrants while they are waiting for their hearing. no administration has kept 100% of the migrants in detention because they did not have the resources to do so. justice kavanaugh said that in his opinion. in fact, in the last two years of the trump administration -- listen to this. 52% of the migrants encountered at the southern border were released into the united states while awaiting their hearing. that is a higher percentage than during the biden administration. the biden administration has detained migrants coming across the border at approximately an 80% rate which is the same as under the trump administration. article 1 is trying to impeach the secretary for doing what

every administration before has done, releasing a portion of the migrants, not because he wants to but because congress has failed to give the resources to do it, to detain them. congress has failed to provide the resources not just in this congress but over the last 20+ years. this is why the secretary has exercised his discretion. the second article alleges that the secretary lied to congress but does not say facts or figures. uses words like secure. operational control, phrases which can be interpreted by different people. the case here is so thin nonconstitutional ground that it is laughable.

what is really tragic as this is wasted time we could be spending to work together to fix the problem as the administration is trying to do. instead, we are here debating these very thin, flimsy legal arguments for constitutional impeachment. >> the gentlemen's time has expired. >> i ask unanimous consent to enter the case. 22-58. >> i asked for consent to enter massive numbers of parolees mayorkas seeks to bypass and subvert the entire lawful immigrants system. >> without objection. >> i recognize sheila jackson. >> i include the record article

2, section 4 of the constitution of the united states of america which says the president, vice president and all civil officers of the united states shall be removed from office on impeachment for and convention of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i ask unanimous consent to enter material into the record. this was the letter from the future supreme court justice james arundel from north carolina convention which explains policy differences and other manners that are not impeachable offenses. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i ask unanimous consent to enter material into the record. >> what material? >> mr. chairman, i ask that unanimous consent include the record bipartisan letter from

25 of the top constitutional law experts in this country to speaker johnson and chairman green explaining, in no uncertain words that, quote, an impeachment of secretary mayorkas would be utterly unjustified as a matter of unconstitutional law. >> so ordered. >> other unanimous consent to enter stuff into the record? >> i seek unanimous consent to enter the 64 actions the biden administration has taken to undermined our national security at the southern border. >> without objection, so ordered. >> mr. chairman, i have materials i would like to enter into the record. i ask for unanimous consent. this is a record from articles. what is title 42 and what is happening now at the border which shows that secretary mayorkas and dhs's fourth title policy enters the dhs carried

out 2.5 million migrants from march 2020 until title 42 expired in may 2022. >> i now recognize the senator. >> i ask unanimous consent to include section 751 of joseph's stories on the constitution which explains that the power of impeachment is not one expected in any government to be in constant frequent exercise. >> so ordered. >> i ask unanimous consent to include in the record article 3, section 1 of the north carolina constitution of 1776 and article 23 of the delaware constitution of 1776 showing that the constitution framers had examples of impeachment language based on analysis administration but explicitly rejected using such language as

a basis for impeachment. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i ask unanimous consent to include the record, the committee of homeland security's, majorities phase 5 interim report titled the massive waste and abuse enabled by dhs, secretary alejandro mayorkas where republicans wrongly point to the biden administration's budget request as an example of the attempt to evade the law. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i ask unanimous consent that we enter into the record the entirety of the u.s. versus texas to include the transcript of the oral argument. >> without objection, so ordered.

>> for the record, jennings versus rodriguez, 583 u.s. 281 2018 decision from the supreme court holding that section 230 6c of the immigration act mandates detention of an alien fallen within a schedule. without objection, so ordered. >> chairman? >> i ask unanimous consent to include in the record a memo from secretary alejandro mayorkas entitled guidelines for the civil immigration law which shows that secretary mayorkas is following the law when it comes to immigration enforcement activities. >> without objection, so ordered. unanimous consent to enter into the record letter dating january 17, 2024. this letter comes from kevin brock, assistant director of criminal intelligence and the list goes on.

>> without objection, i ask for unanimous consent to enter into the objection page 65. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i ask unanimous consent to include the southwest border coordination center with migration immigration center resource guide that shows the biden admin instituted a whole approach for the transition fact for normal immigration law after title 42 expired and republicans are trying to impeach the secretary for carrying out the laws of this country. >> i ask unanimous consent to include in the record the u.s. citizenship and immigration policy manager, humanitarian projection and parole, chapter 1. the ina requires the parole of noncitizens, considered in a discretionary case by case basis for urgent humanitarian

reason for significant public benefits. >> i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a newsweek article stating the record number of suspected terrorists across the u.s. mexico border. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i think the next person up in the next five minutes is mr. mccall. you are recognized for five minutes to address the amendment in the nature of the substitute. >> i want to go back to the supreme court decision, the united states versus the supreme court of texas. the court was examining a statute that provided the government shall take into custody any alien that has committed an aggravated -- it is not discretionary that they shall take into custody. we are talking about human

trafficking, money laundering, firearms offenses. these are serious crimes. the statute in question requires that it be mandatory, not discretionary. what the court says is that an officer cannot rely on the fact of conviction. the dhs memorandum says, directly contrary to the statute -- this is a quote from the court. dhs personnel shall not rely on the fact that conviction is going to pass the law. we cannot have a felony. you cannot take that into account. that is not prosecutorial discretion. it takes away the discretion. going back to oral arguments made before the court -- i found this very fascinating. during the debate, biden's

general responded to kavanaugh and said instead of judicial review, you are saying they don't have standings that congress would have to resort to impeachment or dramatic in the face of the law. the biden solicitor general says that she agrees. in the face of a dramatic abdication of statutory responsibility by the executive branch such that would be warranted, the biden administration's general saying the legal position of impeachment is the proper remedy for dramatic abdication of statutory responsibility. returning to the founding fathers, they did not have a whole lot of criminal statutes back then. james madison, when they are reporting the department of

state, it is called foreign affairs. what if they filled the department with unworthy men of public trust? it says on the house floor, if an unworthy man can see in the office -- finally, carried on the other side where has the admiral neglected to safeguard -- it should be deemed an impeachable offense? i would argue, mr. chairman, this is exactly the case we have here. we have a lord admiral, secretary charged with defensive, air, land, sea. he is not defending our borders. my dear friends on the other side of the aisle say that the

numbers did not go dramatically under the prior administration. i don't know where they were. i passed that out of my committee. mr. pfluger is correct, there were 64 executive actions that this president took to rescind the prior executive orders that were working. for instance, political asylum cannot be adjudicated. you have removed outside of the united states. counters can stay in the united states. >> let me finish. i don't know how anyone can argue that the numbers have skyrocketed under this administration. i live in a border state and i just came back from the border and i saw -- it has been many

times, overflowing. it has created a human tragedy. i look at the migrants with compassion and i see a human tragedy before our eyes when i see them in detention space, knowing that they won't have legal status, that the women will get into sex trafficking, the young men are going to go to ms-13. what are we doing? we are creating a criminal enterprise in the united states, not to mention one of the most dangerous environments i have seen. i chaired this committee, 300 apprehended on the terror watch list. many more got in? it only took 19 hijackers to bring down the world trade center. i think there is a justification and moral justification. >> pursuant to clause 1 letter

a of rule 11, i moved the committee to know recess until 1:30 p.m. and i have a motion on the desk. >> committee stands in recess.