mr. carter? mr. carter votes no. mr. magaziner? mr. magaziner votes no. mr. ivey? mr.ivey votes no will. mr. goldman? votes no will. mr. garcia votes noaa. ms. ramirez? mrs. ramirez votes no. mr. menendez? mr. menendez votes no. ms. clarke? ms. clarke votes and no. ms. titus? ms. a titus about no. are there other members in the room who wish to have the vote recorded? i recorded? you are not recorded. the chair votes by. the german green votes aye the clerk will report the tally. on thatt vote chairman green there were 18 aye. the motion is agreed to without objection the motion to reconsider slate on the table. without objection staff is authorized to make any technical changes without objection the measure amended during today's markup over recorded for the house and one amendment the nature of the substitute for the resolution. this concludes the consideration of the resolution for today. >> mr. chairman? you are recognized. mr. chairman pursuant to clause to l rule 11 members were not allowed to offer over 30 amendments ieq request members have two calendar days to

mr. ivey, i think you wanted to be -- anybody on at the side want to be recognized? okay. mr.are recognized for five minutes on the minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i went to speak in favor of the minute but briefly i wanted to also address the point that was made. i think it was said that there's a capacity of 1940 at the facility and only six people are there. i forget who raised it but they forgot to mention that the facility is under a court order to release all of the detainees and possible new intakes, which i think is kind of relevant to the fact that it doesn't have four people there. that's beenfa in place since 20. i think the point that was made in one of the republican documents is that apparently the view ishe biden administrationde isn't fighting hard enough to get it reopened. but i would note the department ofof justice moved to stay the order. the stay was denied. but an event that's just a litigation argument, which is the ultimate policy dispute. i'm sure we're not going to impeach anybody based on a litigation dispute of that type. but to get to the amen

mr. ivey, your recognize. >> thank you, mr. ranking member for yielding. colleague, appreciate the comments, but i would just remind my colleague at the portion that i read of the supreme court opinion addresses that directly. we don't have kings. we have elections and with three branches of government. usually the supreme court is the one that resolves a conflict between the executive branch and the legislative branch. but as justice kavanaugh pointed out, in the event there is a political solution then needs to be pursued, and this goes back again to page 14 of the opinion of the united states versus texas which is now part of the record, congress possesses an array of tools to analyze influence those policies. so in other words, if there's a policy dispute congress has tools like in the justice continues oversight appropriations the legislative process. senate confirmations and then a reference elections. the point with respect to whether this is a king or not, obviously not a king. this is 2024. we got a hotly presidential election coming up. i think b

. >> i would like to yield now to mr. golden. >> mr. ivey, you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i did want to reference my colleague from the ethics committee who direct comparison between mr. santos and mr. mayorkas, which i thought totally missed the mark, so we pulled the statement he made the floor at the time he offered the resolution to remov i just want to point out a couple things since we are both on the ethics committee. this shows a stark contrast between what we did there and what is happening here today. first of all, the ethics committee moved in a bipartisan way. all the members voted for the removal or for the reporting of removal of mr. santos, which i think led to supporting the legitimacy of the two thirds vote that we got on the floor. by contrast, every vote here has been along party lines, and not just today. i mean, when we voted on hr two and ery "kother vote has been along partisan lines. the second big one was the ethics committee did a very thorough investigation, and we went through 172,000 pages of documents and generated a 50 page investig

mr. golden: thank you, mr. ivey. i have some familiarity with impeachment and this impeachment is an absolute abomination. if the impeachment clause would talk, it would beg for the republicans to stop shaming its name. there is no treason, there is no bribery and no high crime or misdemeanor. you have to two completely made-up accusations in a litany of articles of impeachment that recite policy dispute because the republicans do not like how president biden and secretary mayorkas have tried to address the issues of the border. there are three significant policy changes that this administration has implemented to streamline the asylum process, reduce the backlog, stop people coming over the border in between points of entry and all three of those policies were sued in court by republican attorneys general. the republicans are literal trying to stop the administration from securing the border while they are saying and so that they can say that the administration is not securing the border. they are creating this situ

. >> mr. ivey, you are recognized. >> mr.eserve a point of order. >> the clerk will distribute the amendment. [inaudible conversations] the clerk will report the amendment. amendment to the amendment in nature of the substitute a drizzly 263 offered by mr. ivey of maryland. number 020. page two, line two, strike quote in his and all that follows through page 20, line 11 and insert the following. >> without objection the rating is dispensed with. >> mr. chairman, i reject to the waving of the reading of the amendment. >> the clerk may read the amendment. >> there's no evidence that constitutes grounds for the impeachment of secretary mayorkas based on the constitutional standards for impeachment. at the first impeachment hearing before this committee on januar, constitutional law professor frank bowman the third of the university of missouri school of law testified that, quote, the conclusion is universal among those who've studied this question and have been so since the time of the founding that policy differences, no matter

. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. ivey, i am going to pick on you for a minute. i think, you know, i hear someone who really is stepping into what does the law say? what do the court proceedings say. i took note when you talk about the court yielding to the executive, what is enforced, and how it is enforced. you do not have a jurists document, and it for all of us who know that we did not have a king implemented in our government, our governments, that is really what we are doing, when we allow that ideology to be pervasive to allow the executives, how to enforce, what to enforce, you granted them the ability to become a king. that flies in the face of party politics, we do not have a king. think about what john adams said. we are to be a, a, a government of law, not of men. what is he talking about? he is talking about the rule of law. think about men being the wisest of law, to secure the liberty and happiness of people whose manners are universally corrupt. don't you think it is quite ironic? we will go through these hurdles all week long. and you have a righ

i yield one minute to the gentleman from maryland, mr. ivey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ivey: the power to impeach is one of the greatest constitutional powers granted to the house of representatives. this awesome responsibility should be reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors. but house republicans have decided to abuse that responsibility for a cheap political stunt. house republicans have not alleged an impeachable offense. policy disdreements are not impeachable. that does not provide grounds to remove a cabinet official. former republican secretary michael chertoff said mayorkas hasn't committed an impeachable offense. and not impeachable and fail to quote to high crimes and misdemeanors. republicans offered no constitutional scholars as witnesses during their two impeachment hearings but relied on states attorney general's testimony one of which did not say the word impeachment. this unconstitutional process has been predetermined and unjust since it began. it will lower the constitutional bar for future

mr. ivey: i thank the representative for yielding and allowing me to celebrate black history month. mr. speaker, this week i'll be introducing the frederick douglass congressional gold medal act which will honor frederick douglass with the long overdue expression of national appreciation and celebrate his legacy with a congressional gold medal. i'm proud to offer this bipartisan legislation with my colleague, congressman andy harris whose district includes the historic birthplace of mr. douglass. mr. speaker, nearly 130 years since his passing, frederick douglass' remarkable life remain as beacon of inspiration to all americans, born into slavery on maryland's eastern shore, mr. douglass overcame countless obstacles to become one of the most powerful and influential figures in 19th century america. douglass was enslaved the first two decades of his life. during this period, he taught himself to read and write, skills which would later play a critical role in his life as a abolitionist and civil rights leader. in his 20's, douglass escaped slavery, first to new york and eventually se

mr. ivey, you'll recognize. >> thank you, mr. chairman.respect to the comment you just made, i refer the chairman and the committee to the actual opinion that was written by justice kavanaugh, which is a 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 in the articles of impeachment is that there's a willful defiance of enforcing the law. kavanaugh, with respect to that point wrote this, as the district court found the executive branch does not possess the resources necessary to arrest or remove all of the non-citizens covered by these two statutes. that reality is not an anomaly. it is a constant. for the last 27 years since those statutes were enacted in their current form, all five presidential administrations have determined that these necessitate prioritization in macon immigration arrest. in other words, what he sank, and this is in the context of the court reference to cases like wade, on those or prostitute discretion cases. for

i yield one minute to the gentleman from maryland, mr. ivey.some responsibility should be reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors. but house republicans have decided to abuse that responsibility for a cheap political stunt. house republicans have not alleged an impeachable offense. policy disdreements are not impeachable. that does not provide grounds to remove a cabinet official. former republican secretary michael chertoff said mayorkas hasn't committed an impeachable offense. and not impeachable and fail to quote to high crimes and misdemeanors. republicans offered no constitutional scholars as witnesses during their two impeachment hearings but relied on states attorney general's testimony one of which did not say the word impeachment. this unconstitutional process has been predetermined and unjust since it began. it will lower the constitutional bar for future impeachments and will not make our border more secure. therefore, i urge my colleagues to vote no. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from

not once, mr. ivey, have you said when one of your members have gone over, the person of your time is up. fascinating to me that you are only doing it when it is on the side of the aisle. >> if i might have a chance to be heard. >> please, yes. >> all i am saying, under the rules, we have a right to raise the point of order. >> you have used your discretion to grant additional questioning if you want to. but to say i can never raise a point of order that is consistent with the rules, it doesn't make any sense. i mean, it is just a clear violation of the rules adopted. by the way, the rules were not adopted unanimously. there was a republican decision to adopt it so these are your rules. >> the point i'm making is it's intriguing to me that we are consuming this time over this issue while i've never once heard you raise the issue when i have allowed ms. jackson lee to go two minutes over. but today it is an issue in the midst of a very important hearing. >> anyone can raise a point of order. >> you