the first, rather the second time, in the history of the american republic. there is no reason, sir, that this is rare. there is a reason why no congress, republican lead or democratic lead, has tried to impeach a cabinet secretary since william belknap in 1876. 149 years. another president this republican congress is slated to break with apparently great pride. please don't mistake the passion that i have and my colleagues on the side of the aisle, for anything but a passion for the constitution, and a very deep concern for the way in which i believe it is being undermined by this proceeding. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the chair would advise the committee and our witnesses that voting is underway. we're going to recess. but i would ask if you assemble immediately after the last vote.

witnesses, come back at that point and we will resume the hearing then. the committee stands in recess. [gavels] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [indistinct conversation]

>> the committee will reconvene to continue consideration of hr 485 and house resolution 863. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for whatever questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you mr. thompson being here. i have heard a lot of different words spoken while we have been here. marjorie taylor greene has come up time and time again. this being political time and time again. donald trump time and time again. with you mr. thompson. there is a lot of questions,

there is a lot of questions the american people want to know about january 6. why was jim jordan and mr. banks excluded. why wasn't their cross-examination? why wasn't ms. pelosi who is in charge of security, along with the sergeant of arms, why wasn't she cross-examined? why was ray epps and other people seen as courting people in? there are a lot of questions. but the question we have here is those were just diversions. the question we have here is on mr. mayorkas, secretary mae arcus and whether he is fit for the job. what really baffles me, mr. thompson, i think you said get more resources as if that's a reason. the problem at the border is it doesn't have resources. if secretary mayorkas is not going to let the border patrol do their job, why would you give

him more money? that's just not going to do it. you would agree with that. money will not cure this. you mentioned electronic devices. it's only under this president that we opened our borders up to anybody from any country, anywhere in the world. it's because of this administration. and to compare donald trump's -- i heard mention of 700, a number with him compared to the 12 to 15 million we have in this country today -- is absurd, even bringing up the different topics to divert attention. i think the ranking member mentioned that sec. mayorkas doesn't deserve impeachment. neither does the american people deserve what's going on right now.

what's interesting, what the words will not explain what the american people are seeing. to see new york city, 4000 illegals take the place of law-abiding, children of law-abiding adults. what the american people are seeing is the police officers that got kicked in the head and beat up. and i have seen law enforcement left because of this administration under mayorkas and what he is doing in this country. have you been to the border, mr. thompson? >> a number of times. >> so, you see what i see. you see the cardboard with the numbers on it. when you try to take a picture, an american walks up, and you are not going to take that picture. why, what if you got to hide?

them whisked away in some of the nicest buses i have ever seen in my life. that is what the american people are seeing. words are not going to explain that. i think you said, mr. thompson, when the enemy shows up, they don't ask are you democrat/republican? all they want to do is harm america. that's what exactly is happening with this administration's actions to let everybody and anybody in this country. there was a letter that was sent around from a member, all the border patrol members you have heard of, chris, who is saying the attacks are now here in this country. they are not overseas. the attacks, the blood that will be shed, is now. and it's here.

it is a simple page and a half. because this administration has been doing this intentionally, voluntarily. i have asked the same question myself, congressman greene, may argus is just doing what he is told. he is just a hired hand. the real culprit is joe biden. but it is what it is, he is the one in the seat dictating the laws being broken. i was on the oversight committee when i said mr. mayorkas, is the border secure? can you define secure for me? ricketts. wouldn't-- crickets. wouldn't say a word. words will not hide what my friends on the other aisle are trying to hide. it's not going to do it because the american people see it. now our security is threatened right here in this capital. right now. as well as everywhere and in this country.

we are all border states now. mr. green, i want to thank you for what you are doing. it's what we ought to do and hopefully we can be successful with it. >> the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank you chairman, and gentlemen, for appearing before the committee. i want to address a couple of issues. i know chairman green, you brought up your service, i want to echo just one more time. your fidelity to the constitution of the united states and the laws of the united states which were being questioned earlier, i think, inappropriately. based on your past service and military service, in united states congress, is there anything else you want to reiterate about your lifetime of commitment to the constitution and laws of the united states? thank you, sir.

>> let me say a couple points of observation. i would ask, chairman green, if you agree that what we're seeing at the southern border. seeing happened due to open borders is unprecedented. >> there is nothing in our history that rivals the depth and breadth of the crisis at the southern border. where foreign agents, not of the government, but of the mexican cartels, have seized control of the southern border. where 150,000 dead americans, we lost 54,000 i think it was in vietnam, 10-year war. two years we lost 150,000 people to fentanyl. the cartels have metastasized throughout our country. it's unprecedented. also in terms of the actions of the secretary, all the previous

secretaries attempted to detain, when the resources were exam grenada, they did what they had to do on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the law. i would love to make a correction to the record from earlier if i could. the supreme court did not rule on the lawlessness of the secretary. but lower courts did. lower courts found him breaking the law, violating the laws as it relates to his memorandum issue to ice to tell them not to detain criminal felons, etc. what the supreme court did was rulon standing. they decided not to decide. it is fascinating if you go to the oral arguments in that case, where even the solicitor will general arguing on behalf of the biden administration, says and i paraphrase, essentially, that

the states don't have standing here. congress is the one to handle these kinds of things. justice kavanaugh actually says i think what you're saying is that congress is the one. i do have his quote here. congress has to resort to shutting down the government or impeachment. or dramatic steps. she then replies yes, with statutory and regulatory violations, it's the congress who holds. that's what came out of texas versus united states. states don't have standing. it's a blank check to make office as long as congress doesn't act. but when faced with an executive branch that refuses to carry out the law, the options in front of congress are what? the power of the purse. we can defund --

>> it raises issues to how you manage the funding issue. power of the person is one tool. the other is impeachment. we will come to that. the third area is to pass another law. true or false. under 212f currently the president would have emergency power to shut down the border. when he declares this emergency and says he needs tools, he has the tools. he can stop it immediately literally under existing law. why do we need changes to existing law? well, as we are trying to manage a system where we handle immigration, the current system is being exploited. i don't think the gentleman disagrees with this. where we have the general letter and spirit, operational security of the border. you cannot come in without papers. that is the baseline. but then there is legal

immigration. we invite you to come here. here is some papers and you can apply if you have the right standing. then there is people that come here and they try to claim something. true or false. this administration has been using asylum and parole as effectively a backdoor way to use those limited exceptions that are supposed to be predominantly case-by-case, to use it as effectively the exception to swallow the rule of security, right? that along with the judge-made loopholes like flores with those complications, so those smaller revisions are being used too say everybody come, make a claim and get released. is that a fair characterization in your observation? >> exactly, that is what the supreme court chose not to make a decision on. exactly said that he had basically turned the whole immigration system upside down. >> and the impact just to see if this sounds correct to you, that

of the 3.3 million illegal aliens released into the united states since january 2021, the biden administration failed to remove roughly 99.7% of those illegal aliens. that compared to an average between fy 2017 and fy 2020, we had 1.4 million in 2021, 2 .3 million in 2022, 2.4 million in 2023. impacts on cities and states. new york has been 1.5 billion dollars, texas has spent $12.5 billion on the crisis. smuggling organizations estimate revenues increased from $500 billion in 2018 to $13 billion in 2020 two. immigration court backlog has increased from 1.3 million cases to 3 million cases. i could go on and on. fentanyl numbers have gone from 48 pounds in fiscal year 2020 to now in excess of 40,000 pounds.

those are rough estimates. and the terror watch list. 11 total fiscal year 17 to 20, 300 31 total fiscal year 2021 to 2024 hunter biden. these are all concerning results of open borders. would the gentleman agree? that is a fair characterization. replete in all the documentation of those numbers prayed obviously, they change on a monthly basis. i would asked to introduce into four documents since i have been working on this a while to kind of the point of the ranking member that this is somehow political. this is a response to president trump if the gentleman wants to give the president a called down to mar-a-lago and explain what i was doing in iowa the last month , i would appreciate him doing that. case in long form laying out the case for impeaching mayorkas in the sp 13--page memo in march of '22 five months later i updated to the entirety

of the gop colleagues in july of 23 i wrote an op-ed to the constitutional case for impeaching mayorkas and earlier last month in january i sent another memo for updating the numbers keeping the general framework. the gentlemen has seen some of that work that's a result of work in judiciary committee and ask all four to be entered into the record. the reason i bring that up far from being political this was october of '21 ten months into this administration. where if you go look at that memo where we lay out the stark shift from january '21 to october of '21 it was blatantly clear that home lapd of security was ignoring laws that that ignoring of t law was endangering people i represent. that was the fact of the matter would the gentlemen agree with that but texas and tennessee and other people -- >> 100%. >> and along those lines in the articles that -- have been presented, the

secretary has willfully systemically refused to comply with for example, you have in here a and i236c and statutes where the secretary is required right to -- execute the law, true? >> that's correct, yes. >> at some point and from the gentlemen from california who says what is the mens rea and elements of the crime and where in the constitution learned doctor -- you don't have to be a legal scholar to be able to read the constitution where in the constitution of the united states is there anything that mentions elements of the crime -- or mens rea with respect to impeachment? >> it is not there. now why might that be? because it is a political document. right? this is a political question. now, it is a political question based on law. right? based on our --

understanding of how we want to apply the laws. but where in the constitution are high crimes and misdemeanors defined is there a definition section in the back that defines so where might we go to high crime misdemeanors, experience and try to figure out what it means so my friend from colorado when i was here i refer to him in the third person but he's not here. raised i believe a couple of other my colleagues other side of the aisle and couple of colleagues have raised the question about mild administration i think it is an important question. whether or not high crimes and misdemeanors was -- meant to include mall administration or whether mall administration was simply rejected. now, i could be wrong and i'm certainly open to be corrected for the record because i think this is an interesting history. i don't know if that was did dispositive either way but it is my understanding that it was, in fact -- not -- rejected by vote. but rather when it was suggested

by colonel mason i think seconded by mr. gary that there was a -- a point raised by mr. madison that i believe the gentlemen from colorado quoted so vague eliminate to a tenure pleasure of the senate end quote and then there was -- some one sentence debate here in the colonel mason withdrew mall administration, it was not voted on he withdrew mall administration and substitutes, quote, other high crimes and misdemeanors. now, the point of that -- was that it was not, in fact, rejected and it was not defined, of course, that is a then question about whether or not mall administration whaftion the concern about it? some of these debates would go back during the 90s during the clinton debates about whether you have to have done something in your official capacity versus personal capacity and all of that has been a significant debate. but i would note and asked and insert into the record a large

article from duke -- duke university, without objection -- >> without objection. >> that in here that author writes close reading of the mason madison exchange does not support either view in terms of the debate they're having at the time. that first convention itself did not reject the term mall administration and withdrew because there was no vote and no opportunity for the delegates to adopt or reject madison concern. second characteristic kamala developed high crimes and misdemeanors that included but was not limited to mall administration. the phrase also incompass misconduct and madison may have not known this there was mall administration but i'm not suggesting that i know exactly what they meant. i was not there. i'm not suggesting that i think that it should or should not be a broad application of mall administration. that is a debate. but the simple truth is --

it's up to us. so the question before as i think is one more of -- whether we open a door we open a box right that's the question. that we would rustle with here. the question here is whether the secretary of homeland security has engaged in such content by ignoring laws of the united states that you can reasonably suggest that violating his oath right -- to faithfully execute laws of the united states and on behalf of the president for whom there is, in fact, freezing in the constitution -- that he must take care right? and this i think is the center point of the entire debate. no one wants to have to go down the road of impeaching a secretary appointed and then confirmed by the senate of the united states. i certainly don't want to do that and gentlemen from tennessee doesn't want to do that. is that correct? >> one of the last things you want to do -- >> exactly. so people say well this is a big political -- you know, scout well i tweeted

out today -- not shockingly some of the interest of my republican colleagues -- that i might find it interesting that some of my colleagues would very much appreciate being able to say they impeach mayorkas, but not actually get funding removed and have a spending fight in order to stop what's happening at the border. i have no interest in doing that and most of my colleagues have no interest of doing that it is a question and academic question. we're here as you said at the beginning -- about whether or not, in fact, i think the question was raised by the ranking member about something about a date right april of last year. and that you set out to do this and had a mission to do this and there's questions about whether or not respect to mayorkas about whether or not the fact that it might fail in the senate or other political question. ....

you call that secretary out force her or him to the table, and then in the absence of a response of the elected representative of the people, take action. you are either defending or you are impeaching. you are impeaching under whatever you believe the understanding of the law high crimes and misdemeanors i believe a violation of the oath that rises to that level for example the attorney general of the united states were to order the department of justice united states attorney stop prosecuting crimes just sit back, let everything run amok there might be a statute that violates i'm not sure i'd have to come to the statutes. that will be a gross violation of that duty under the constitution. the president was not asking for his or her resignation do you not agree to be encumbered upon incompetent uponus is that you ? >> if i could interject.

laws do not direct them to do it. there's no law that says the d.o.j. you must go and capture every single murderer. but the law, written by this body is very clear you shall detain. for criminal aliens for criminal felons it is you shall detain all of them. then there are directions to ice about immediate deportation once it's determined they don't have it in the silent claim that is legit. this secretary has not detained in fact is in everything he can to not detained. and has not deported the numbers are all plummeting. their building systems and mechanisms. >> the own admission of 85 -- 90% which is on record in terms of technology said it in front of people that works for him in texas. eighty-five -- 90% does that comport at all with any understanding of how we are

supposed to assess credible fear and make determination for releasing versus allow recording detention? i started all he has created these alternative pathways that do not exist in law. that subvert the law's intent of a case by case basis. >> does a gentleman in addition to the secretary of violating his oath, his duty to enforce law the united states is a gentleman aware of it instance and with the secretary lied or misrepresented the facts under oath before committees i'm very aware of multiple statements by secretary mayorkas he said by the definition of operational control that he and the department have operational control of the southern border there are multiple episodes of that. other instances where he said the board is secure when clearly it is not secure.

>> the response of that as you'd expect from a collins on the other side of the eye would suggest maybe it's in reverse a response that our side was trying to defend the secretary those are vague terms. he comes and makes assertions about how he is carrying out his job and his perspective of it and that sort of notion of administration or maladministration. i wonder if the gentleman might respond to the exchange that i had with the secretary and which april 19, 2022 here in the judiciary committee i read word for word on a poster in the judiciary committee the statutory definition of operational control under the secure act of 2006 gentleman you are aware of the exchange correct? >> yes i am because i asked the secretary quote do you stand by your testimony we have operational control in light of this definition? i would just adhere i had already asked the question, set it up he said that operational control, pulled up a chart with

the description and he replied quote i do. and congress make the secretary of homeland security would have said the same thing and at 2020 and 2019". in a side note as a conversation or chat wolf the former secretary i asked him that question he said either expressly never said such a thing. but i said was we are making great progress to achieve with trying to try to achieve the number and for the record they were doing that. they were trying to figure out how to enforce the law to drive the numbers down in accordance with the operational control definition. on march 28 of 2023 at not quite a year later whether we have operational control the border with secretaries" with respect to the definition of operational control i do not use the definition that appears in the

secure friends act. ". the secretary is playing games he's playing games very specifically with those definition so we can give the appearance to the american people the board is secure because those people are following it like we are most people going about their daily life taken the kids to games, going to their job, paying their bills, getting groceries they don't follow all the stuff but they see masses of people at the border and they wonder what's going on. the president of the united states is making unilateral decisions to it lots of people come into our country which, by them is undermining the national security come under it finding our security they say that's crazy he would do that? why would they got there the president the secretary there supposed enforce the law. then you come back and say by the way i have the secretary in front of me it's my job i asked him a question i was very specific i gave him lots of room surely if you look at this definition you cannot tell the up operational control mr. secretary. he very boldly claimed that he

did. and that's is the problem. it's a snowing of the american people. there's further engagement with this i will not belabor here because of time sake july of this last year end the house judiciary committee i questioned the secretary again after laying out the timeline i sent you look straight in the at the american people straight at me straight every person of this committee said we had operational control, why? he said you did not let me complete my answer is secure defined as not allowed to come across the board to which i said i am aware i read it and it read it to you and you read in in fact you said i do. you did not hesitate you did not say i do i need you to explain by the idea you said i do over and over again. any comments on that and in terms of your belief the secretary should be impeached?

>> we clearly believe a breach of trust in congress and the american people is fairly articulated in the founding fathers description of high crimes and misdemeanors we had testimony from the minority witnesses in our committee that said breach of trust is a "high crimes and misdemeanors." i genuinely believe when you like to the american people you like to congress under oath that is a breach of trust. if you look at the impeachment articles that were drafted against richard nixon they very clearly do not name him for committing any crimes but they do say for giving false testimony and for making false statements. that was an article then. clearly it is precedent this secretary has led to the american people multiple occasions horse would be considered the list goes on and on and on. >> the last one to that one secretary knew full well prior

to issuing the statement about the alleged whipping incident in which lifelong public servant order border patrol agents were accused of the most vile race-based behavior he was made aware prior to the press conference this was in fact not true is that true? >> it is correct to do before he went out to the press conference and he those general courses at lying and mischaracterizing faithful public servants of dhs and border patrol agents is that a violation of the public trust to slump up that kind of hatred? >> absolutely. >> a secretary on it numerous times undermine border security terminated border wall sued texas most recently multiple times for trying to implement border security measures. at issue is a memorandum that

should not be the sole based of enforcement action which is rewriting the law i could go on and on. the main point is and i appreciate the chairman i just want to push back on this notion that somehow at least i speak for myself i think for you i will let you speak for yourself this is politically motivated. at the end of the day i will tell you this right now secretary would call me up right now and say i apologize for what i did with those migrants i should have been more careful with what i said to you in committee about what operational control is we are going to fix this we are going to go work with texas. we are going to enforce the law were going to start detaining people we are going to tell the world we are going to detain you legitimately fully detain you. otherwise you are not coming in because that is what our law contemplates. we are going to do that and send a message to the world the

cartel's running power people are not going through this gap and traveling all the way up through mexico people getting abused writing on top of train cars and all of the stuff that we are causing and causing this to happen to americans and migrants the secretary would call me up and say hey let's get busy you are right let's enforce the law. i have no interest -- >> i want to make sure were doing our job. does a gentleman agree? >> absolutely. for me that little baby crawling around on the brb and stumbled into fentanyl that of the left by the previous renter out and died, tells me every american is not safe but the open border and i am passionately here because i believe it's the right thing to do. i yield back. >> thank you very much. young lady from indiana is recognized whatever question she may have.

>> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you chairman green and ranking member thompson for coming to the committee today or chairman green i like to start by commending you on your work throughout this process. your committee has been incredibly methodical. i know today we do not have as much time here to talk and spend as much time as you like to spend on the process i was hoping you could walk with me in summarizing the conversation and clarifying the most important point. the first thing i want to do is read directly from the department of homeland security's own website specifically with their mission statement. honor and integrity will safeguard the american people, our homeland and our values. it goes on to state u.s. department of homeland security and homeland security mission from the commitment and resolve of americans across the united states in the wake of the september 11 attacks. we witnessed troop here was him, selfless sacrifice you not unified resolve against people we rallied together for defense

we pledge to stand united against the press attacking our nation and way of life. additionally they have guiding principles dhs quote they will remain resolute against the threats and hazards by keeping pace and preparing for those of tomorrow by identifying and confronting systemic risk. it goes on to say homeland security is a whole of society endeavor from every federal department and every american across this nation. we will work together and empower partners to leverage national capacity and capabilities. develop contingency plans that make america safe, secure, and resilient against all threats and all hazards. mr. chairman, it does the department's actions vertically against the state of texas and their own efforts to secure the border live up to that particular guideline? >> not at all. chris dhs goes on to say it will

ensure its operators and employees have the necessary tools, resources and authority to execute its mission. they goes on to talk about the core values of the department upon security, integrity, each of us are something far greater than ourselves to our nation wheat represent the president and congress to the world seeking we are often the first americans they need to faithfully execute the duties and responsibilities entrusted to us we will maintain the highest ethical and professional standards. regarding vigilance we will relentlessly identify and deter threats that pose a danger to the safety of the american people. as a department we will be constantly on guard against threats, hazards, dangers that threaten our values and our way of life. mr. chairman would you say secretary mayorkas is up to their own stated mission guiding principles and core values? >> i want to say the people of

the department of homeland security into the border of course. and through our border and the people are doing the very best they can. this is not an issue of the employees at dhs. if you talk to border patrol the border protection they will definitely tell you this. they are doing with the secretaries told them to do. >> turmeric green five also visited the border i totally agree with you. my criticism here is specifically to the leadership of secretary mayorkas and his directives that i quite frankly do not deliver live up to the mission and core values of the department upon security should be. >> i agree. >> i want to touch just a little bit on the work your committee

did. particularly that secretary mayorkas did not comply with requirements filled out by the immigration and nationality act. instead implementing mass tax relief scheme. in fact you have found i think seven different violations at least mr. chairman of the secretary mayorkas in violation of immigration and the nationality act is that correct? >> and in that certain of these requirements he has failed to follow they require at least five times that i see the statement in the law the child shall be detained. does catch and release and shall be detained are those two things substantially similar or different? >> they are diametrically opposed. but so would you say the primary

responsibility of the secretary of the department of home and security to oversee the department's efforts in safeguarding the united states national security? >> absolutely. >> 8 million people haven't let into this country under the biden administration in the last three years that is 1 million more people in the state of indiana which i represent. is that number accurate? >> that is correct free. >> is it true cbp has encountered 49 individuals on the terrorist watch list on this fiscal year alone? what's yes we have for. >> is it true the united states customs and border patrol had a record more than three to thousand encounters of the southern border of the united states in december of 2023 undersecretary mayorkas question for. >> yes brick is it true 1.7 million known to god always. >> i think it's 1.8 million now. >> is it true dhs has lost 100,000 migrants children? >> yes it is.

>> has the department of homeland security undersecretary mayorkas leadership made policy decisions that may have led to the consequences i have just described? >> absolutely. >> is it true after multiple attempts to have secretary mayorkas appear before your committee is respondent for 48:00 a.m. on the day of the markup with a letter defending himself and his decision questioner. >> that is correct we attempted four times he had to come he did in some instances and for 48:00 a.m. in the morning i think it was a seven-page letter. >> emigrated secretary mayorkas meaningfully evade within your investigation questioner. >> no i think i 40 occasions we have outstanding we've had to subpoena him to get some stuff. there are multiple examples again i believe 40 he has refusethey don't answer that wet

stuff over they need to acknowledge that they've gotten big. >> mr. chairman which is agency is bound by. >> no. >> to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic a secretary mayorkas upheld that oath with the border open to drug cartels criminals human traffickers and potential carriers of fentanyl epidemic destroying american communities a record number of migrant deaths rising human trafficking the exploitation of minors like health disaster and annual net burden to the american taxpayer exceeding one or $50 billion. >> i believe the recognition of powers in the constitution we write the laws they execute them he has failed intentionally subverted some of those laws.

>> thank you chairman greene, thank you for your leadership. it certainly sad to find yourself in this position they are responsible for their actions we must hold the secretary to account i appreciate you doing so pray thank you, mr. chairman i yield back. >> was a long session thank you and the witnesses are excused. >> think it mr. chairman. >> ask unanimous consent the effort to impeach secretary at mayorkas' a dramatic departure and precedents about the meeting of the constitution and the proper exercise of the extraordinary tool. >> without objection. >> we invite our panel i think you are the only one here so please come forward.

we may have another person joining you. we have some others that might want to come. you might be our only witness. you are recognized for anything you care to offer a remark she cared to make it. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. i do have an amendment that i believe is at the desk. the gentleman is recognized for. >> with this amendment does is it strikes every mention of the word scheme and the articles of impeachment. and the reason for this is there is no evidence, there is no proof of any scheme that we would understand from any variation of the civil or

criminal law there has been no evidence and i specifically asked this during the markup. of secretary mayorkas intent or willfulness to disobey the law. and therefore there certainly no evidence of scheme or conspiracy of any sort to do so. at the pleasure of listening to the last couple hours of questioning of the chairman and that ranking member there are a number of things that have been represented to this committee that are plainly false. first of all is no court that has made any ruling that determines -- there's no court that has definitively determined any action has been a willful or

intentional violation of the law. chairman greene and the articles or reference seven laws that have been violated. first of all there is no court that is said that in fact there is a sixth circuit opinion that says the opposite. what is particularly misleading is the reference to the supreme court case united states versus texas chairman greene a reference it was referenced extensively in the markup is being reversed on standing only. and therefore the district court opinion or the us the rationale should halt. i just want to read a quote from the majority opinion it was an eight -- one opinion it was

written by justice kavanaugh. it is discussing the executive branch discussion to enforce the law. and the executive branch when it comes to arrest or prosecution has a broad discretion because quote one the executive branch invariably lacks the resources to arrest and prosecute every violator of every law. and two mutts constantly react and adjust to the ever shifting public safety and public welfare needs of the people. this case goes on to illustrate the point the executive branch does not possess the resources necessary to arrest or remove covered by the relevant statutes of the ina. that reality is not an anomaly it is a constant. for the last 27 years since those laws were enacted in their current form all resource

constraints necessitated prioritization and making immigration arrests. in other words the republican majority is set up an impossible standard that has never been met and cannot be met with the resources the department of homeland security possesses. implemented to use his discretion to utilize his resources and effective efficient and the best way possible because he cannot actually detain every single person it comes across the border. we talk about operational control i note mr. roy is dwelling on in 2007 the bush

administration the department of homeland security issued guidelines that interpreted operational control in a manageable way that would allow the department to execute the laws faithfully without detaining without preventing every single unlawful immigrant from coming into the country because that is of course an impossible standard that note secretary of homeland security has met. was implemented by the bush administration and has been used ever since. the reason i'm going through all of this and rub biting the specific points that have been made is because this entire

impeachment resolution is a fiction. it is pure political fiction. it is not just a policy dispute which is the best gloss on it. it's factually incorrect is not a policy dispute because a policy dispute is for example when president biden and secretary at mayorkas try to change the policy at the border. to streamline the asylum process to funnel people to the ports of entry. to prevent people from making hundreds of miles of track to the border and doing it within their own country to apply for asylum or for a visa. when they do with that that reps attorney general file lawsuits

to prevent them from implementing policy to address the border. that is what has happened over the last three years. you have republican attorneys general who are filing lawsuits to prevent secretary at mayorkas' and president biden from affecting the policy changes that they republicans call for all day long. to prevent them from doing so and then you move to impeach him by saying he hasn't enacted effective policy to address the border. it is beyond hypocrisy. it is a terrible terrible case of bad faith. mr. roy said he does not want a scout because he said secretary mayorkas came out and said let's

detain everyone. let's clean up the border he would be happy, he would drop the impeachment. while that is funny because i'm pretty sure secretary mayorkas was deeply immersed in negotiating this senate bill with a bipartisan group of senators that does exactly that. and i do not agree with it. it goes away too far i think it denies due process for asylum it takes it out of the judicial system. it puts it purely within the executive branch. it requires asylum application to be adjudicated and six months there's a detention. then there is a three month alternative but does not allow people to leave the area. they have eliminated what you all call catch and release. it is a dramatic shift in how asylum is done.

it's what he asked for is happy to drop it against secretary mayorkas. finally i would just conclude by saying the irony this house of representatives would abuse and demean the impeachment clause of the united states based on their own assessment about a violation of the law is. not a court's determination the courts have said in fact you must give discretion to the executive branch article two. based on their interpretation it isn't an ability to adhere to the law because of a lack of resources you all on this side of the aisle are trying to

impeach secretary kayleigh because he failed to address the border literally while he is negotiating necessary and essential legislation in the senate to address the border. the irony should not be lost on anyone. it is political cynicism at its worst. it demeans the impeachment clause. there is no basis in history or the law to say any of these allegations rise to the level much less high crimes and misdemeanors as it was established by the framers. yet he is continuing to try to do exactly what you say he has not done and now you are presented with the bill but does many of the things you want and

you're still going through with impeachment we know why it's november 2024 donald trump wants to be able to say joe biden did not address the issues at the border so he can get elected. he would rather have than to solve the problems for the american people so he can't win and unfortunately there are too many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle going along with it. and it is a sad sad day in this body's history. ranking member on to think of judgment for being here for his amendment. it's appropriate to strike the word scheme as it relates to secretary mayorkas because it does not apply to him.

it does apply to my republican friends because there is a scheme here. and that is how to distract on the border and immigration that involves them trying to find ways to finish what they could not do on january 6. that is to try to unravel this president's legacy and going after its cabinet. i would have moved to impeach everyone of donald trump's cabinet appointees. work to gut our environmental laws. who gave comfort to vladimir putin. who undermine the rule of law. tons of conflicts of interest. contempt in this country.

working overtime to enrich those who are well-connected. that is the scheme here. when i hear my colleagues say i regret we are at this point or i am so sad and i take no pleasure in this. i do not believe them. i think this is exactly what they live for. this is all they have left because there is nothing they can show for their time and the majority of judgment from texas who is not here right now has been repeatedly quoted the republican majority has produced nothing he can point to nothing. when you have produced nothing you try to distract. now the gentleman played a key role in the first impeachment of former president trump. he saw a process that was serious. how would you compare this

process said that process? >> without getting into the merits of the two different cases i think there are several things to point out a significat differences. and the first impeachment of donald trump in 2019 for extorting the president of ukraine to open an investigation to benefit donald trump's personal and political interest not an official in verse 17 fact witnesses provided a very similar narrative to the events that occurred. even republican senators to convict the present was the first time any senator had voted

to convict a present of the same party. even a number of other senators who voted to acquit acknowledge the facts as elicited of the witness testimony the actual facts and evidence prove the case. and in that particular case it was the allegation was an abuse of power for personal gain. not for the benefit of the united states of america. there was overwhelming evidence the reason why donald trump, who by the way mr. ranking member violated the law. he violated the impoundment control act he knowingly and willfully by refusing to provide ukraine security assistance and

military assistance that congress had appropriated it was required to be dispersed by the end of the fiscal year. that is a violation of law. the standard we are going to go forward with ought impeachment s any time you violate a law whether you are the president, or the cabinet secretary if i as a member of congress can stand up and say you willfully did that even though i don't have evidence of intent or willfulness one of my friends on the other side of the aisle said it's just obvious what else would it be is actually what he said. even putting that aside his asviolation of law he was not impeached for violating the empowerment control act he was impeached because he withheld the security assistance to benefit his own personal

interest. his own political campaign. it was clear there was no other basis for withholding -- the evidence showed to hold that assistance other than first personal interest. here in this case there are no allegations that secretary mayorkas has done anything for his personal interest spread this on a single allegation that could not be a work that incites governments in various capacities for 22 years as an immigrant from cuba whose give it much of his career to this country. dealt a horrible hand we can debate why and how and how to resolve it which is the whole point of congress in legislation. but he has not done anything for his personal interest. these allegations are based on differences of how he should be

handling the situation at the border. and unfortunately that is what elections are for. our republican colleagues may not like that. you may have great points you may have great reasons you may have great solutions. but one of them is not to impeach the person trying to implement the laws. even if he is unable to do so because we as congress do not provide them with the resources necessary too. >> i appreciate that i appreciate your being here. i want to say one final thing i find it somewhat ironic they talk about the law to endorse the former president who a jury of his peers on them liable to pay $83 million to woman he defamed who it was determined --

in fact he raped her. i find all of this so puzzling and ironic. anyway you wanted to say one of the thing? >> putting that aside let's talk about what has been represented here. the allegation secretary mayorkas has lied which is part of the basis of his breach of the public trust as he lied about a whipping incident at a press conference. so if we are not going to set a standard for impeachment if a political or an appointed cabinet secretary or let's say perhaps the president of the united states lies to the public while i think during the last administration we had over 30,000 impeachments thank you. thank you i yield back.

gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for questions for. >> i appreciate the fact were running out of time i yield back thank you for a quick sedan slid from pennsylvania. >> just a quick question. one of the grounds on which our colleagues on the other side decided to impeach mr. mayorkas' he did not come testify. movement following this pretty closely he has testified multiple times he did not appear before a particular committee on a date when this r was scheduled to be talking to mexican authorities how we could better address the crisis of the border do you have any knowledge of that question quick certainly great secretary "life, liberty & levin" is testify 27 ties to congress during his three years as the secretary of homeland security. that's more than any other cabinet secretary.

the republican majority says he was asked four times to come and testify. three of those times proceeded the passage of the impeachment resolution. preceded the initiation of an impeachment inquiry into him. after those three times he did come testify to the committee he was asked numerous questions about the same issues. then he was asked a one time to come as a gentle lady said on a date certain because apparently this investigation had to be finished within the span of three or four weeks. it was only one date as you correctly say he was meeting with mexican authorities ironically to figure out how to address the situation at the border. and he could not change his schedule. >> in fact as a result of that meeting that he reach an agreement with the mexican authorities pursuant to which we

saw a 75% drop in border crossings at the end of this last year? lexi had been working i think quite significantly with the mexican authorities. also another major issue which we have not addressed is the hundreds of thousands of american made guns that have gone from the united states to the drug cartels. i find it interesting what my colleagues say the immigration -- the open border has a phase two open border fuels the drug cartels i think the drug cartels would say the gun trafficking from the united states to the drug cartels actually is what fuels their authority and their control over the border. at the secretary has implemented a specific operation to address the outflow of american made

guns there are none made in mexico effectively they all come from the united states or at least i should say 70% come from the united states. so yes he has been working very hard to mexican authorities to address these issues. >> you had some engagement and impeachment under the last administration. for their efforts made to accommodate from the trump administration? >> yes repeatedly. the problem we ran into his many of the witnesses from the trump administration just refused to abide by or obey their subpoena altogether. and i once again find it incredibly ironic the chairman points out there are 40 requests out of hundreds the department of homeland security is not responded to. the department has given tens and thousands of documents hundreds of hours of meetings,

briefings, has provided far more information and insights in the ordinary course and that is compared to former president trump and the first impeachment after declaring he would defy all subpoenas he then turned over zero documents. >> okay, thank you yield back. >> a gentle lady from indiana is recognized. >> think it mr. chairman and do not have any questions i yield back. >> a gentle lady from new mexico is recognized for. >> thank you, mr. chairman thank you representatives for bringing the amendment and shine the light on the hypocrisies we are seeing the effort to address the border is dead on arrival. even if i do not agree with the build the idea that we are not going to address that, every attempt of solving this problem is rejected instead were

spending all of this time hundreds of hours for nothing. there is nothing there. there's no crime, there is no intent there is a man trying to carry out his job. and so i have no questions i thank you for bringing the amendment with that i yield back. >> it had a built sent over the first seven months it is not been picked up. but we know something about waiting.