[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 6, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H437-H447]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 863, IMPEACHING ALEJANDRO
NICHOLAS MAYORKAS, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, FOR HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 485, PROTECTING
HEALTH CARE FOR ALL PATIENTS ACT OF 2023
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 996 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 996
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order without intervention of any point of order to
consider in the House the resolution (H.Res. 863) impeaching
Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security,
for high crimes and misdemeanors. The amendment in the nature
of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Homeland
Security now printed in the resolution shall be considered as
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the resolution, as amended, to adoption without
intervening motion or demand for division of the question
except two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Homeland Security or their respective designees.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of House Resolution 863--
(a) House Resolution 995 is hereby adopted; and
(b) no other resolution incidental to impeachment relating
to House Resolution 863 shall be privileged during the
remainder of the One Hundred Eighteenth Congress.
Sec. 3. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
485) to amend title XI of the Social Security Act to prohibit
the use of quality-adjusted life years and similar measures
in coverage and payment determinations under Federal health
care programs. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and amendments specified in this section and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce or their respective designees. After general debate
the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
minute rule. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce now
printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in
part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House
and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended,
shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of
further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. No further amendment to the
bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in
part B of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such
further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such further
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill, as amended, to the House with such further
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and
on any further amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Newhouse). The gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, last night the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 996, providing for the consideration
of two measures: H.R. 485 and H. Res. 863.
The rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 485 under a
structured rule with 1 hour of debate and H. Res. 863 under a closed
rule with 2 hours of debate, equally divided and controlled by the
chair and the ranking minority member of the committee of jurisdiction,
or their designees. The rule provides for one motion to recommit for
H.R. 485.
The rule also deems passed H. Res. 995, which appoints the
impeachment managers. I will also mention that all amendments offered
to H.R. 485 were made in order.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying
bills H. Res. 863, Impeaching Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas, Secretary of
Homeland
[[Page H438]]
Security, for high crimes and misdemeanors; and H.R. 485, the
Protecting Health Care for All Patients Act of 2023.
Today, this body begins consideration of one of its most solemn
constitutional duties: the consideration of Articles of Impeachment
against a Federal official.
H. Res. 863, Impeaching Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas, Secretary of
Homeland Security, for high crimes and misdemeanors includes two
Articles of Impeachment: willful and systematic refusal to comply with
the law and breach of public trust.
On February 2, 2021, Alejandro Mayorkas was sworn in as the seventh
United States Secretary of Homeland Security by Vice President Kamala
Harris. On this day, Secretary Mayorkas solemnly swore to support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic.
He swore that he took this sacred obligation freely without any
mental reservation or purpose of evasion and swore to faithfully
discharge the duties of the office.
Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that this oath of office sworn on
February 2, 2021, has, indeed, been broken.
Since President Biden took office, United States Customs and Border
Protection has encountered more than 7 million illegal migrants along
the southwest border; 3.3 million have been released into the United
States interior, including 312 individuals on the Terrorist Screening
Data Set.
In 2003, Customs and Border Protection encountered over 2.5 million
illegal migrants attempting to cross the United States southern border.
That is an all-time high for a fiscal year.
In December alone, Customs and Border Protection encountered 302,000
illegal migrants attempting to cross the United States southern border,
the highest number of unlawful migrant crossings in a single month in
recorded history.
Mr. Speaker, Secretary Mayorkas has shown willful and systematic
refusal to comply with the law time and time again. He has willfully
refused to comply with numerous detention requirements spelled out in
the Immigration and Nationality Act but has instead implemented a mass
catch and release program, whereby apprehended illegal migrants are
released into the interior of our country without any effective way to
ensure their return before an immigration court.
Secretary Mayorkas has also willfully misused parole authority laid
out in the Immigration and Nationality Act that permits parole to be
granted only on a case-by-case basis, temporarily, and for urgent
humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.
Mr. Speaker, Secretary Mayorkas has not only failed in his solemn
statutory duty to control and guard the border of the United States, to
protect and defend this country and the Constitution, but he has also
breached the public trust.
{time} 1230
Secretary Mayorkas has willfully failed to put in place or enforce
initiatives that he abandoned that would enable the Department of
Homeland Security to maintain operational control of our southwest
border. He has also breached the trust of Congress and the American
people by knowingly making false statements about the results of his
refusal to comply with the law.
The American people, and certainly those that I represent in Texas,
have had enough of the Secretary's lies. Despite undeniable evidence
that his gross negligence toward securing our southern border is
endangering American families and communities across the country,
Secretary Mayorkas thinks what he is doing is just fine, but he could
not be more wrong.
Contrary to what the Secretary says, the border is not secure.
America is, in fact, less safe because of his negligence and because of
his numerous failures. Since Secretary Mayorkas will not resign,
Congress must take this action.
Every day that Secretary Mayorkas remains as the head of the
Department of Homeland Security is another day of pathetic disservice
to the American people.
Mr. Speaker, many of us have been to the border. I have been many
times, and I have seen how understaffed, unsupported, and
underresourced the Customs and Border Patrol is. My friends on the
other side of the aisle might have you believe it is not because of a
lack of funding. While more funding may be helpful for better
technology or building and repairing the border wall, it will not make
up for the time spent by Customs and Border Patrol agents at the
funerals of their coworkers or time spent wondering if they are next.
It is shameful that these brave men and women aren't getting the
support that they need. The Biden administration's policy of open
borders and amnesty is killing Americans, and Alejandro Mayorkas, whose
primary job it is to secure the homeland, refuses to do his job.
The worsening conditions of the men and women who have sworn to
protect our border and actually honored that oath is unacceptable. We
must hold those accountable who have willfully refused to honor their
oath.
Mr. Speaker, this rule also allows for consideration of H.R. 485, the
Protecting Health Care for All Patients Act, that I introduced along
with Chairwoman McMorris Rodgers of the Energy and Commerce Committee,
Chairman Smith, and my friend from Ohio, Dr. Wenstrup. This bill aims
to preserve access to lifesaving cures and to prevent discrimination
for Americans with disabilities.
I practiced medicine for nearly 30 years. I treated each patient as a
human being, not just a diagnosis. Quality-adjusted life years
measurements are cruel and hinder the physician's ability to care for
and treat all patients with dignity. The government should never be
able to decide or determine the value of a life to approve or deny
care.
Mr. Speaker, many years ago, the Affordable Care Act banned Medicare
from using quality-adjusted life years, a metric often used in cost-
effective analyses widely known to discriminate against people with
disabilities. The purpose of the quality-adjusted life year metric
assigns a person living with a disability a lower value of a year of
life than a person who is considered to be in good health.
The quality-adjusted life year often fails to consider outcomes
meaningful to patients, such as the impact on the ability to work or
the impact on caregiving needs. In a quality-adjusted life year base
assessment, a person living with conditions like heart disease, ALS, or
sickle cell disease will be considered to be of less worth than someone
else.
Often, quality-adjusted life years are used by countries that have
government-controlled healthcare systems to devalue treatment for those
with chronic conditions and disabilities. This concept has been pushed
by socialist healthcare advocates for years. Thankfully, the United
States of America has not fallen totally prey to these harmful
ideologies, at least not yet.
I remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that the first
quality-adjusted life year ban within the Affordable Care Act passed
with strong Democrat support. Therefore, this bill should be passed
with strong Democrat support, as well.
It is not the government's place to determine whether a person living
with a chronic condition or a disability is of less worth. This is why
we need to prohibit the use of quality-adjusted life years in all
Federal programs and ensure that all human life has inherent value.
Republicans will continue to work to reduce the government's hand in
healthcare, and I urge colleagues to join us in supporting H.R. 485.
Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of the rule and the underlying
bills. I urge my fellow Members to support the rule, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for Texas for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
This impeachment resolution was supposed to be our second rule of the
day. We had an emergency meeting last week in the Rules Committee about
fixing SALT. Everybody hurry up, it is an emergency. Better do it right
away so we can vote quickly. Then--get this--last night a change was
made to pull their emergency bill from the schedule. It was such an
emergency that Republicans decided it is not an emergency at all.
[[Page H439]]
Not only did their bill not even fix the problem that they,
themselves, created, it is not even going to come to the floor now
because of their inability to govern. This majority is so incompetent,
they couldn't even manufacture a fake vote to pretend New York
Republicans are good at legislating.
We wasted hours last Thursday at the Rules Committee debating a rule
that has now been pulled from consideration--and for what? Will the
gentleman from Texas tell us next that he is glad he had to sit through
a hearing on a rule his leadership can't even bring up because they are
so bad at governing? This Republican-led House is an unmitigated
disaster. I would say it is a clown show, but that would be a
disservice to actual working clowns.
That brings us to the second emergency rule. Mr. Speaker, impeachment
is one of the most solemn, serious, somber things that we can do in
this body. It is not something that ought to get thrown around lightly
or invoked when you disagree with someone or you don't like their
policies or you think they are doing a bad job.
It is something that should happen after a grave constitutional
offense has been committed, a crime against the Republic. The Founders
in Article I reserve it only for treason, bribery, or other high crimes
and misdemeanors.
Consequently, today, I am very confused because our Republican
colleagues have presented zero evidence for impeachment. This could be
the first time in American history an impeachment will go to the floor
of the United States House of Representatives with no evidence, no
proof, no elements of a crime, nothing at all.
You don't have to take my word for it. Listen to the lead Republican
for immigration policy, our colleague, Tom McClintock. He says: ``The
problem is they [the Articles] fail to identify an impeachable crime
that Mayorkas has committed. In effect, they stretch and distort the
Constitution in order to hold the administration accountable. . . .''
Another Republican, Ken Buck, says: Secretary Mayorkas did not
commit an impeachable offense and is not guilty of high crimes or
misdemeanors.
These are not my words. These are your fellow colleagues, Mr.
Speaker, openly admitting that these vague, unprecedented Articles of
Impeachment trivialize this process and make a total mockery of this
institution. What does this impeachment have to do with fixing our
challenges at the border? Nothing at all.
They say this is about securing the border, and their plan to secure
the border is to impeach the guy responsible for securing the border
and replace him with--now wait for this, wait for it--they aren't sure.
The chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security couldn't tell us
during our Rules Committee meeting who will replace Secretary Mayorkas
if he were removed. I mean, you can't make this stuff up.
For months and months and months, Republicans have said that they
would shut down the government, they would default on our debt, refuse
to do anything unless we passed a border bill. Well, good news. Senate
Republicans worked out a border bill, and the person who negotiated it
for Republicans, Senator Lankford, was someone Donald Trump endorsed.
Donald Trump said that Senator Lankford is ``strong on the border.''
Therefore, I am shocked by the Republican rejection of Senator
Lankford's bill.
Before we even saw what was in it, before the ink was even dry on the
discussion draft, Donald Trump came out, and he ordered them to kill
it. He ordered them to do nothing to fix our broken immigration system.
They would rather let chaos prevail than work with Democrats to have a
conversation about a path forward.
Here is the truth, Mr. Speaker. Republicans simply do not want to
participate in government. They want to create chaos. They want to
create confusion, and they want to create a campaign issue for Donald
Trump going into the next election. They are not interested in solving
problems. They only want to gain power.
That is the real dereliction of duty here: House Republicans' refusal
to address our challenges at the border because Donald Trump told them
he wants a crisis so he can help his campaign, so he can hide from his
crimes.
Well, they own this now. Republicans own this now. They own the
border. They own the fentanyl crisis. They own it all because they
refuse to behave like adults. They are acting like spoiled, rotten
children who got what they want and still can't take ``yes'' for an
answer, but they own all of this now.
If anyone needs more proof than that, look no further than the
sponsor of this resolution--Marjorie Taylor Greene, a MAGA extremist
who amplifies Holocaust deniers, who said 9/11 was a hoax, who says
wildfires are started by Jewish space lasers. That is the legislative
and intellectual force behind this impeachment resolution. In fact, if
it passes, she is going to be an impeachment manager on the floor of
the United States Senate. God help us.
It is just more proof that this is fraudulent, unconstitutional
garbage, but Donald Trump wants another fraudulent impeachment, another
distraction from his own legal troubles, another excuse to kill a
bipartisan border deal instead of working across the aisle to get
something done.
Here we are, because Trump calls the shots around here. He directed
Speaker Johnson and extreme MAGA Republicans not to work with Democrats
to address challenges at the border. One thing we know, Republicans
work for Trump, not for the voters. They worship and they work for
Donald Trump, who doesn't care about anybody but himself. They are
frightened to death of the former President.
Mr. Speaker, Secretary Mayorkas is a good man, a decent man, someone
who is trying to do his job despite the fact that Republicans refuse to
give him the tools needed to do what they are asking him to do. He is
an honorable public servant who respects law enforcement and takes
seriously his oath of office and his obligation to uphold and enforce
the law.
In smearing his good name, Republicans are only impeaching themselves
and showing that all their rhetoric about the border has been nothing
more than a bunch of BS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Roy), a fellow member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I get no great joy being on the floor of the
House of Representatives and talking about something as important and
solemn as the removal of a Secretary of one of our Departments,
particularly one as important as the Department that is in charge of
homeland security. This is an individual who was appointed and then
confirmed by the United States Senate. Impeachment is one of the
highest charges we have as Members of the United States House of
Representatives.
The charge by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle,
particularly the ranking member on the Rules Committee, that this is a
political exercise or that there are individuals taking ``orders'' from
former President Trump, I think indicates the extent to which my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle desperately want to make this
political.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle desperately want to take
the abject and total failure of Democrat leadership on the southern
border, resulting in death and destruction of the American people, the
undermining of economic activity, the death of our children, fentanyl
pouring into schools, ranchers who are getting absolutely decimated,
the empowerment of cartels, and the empowerment of China.
This has all happened at record levels, record numbers, and my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle know this. Therefore, they
are desperately trying to deflect, deflect to legislation that was
political and never had a chance to move from the Senate to the House,
never had a chance to move, but they want to be able to deflect. They
want to deflect an entire conversation about the failures of President
Biden and the failures of Secretary Mayorkas to secure the border by
not having a serious conversation about why we would be bringing
Articles of Impeachment against a sitting Secretary.
{time} 1245
The reason is simple: The Secretary of Homeland Security has
blatantly ignored the laws of the United States he is charged to
faithfully execute.
He has done so with reckless abandon. He has done so in a way that
has
[[Page H440]]
led directly to the death of American citizens and to the death of the
very migrants that the Secretary suggests they want to try to help.
A thousand migrants along the southwest border are dead, and 53
migrants died in a tractor-trailer in San Antonio last year in the
district I represent. Mr. Speaker, 75,000 Americans died from fentanyl
poisoning last year.
These numbers are off the charts, at levels we have never seen
before, and they are the direct result of the policies enacted by the
Biden administration but very specifically by the Secretary of Homeland
Security. It is his leadership of that Department that has led to an
abject failure of the Department to secure the border.
It is not the line men and women of the Border Patrol or ICE who are
out there trying to do their jobs. They are being denied the ability to
do their jobs because the Secretary won't let them. The Secretary has
turned them into processing machines. He has done so intentionally to
flood the zone, and they basically acknowledge that.
He has turned the law upside down. The basic law requiring that they
have operational control of the border, that we stop the flow, that you
have to have papers to come to the United States has been turned upside
down.
In its place, the administration, and specifically Secretary
Mayorkas, has used exceptions to swallow the rule: exceptions for
asylum, exceptions under parole that are supposed to be on a case-by-
case basis, based on our benevolence as human beings to try to help
people, a bipartisan desire to do so. We have been made to swallow the
rule of actual border security. As a result, the numbers have been
astounding.
The key considerations, of course, are the types of individuals that
are coming into the United States. We are not talking about some
workers who want to go from Nuevo Laredo to Laredo or Juarez to El
Paso. We are talking about dangerous individuals from all over the
globe, including 331 that have been encountered that are associated
with terrorist organizations under this administration, under Mayorkas'
watch, which compares to 11 under President Trump.
They say: Well, aren't they doing their job? They encountered them.
No. Those numbers indicate who we are finding, not the 50,000 a month
or so got-aways that are pouring into the United States.
Now we see cops being beaten in the streets of New York by people who
are here illegally walking out of the court with no bail and flicking
off the American people.
We have a woman being dragged out of a parking garage in New York by
migrant gangs, dragged through the streets of New York.
We have all sorts of danger to the American people, people like a
cheerleader getting killed in Texas by somebody here illegally and an
illegal who posed as an unaccompanied child who lived with a family in
Florida and then killed the family.
That is what we have happening in the United States of America, and
it is directly a consequence of a Secretary of Homeland Security who is
failing to secure the homeland as he is charged to do when he takes an
oath to fulfill his duty to carry out the laws of the United States.
If the Attorney General just went out and ordered all the United
States attorneys and prosecutors and assistant U.S. attorneys to stop
enforcing the law, allow reckless abandon, he should be impeached. That
is, in fact, a high crime and misdemeanor.
This is where I disagree with my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle and a few, I think, on my side of the aisle, this notion of high
crimes and misdemeanors and what it includes or does not include. It
most certainly includes officials in the administration, in the
executive branch, who are completely refusing to carry out their duty.
Literally, his job is to secure the homeland, and he is refusing to do
it.
The fact of the matter is, some of my colleagues have concerns about
issues of maladministration and so forth. If you believe this is
maladministration--and I do not. I think it goes beyond
maladministration. It is the purposeful, willing ignoring of the law to
endanger the American people. It goes beyond maladministration.
Even if you accept the notion that it is maladministration, I keep
hearing people say: Well, the Founders rejected maladministration.
The fact of the matter is Colonel Mason put it forward. Mr. Gerry put
it forward, seconded it. Mr. Madison raised a concern. He said the term
would be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.
There was some debate. Gouverneur Morris, Colonel Mason withdrew
maladministration. There was no vote. There was no affirmative
rejection of it. There was a debate. They withdrew. Instead, in its
place, he substituted--the language was not there at the time--other
high crimes and misdemeanors.
Now, you go back and say: Well, what does that mean? Well, I wasn't
there. You can go back and look. There are debates about what it meant.
One thing is, British common law had developed a definition of high
crimes and misdemeanors that included but was not limited to
maladministration.
Now, this is a debate worthy of academic debate, but the fact is, it
is up to us. There are no elements of the crime in the Constitution.
There is no specific requirement that there be a violation of statute.
There is no mens rea in the Constitution. It is for us and us alone to
determine.
When the Secretary violates his duty to the Constitution, violates
his oath to defend the people of the United States and secure the
homeland, then it is incumbent upon this body to call out and reject
that Secretary--in this case, that Secretary being Secretary Mayorkas.
There are other tools at our disposal, but there are not many. We
have the power of the purse. We should use it. That is a speech for
another time.
One last point on this notion that somehow by rejecting the bill that
the Senate was debating and that, by the way, has not been sent to us--
the Senate is merely debating it. They are not even debating it yet.
They haven't even proceeded to it yet. They haven't even gotten past
cloture on proceeding to it yet.
Why? Because it is fundamentally flawed. The bill does not do what my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are suggesting it does.
I am sorry. You are getting punched in the head 10 times. My
colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to say: Well, sorry. We
will just start punching you in the head five times. Why won't you take
that half a loaf?
I am sorry. That is not how this works. That is not what we are here
to do. We are actually here to stop the flow.
That bill was flawed. It would have set essentially in permanent
stone, effectively, mass migration. It has 250,000 visas and 250,000
work permits.
It ensconces alternatives to detention as part of how the releases
would work for asylum claims. It would spend $4 billion to hire up new
asylum officers by this administration, by this Secretary, who has the
power right now to stop this flow but refuses to use it.
The President of the United States could use 212(f) right now and
stop the flow. The Secretary could apply the laws the way they are
supposed to be applied with respect to asylum and parole. He could stop
it right now but refuses to do so.
We are here to defend the people of the United States who don't have
a voice. We are here to stand up for the forgotten men and women of
this country who are tired of getting rolled over.
That is why we are here, and the Secretary of Homeland Security
deserves to be held accountable. I rise in support.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas just took almost 10 minutes--10
minutes of my life which I will never get back--and still didn't get it
right, which is basically that this move to impeach Secretary Mayorkas
is a sham. There is no basis for this.
Just because you don't like the guy or disagree with the policies of
this administration is not a reason--it is not a high crime and
misdemeanor. It is not a reason to move forward on impeachment.
I am listening to the gentleman and also my colleague from Texas.
Republicans are really good about complaining about things, talking
about what the problems are. We agree with
[[Page H441]]
some of the things that have been highlighted, that they are problems.
What my Republican friends are not really good at is actually solving a
problem or getting to yes on anything.
The gentleman from Texas said: Oh, we are asked to consider a Senate
bill that the Senate hasn't acted on. Wait a minute. The Speaker of
this House of Representatives has already said he will not have a vote
in this House, no matter what happens in the United States Senate.
Donald Trump, the guy you are all afraid of, has been making calls
saying: You better not do this. You better not do this.
The author of this Senate bill--again, I haven't read it all--there
is lots of stuff in it that gives me heartburn, from what I can tell,
but the guy who wrote it was a Senator from Oklahoma who Donald Trump
says is strong on the border.
I will repeat what I said before: What we are doing today does
nothing to help anything at the border--not a thing, not one thing.
Any opportunity to do something requires working in a bipartisan way
to move a bill forward, which apparently my Republican friends here in
the House do not want to do.
That is a shame, but here is the deal: You now own this. This is a
problem that you are maintaining, that you have deliberately decided
that you will own, because you will do nothing.
You are blocking any attempt for any kind of legislation to come to
this floor that has a chance of passing in a bipartisan way and getting
signed into law. You are doing it. Even the Border Patrol union has
endorsed what the Senate is doing.
I haven't read the whole thing yet. I bet you none of you have
either. Even before the ink was dry on the draft copy, Trump gave you
the orders to kill it, and that is where we are.
Complaining about a problem, I get it. Maybe it used to be good
politics, but here is what I am predicting. The American people are
watching. They are now seeing how this works. If we want a bill, if we
want to work in a bipartisan way, there is a bipartisan coalition that
developed in the Senate, led by a very conservative Republican Senator,
and they come up with a bill. As soon as they do: No, we don't want to
solve the problem. We want to continue the problem for political
purposes.
So now you own all of this. You own all of this.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, reasonable Republicans and even The
Wall Street Journal editorial board have written that this impeachment
does not qualify as high crimes and misdemeanors.
The board wrote: ``Grandstanding is easier than governing, and
Republicans have to decide whether to accomplish anything other than
impeaching Democrats. . . . [I]mpeaching him accomplishes nothing
beyond political symbolism.'' That is right. It is political symbolism.
It is political theater.
Our immigration system is broken. We have been saying it, and we have
been offering up a bipartisan solution that Republicans have refused to
take up.
They just blew up a bipartisan deal in the Senate. They refuse to
provide Secretary Mayorkas the resources and legal changes he needs to
reform the immigration system so our border is secure, our policies are
humane, and our country is richer, thanks to the immeasurable
contributions of our immigrant workforce.
Instead, we have a clown show directed by Marjorie Taylor Greene. If
we vote for this sham impeachment in the House, she will have the power
to march over to the Senate and stop all their work. She will stop work
on a budget that we need to keep our government open. She will stop
work on the farm bill, which my rural communities need. She will stop
work on policies to lower costs and expand the middle class.
Extreme Republicans have answered The Wall Street Journal's question:
Do they want to govern? They don't want to govern. They want chaos,
chaos at the border, chaos in Congress. They put chaos over people.
They always put politics over people. We cannot trust them to reform
our immigration system in a bipartisan manner.
They continue to use immigration as a political bulldozer to destroy
and divide. Their abuse of this solemn impeachment process shows us we
cannot trust them with our Constitution. We cannot trust them.
{time} 1300
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, what is needed is border security. What is needed is
border protection. Immigration reform can come later after border
security is established.
So a discussion about what is happening over in the Senate, to me,
until you get the border secured, you have no opportunity to discuss
any type of immigration reform.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas to ask
this question:
Does he agree or disagree that to change enforcement we must change
the law? Does he agree that we need to change the law if we are going
to change enforcement?
Mr. BURGESS. Mr Speaker, I would recommend to the gentleman to
enforce existing law as a starting point.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am using Dr. Burgess' words from 6/18/2018 when he said: We know that
to change enforcement we must change the law.
Then he went on to talk about immigration bills that we might
consider in Congress, and he talked about the importance of
legislation, and this is how democracy works.
So the bottom line is, Republicans are really good about complaining
but they are not so good at legislating. They are not so good at
getting things done. When things begin to move in the direction where
we may get something done, then they back away and they say no. They
can't get to yes on anything.
That is not leadership. That is not governing. That is, frankly,
incompetence. When Trump was President my friends were saying one
thing, and now that Biden is President, they are saying another thing.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is if we are going to get something
done, we need to come together in a bipartisan way. That is what has
begun to happen over in the Senate.
For the life of me, I do not understand why the Speaker of the House
of Representatives, why my colleagues on the Republican side, one after
another after another do not want to do anything.
Well, you know what, if you do not want to do anything, that means
you are satisfied with the status quo and you own this problem. This is
a problem of your creation because we are trying to fix it and we are
trying to work in a bipartisan way.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would ensure
every American has full access to a central reproductive healthcare,
including abortion care.
Far too many States have enacted laws to either ban some or all
abortions, which many Republicans have declared numerous times is their
goal.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record along with any extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Obernolte). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick) to discuss that proposal.
Mrs. CHERFILUS-McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 12, the Women's Health Protection Act of 2023.
As a woman, a mother of two teenagers, and a Member of Congress, I
was proud to cosponsor this legislation, and look forward to the day
when we as a Congress enshrine a Federal law to reestablish a
nationwide right to abortion.
[[Page H442]]
Abortion is healthcare, and access to healthcare saves many lives.
In Texas, Kate Cox was forced to flee her home State to receive
lifesaving care after the Texas Supreme Court decided she wasn't close
enough to dying to receive an abortion, despite four emergency room
visits, elevated vitals, and a risk of uterine rupture.
In my home State of Florida, Deborah Dorbert was forced to give birth
to her son, who died in her arms shortly after he was born, just as
doctors predicted. For an agonizing 13 weeks, Deborah was forced to
carry a baby she knew would die, which left her with severe anxiety and
depression.
In Ohio, Brittany Watts, a Black woman, was criminally charged after
having a miscarriage at home, after doctors found that her water broke
prematurely and the fetus she was carrying would not survive.
In the wake of the Supreme Court overturning half a century of
precedent, we have women nationwide who are at risk of losing their
lives every single day.
Women in States with abortion bans are nearly three times more likely
to die from childbirth, and Black women have the highest maternal
mortality rates in the U.S., three times higher than White women.
Being forced to give birth means Black women will die, and if they
don't die, they will be jailed for miscarrying an unviable fetus.
This could be your wife, your daughter, your sister, or even me,
whose life is at risk unless we receive an abortion. How can any doctor
tell a woman that her life cannot be saved when we know it can.
This is reprehensible. Congress must pass H.R. 12, the Women's
Healthcare Protection Act of 2023.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Chu for sponsoring this
legislation.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 10 minutes
remaining.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I further inquire as to engaging in
personalities or destruction of personalities? Is that something we are
now doing on the floor of the House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not going to respond to
hypotheticals or provide advisory opinions.
Mr. BURGESS. It wasn't a hypothetical; it was what was said on the
other side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members are reminded that remarks should
be addressed to the Chair and not to engage in personalities.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, we can talk about existing authority that the President
has today that he could use to solve the problem at our southern
border. He could end catch and release, reinstate the remain in Mexico
policy, enter into asylum cooperative agreements with other countries,
end parole abuses, detain inadmissible aliens, use expedited removal,
rein in taxpayer-funded benefits for people who are in the country
illegally, and issue a proclamation to suspend or restrict entry.
All those are available to the President right now, today, to solve
this problem.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, again, the gentleman from Texas confuses me because not
too long ago--and I will use one of his quotes--he said: ``President
Trump has presented a clear path forward; however, he cannot solve this
crisis alone.''
Those are the gentleman's words.
Congress must stand ready to put partisan politics aside and pass
meaningful solutions, but now all of a sudden Joe Biden can do it
alone?
I mean, when Trump was President, he needed Congress, according to
the gentleman, to give him the ability to be able to do what he wants
on the border. Now, all of a sudden, it is a different story because it
is a different President.
Mr. Speaker, let me also address something that the other gentleman
from Texas mentioned in his 10 minutes of remarks when he said
something about this isn't about politics.
I would point out that in April of 2023, Chairman Green, who is the
chair of the Homeland Security Committee, promised Republican donors
that he would produce an impeachment case against Secretary Mayorkas--
before donors.
According to a recording of Chairman Green's remarks to campaign
contributors, he said: ``On April 19, next week, get the popcorn--
Alejandro Mayorkas comes before our committee, and it's going to be
fun.''
Chairman Green also said: ``That'll really be just the beginning for
him.''
The chairman said those things 2 months prior to the committee
formally announcing its so-called investigation--2 months prior, Mr.
Speaker.
He already promised his Republican donors that he would deliver
impeachment charges.
To be clear, this entire impeachment process has had a predetermined
outcome. This has nothing to do with a legitimate case for impeachment,
but it has everything to do with Republicans' mission to distract,
deflect, and exact revenge for President Biden winning the 2022
election.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the New
York Times article titled: ``Key Republican Tells Donors He Will Pursue
Impeachment of Mayorkas.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
[From the New York Times, Apr. 18, 2023]
Key Republican Tells Donors He Will Pursue Impeachment of Mayorkas
(By Karoun Demirjian)
Washington.--The Republican chairman of the House Homeland
Security Committee promised donors this month that he would
produce an impeachment case against the Biden
administration's homeland security chief, Alejandro N.
Mayorkas, saying that the secretary's appearance before the
panel this week would be the beginning of his demise.
Representative Mark E. Green told an enthusiastic crowd in
his home state of Tennessee last week that his committee
would expose Mr. Mayorkas's ``dereliction of duty and his
intentional destruction of our country through the open
southern border.'' He said the panel would deliver charges to
the House Judiciary Committee, which handles impeachment
proceedings, according to an audio recording of a House
Freedom Caucus fund-raiser obtained by The New York Times.
He said he had a ``five-phase plan'' for doing so and that
the Homeland Security Committee would ``put together a
packet, and we will hand it to Jim Jordan and let Jim do what
Jim does best.''
Mr. Green apparently was referring to Representative Jim
Jordan, the Ohio Republican who leads the Judiciary panel.
His comments made clear that G.O.P. leaders are serious about
their threats to impeach Mr. Mayorkas. He said the plan would
start with an appearance by the secretary before his
committee on Wednesday.
``On April 19, next week, get the popcorn--Alejandro
Mayorkas comes before our committee, and it's going to be
fun,'' Mr. Green told the room, adding: ``That'll really be
just the beginning for him.''
A spokeswoman for Mr. Green did not respond to requests for
comment.
Mr. Green and other Republican leaders have made no secret
of their desire to pursue impeachment charges against Mr.
Mayorkas. Speaker Kevin McCarthy began threatening to impeach
him months before Mr. McCarthy won his gavel. But their
ambitions have been limited thus far by the political
realities of the House; not every Republican wants to
demonize Mr. Mayorkas as solely responsible for the country's
immigration problems, and with a slim majority, party leaders
do not yet have the votes to impeach him.
As a result, Mr. Green and other House Republicans in
positions of authority have been careful to avoid promising
publicly that they would find evidence against Mr. Mayorkas
worthy of prosecution. Behind closed doors with core
supporters, however, Mr. Green was less cautious, using the
issue to whip up the crowd.
During a public session on Capitol Hill on Tuesday before
the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee,
Republicans hammered Mr. Mayorkas both for the border
situation and for recent revelations, documented in an
investigation by The New York Times, that unaccompanied
migrant children have been exploited as laborers. Both
Senators Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Josh Hawley of Missouri
demanded that the secretary resign.
Mr. Mayorkas pushed back, saying his department was not
responsible for the child labor crisis.
``You are incorrectly attributing it to our policies,'' he
told Mr. Hawley. He also disputed the idea that he could be
held personally responsible for the problems at the border,
telling senators: ``Our asylum system is broken, our entire
immigration system is broken, and in desperate need of
reform--and it's been so for years and years.''
[[Page H443]]
The Department of Homeland Security has dismissed calls for
Mr. Mayorkas to step down as ``baseless'' and ``reckless,''
and Mr. Mayorkas has suggested in past interviews that the
efforts to impeach him were simply a way of turbocharging
policy disputes with the administration.
Mr. Green made his comments at an event billed as a
``V.I.P. Reception and Conversation with Conservative
Heroes,'' where he appeared behind closed doors alongside Mr.
Jordan and other hard-right Republicans. He pointed to recent
testimony before his panel by Raul L. Ortiz, the Border
Patrol chief, who detailed ``an increase in flow'' in five of
the nine sectors along the U.S.-Mexico border and said it had
``caused a considerable strain on our resources.''
He also recalled Mr. Ortiz's testimony that the United
States does not have ``operational control'' of the southern
border, which Republicans seized on to accuse Mr. Mayorkas,
who had testified that the border is secure, of dishonesty.
Mr. Mayorkas addressed the apparent discrepancy during a
separate hearing last month, telling senators that he was
using a different definition of ``operational security,'' and
that the two statements were not in conflict.
Mr. Green nonetheless trumpeted Mr. Ortiz's words as a kill
shot against Mr. Mayorkas, telling the donors that ``he'll
see that video a couple of times'' during the upcoming
hearing before the Homeland Security panel.
The secretary's appearances on Capitol Hill this week come
as the Republican House is barreling ahead with what Mr.
Green told donors would be ``the most conservative border
security bill that this Congress has ever seen, or any
Congress has ever seen.'' The panel is expected to debate
that bill next week.
On Wednesday, while Mr. Mayorkas is testifying before the
Homeland Security panel, the Judiciary Committee is scheduled
to debate a second border security bill aimed at restricting
migrant inflows, including by restricting access to asylum
and requiring all employers to adopt an electronic system
that screens prospective employees' eligibility to work.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I am very
distressed about is that many of my Republican colleagues who are upset
that Donald Trump lost the last election and they were not able to
overturn the free and fair results of that election, they are upset
that they didn't get their way, and they weren't able to overturn the
results.
So now this is kind of a continuation of that effort to deny the
legitimate results of the election. This in many respects is a
continuation of what happened here on January 6, and it really is sad.
There is another election coming up in November. I predict that my
friends will understand better then that their policy of obstruction,
impeachment, distraction, and not wanting to solve problems, I think
they will realize that when people go to the ballot box, that is not
what they want.
The American people want us to work together to get something done.
We have a serious situation at the border. We are trying to provide
President Biden with the tools to be able to act. Just as my friend
said that Donald Trump needed the legislative tools to be able to get
what he wanted to get done--and unfortunately, notwithstanding some
very impressive bipartisan cooperation in the Senate--my friends here
have decided to reject everything; anything that might solve the
problem; anything that might ease the situation at the border; anything
that might help our Border Patrol agents, anything that will do
anything to be able to solve this problem they are against.
It is pathetic that that is the state that we are in right now.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, the difficulty that we have is that President Biden will
not use any of the tools he has in his toolbox, and now he is asking
for additional tools.
The other problem is codifying 5,000 illegal immigrants a day, 2
million a year, is not, in anyone's estimation, a solution to a
problem.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this is not about Secretary Mayorkas or
a high crime and misdemeanor. It is about a policy disagreement with
President Biden.
Again, it is interesting to point out that when Trump was President,
he couldn't do things because Congress didn't give him the tools. Biden
is asking for more tools, and my Republican friends don't want to do
anything.
Mr. Speaker, I have a memo here, released today on the arguments
regarding impeaching Secretary Mayorkas, offered by the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity,
Security, and Enforcement, Mr. McClintock.
In listening to my friends on the other side of the aisle, surely you
would assume that the chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, the
lead Republican on immigration issues, would conclude in his memo that
this impeachment is necessary and warranted. But, no, you would be
wrong.
In fact, he concludes the exact opposite, and Mr. McClintock has said
he will vote ``no'' on impeaching the Secretary.
Now, I would ask unanimous consent to put the entire memo into the
Record, but it is so exhaustive in its analysis of how this impeachment
is a bunch of garbage, that the memo exceeds the page limit for the
Congressional Record.
Let me just read a quick excerpt instead.
He writes: ``The problem is that they fail to identify an impeachable
crime that Mayorkas has committed. In effect, they stretch and distort
the Constitution in order to hold the administration accountable. . .
.''
``Stretch and distort'': Those are the words of the Republican
chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee.
Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my colleague from California, who came to
the well and basically called it as he sees it. He told the truth.
We need some more truth around here. This is a sham. This is a
dangerous precedent to go down.
To impeach somebody because of a policy disagreement, I tell you,
this is not what we should be doing. I am hoping that there are
Republicans on the other side of the aisle who still believe in the
Constitution and in this institution and who will reject this.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a memo
prepared by the Secretary of Homeland Security, released on September
30, 2021, discussing the Secretary being there to enforce the laws.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
September 30, 2021.
Memorandum To: Tae D. Johnson, Acting Director, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
CC: Troy Miller, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection; Ur Jaddou, Director, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services; Robert Silvers, Under Secretary,
Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans; Katherine
Culliton-Gonzalez, Officer for Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties;
Lynn Parker Dupree, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy
Office.
From: Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary.
Subject: Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration
Law.
This memorandum provides guidance for the apprehension and
removal of noncitizens.
I am grateful to you, the other leaders of U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, and our frontline personnel for the
candor and openness of the engagements we have had to help
shape this guidance. Thank you especially for dedicating
yourselves--all your talent and energy--to the noble law
enforcement profession. In executing our solemn
responsibility to enforce immigration law with honor and
integrity, we can help achieve justice and realize our ideals
as a Nation. Our colleagues on the front lines and throughout
the organization make this possible at great personal
sacrifice.
I. Foundational Principle: The Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion
It is well established in the law that federal government
officials have broad discretion to decide who should be
subject to arrest, detainers, removal proceedings, and the
execution of removal orders. The exercise of prosecutorial
discretion in the immigration arena is a deep-rooted
tradition. The United States Supreme Court stated this
clearly in 2012:
``A principal feature of the removal system is the broad
discretion exercised by immigration officials. Federal
officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes
sense to pursue removal at all.''
In an opinion by Justice Scalia about twelve years earlier,
the Supreme Court emphasized that enforcement discretion
extends throughout the entire removal process, and at each
stage of it the executive has the discretion to not pursue
it.
[[Page H444]]
It is estimated that there are more than 11 million
undocumented or otherwise removable noncitizens in the United
States. We do not have the resources to apprehend and seek
the removal of every one of these noncitizens. Therefore, we
need to exercise our discretion and determine whom to
prioritize for immigration enforcement action.
In exercising our discretion, we are guided by the fact
that the majority of undocumented noncitizens who could be
subject to removal have been contributing members of our
communities for years. They include individuals who work on
the frontlines in the battle against COVID, lead our
congregations of faith, teach our children, do back-breaking
farm work to help deliver food to our table, and contribute
in many other meaningful ways. Numerous times over the years,
and presently, bipartisan groups of leaders have recognized
these noncitizens' contributions to state and local
communities and have tried to pass legislation that would
provide a path to citizenship or other lawful status for the
approximately 11 million undocumented noncitizens.
The fact an individual is a removable noncitizen therefore
should not alone be the basis of an enforcement action
against them. We will use our discretion and focus our
enforcement resources in a more targeted way. Justice and our
country's well-being require it.
By exercising our discretionary authority in a targeted
way, we can focus our efforts on those who pose a threat to
national security, public safety, and border security and
thus threaten America's well-being. We do not lessen our
commitment to enforce immigration law to the best of our
ability. This is how we use the resources we have in a way
that accomplishes our enforcement mission most effectively
and justly.
II. Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities
We establish civil immigration enforcement priorities to
most effectively achieve our goals with the resources we
have. We will prioritize for apprehension and removal
noncitizens who are a threat to out national security, public
safety, and border security.
A. Threat to National Security
A noncitizen who engaged in or is suspected of terrorism or
espionage, or terrorism-related or espionage-related
activities, or who otherwise poses a danger to national
security, is a priority for apprehension and removal.
B. Threat to Public Safety
A noncitizen who poses a current threat to public safety,
typically because of serious criminal conduct, is a priority
for apprehension and removal.
Whether a noncitizen poses a current threat to public
safety is not to be determined according to bright lines or
categories. It instead requires an assessment of the
individual and the totality of the facts and circumstances.
There can be aggravating factors that militate in favor of
enforcement action. Such factors can include, for example:
the gravity of the offense of conviction and the sentence
imposed;
the nature and degree of harm caused by the criminal
offense;
the sophistication of the criminal offense;
use or threatened use of a firearm or dangerous weapon;
a serious prior criminal record.
Conversely, there can be mitigating factors that militate
in favor of declining enforcement action. Such factors can
include, for example:
advanced or tender age;
lengthy presence in the United States;
a mental condition that may have contributed to the
criminal conduct, or a physical or mental condition requiring
care or treatment;
status as a victim of crime or victim, witness, or party in
legal proceedings;
the impact of removal on family in the United States, such
as loss of provider or caregiver;
whether the noncitizen may be eligible for humanitarian
protection or other immigration relief;
military or other public service of the noncitizen or their
immediate family;
time since an offense and evidence of rehabilitation;
conviction was vacated or expunged.
The above examples of aggravating and mitigating factors
are not exhaustive. The circumstances under which an offense
was committed could, for example, be an aggravating or
mitigating factor depending on the facts. The broader public
interest is also material in determining whether to take
enforcement action. For example, a categorical determination
that a domestic violence offense compels apprehension and
removal could make victims of domestic violence more
reluctant to report the offense conduct. The specific facts
of a case should be determinative.
Again, our personnel must evaluate the individual and the
totality of the facts and circumstances and exercise their
judgment accordingly. The overriding question is whether the
noncitizen poses a current threat to public safety. Some of
the factors relevant to making the determination are
identified above.
The decision how to exercise prosecutorial discretion can
be complicated and requires investigative work. Our personnel
should not rely on the fact of conviction or the result of a
database search alone. Rather, our personnel should, to the
fullest extent possible, obtain and review the entire
criminal and administrative record and other investigative
information to learn of the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the conduct at issue. The gravity of an
apprehension and removal on a noncitizen's life, and
potentially the life of family members and the community,
warrants the dedication of investigative and evaluative
effort.
C. Threat to Border Security
A noncitizen who poses a threat to border security is a
priority for apprehension and removal.
A noncitizen is a threat to border security if:
(a) they are apprehended at the border or port of entry
while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States; or
(b) they are apprehended in the United States after
unlawfully entering after November 1, 2020.
There could be other border security cases that present
compelling facts that warrant enforcement action. In each
case, there could be mitigating or extenuating facts and
circumstances that militate in favor of declining enforcement
action. Our personnel should evaluate the totality of the
facts and circumstances and exercise their judgment
accordingly.
III. Protection of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
We must exercise our discretionary authority in a way that
protects civil rights and civil liberties. The integrity of
our work and our Department depend on it. A noncitizen's
race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or gender
identity, national origin, or political associations shall
never be factors in deciding to take enforcement action. A
noncitizen's exercise of their First Amendment rights also
should never be a factor in deciding to take enforcement
action. We must ensure that enforcement actions are not
discriminatory and do not lead to inequitable outcomes.
This guidance does not prohibit consideration of one or
more of the above-mentioned factors if they are directly
relevant to status under immigration law or eligibility for
an immigration benefit. For example, religion or political
beliefs are often directly relevant in asylum cases and need
to be assessed in determining a case's merit.
State and local law enforcement agencies with which we work
must respect individuals' civil rights and civil liberties as
well.
IV. Guarding Against the Use of Immigration Enforcement as a Tool of
Retaliation for the Assertion of Legal Rights
Our society benefits when individuals--citizens and
noncitizens alike--assert their rights by participating in
court proceedings or investigations by agencies enforcing our
labor, housing, and other laws.
It is an unfortunate reality that unscrupulous employers
exploit their employees' immigration status and vulnerability
to removal by, for example, suppressing wages, maintaining
unsafe working conditions, and quashing workplace rights and
activities. Similarly, unscrupulous landlords exploit their
tenants' immigration status and vulnerability to removal by,
for example, charging inflated rental costs and failing to
comply with housing ordinances and other relevant housing
standards.
We must ensure our immigration enforcement authority is not
used as an instrument of these and other unscrupulous
practices. A noncitizen's exercise of workplace or tenant
rights, or service as a witness in a labor or housing
dispute, should be considered a mitigating factor in the
exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
V. The Quality and Integrity of our Civil Immigration Enforcement
Actions
The civil immigration enforcement guidance does not compel
an action to be taken or not taken. Instead, the guidance
leaves the exercise of prosecutorial discretion to the
judgment of our personnel.
To ensure the quality and integrity of our civil
immigration enforcement actions, and to achieve consistency
in the application of our judgments, the following measures
are to be taken before the effective date of this guidance:
A. Training
Extensive training materials and a continuous training
program should be put in place to ensure the successful
application of this guidance.
B. Process for Reviewing Effective Implementation
A review process should be put in place to ensure the
rigorous review of our personnel's enforcement decisions
throughout the first ninety (90) days of implementation of
this guidance. The review process should seek to achieve
quality and consistency in decision-making across the entire
agency and the Department. It should therefore involve the
relevant chains of command.
Longer-term review processes should be put in place
following the initial 90-day period, drawing on the lessons
learned. Assessment of implementation of this guidance should
be continuous.
C. Data Collection
We will need to collect detailed, precise, and
comprehensive data as to every aspect of the enforcement
actions we take pursuant to this guidance, both to ensure the
quality and integrity of our work and to achieve
accountability for it.
Please work with the offices of the Chief Information
Officer; Strategy, Policy, and Plans; Science and Technology;
Civil Rights
[[Page H445]]
and Civil Liberties; and Privacy to determine the data that
should be collected, the mechanisms to collect it, and how
and to what extent it can be made public.
D. Case Review Process
We will work to establish a fair and equitable case review
process to afford noncitizens and their representatives the
opportunity to obtain expeditious review of the enforcement
actions taken. Discretion to determine the disposition of the
case will remain exclusively with the Department.
VI. Implementation of the Guidance
This guidance will become effective in sixty (60) days, on
November 29, 2021. Upon the effective date, this guidance
will serve to rescind (1) the January 20, 2021 Interim
Revision to Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal
Policies and Priorities issued by then-Acting Secretary David
Pekoske, and (2) the Interim Guidance: Civil Immigration
Enforcement and Removal Priorities issued by Acting ICE
Director Tae D. Johnson.
We will meet regularly to review the data, discuss the
results to date, and assess whether we are achieving our
goals effectively. Our assessment will be informed by
feedback we receive from our law enforcement, community, and
other partners.
This guidance is Department-wide. Agency leaders as to whom
this guidance is relevant to their operations will implement
this guidance accordingly.
VII. Statement of No Private Right Conferred
This guidance is not intended to, does not, and may not be
relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or
procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any
administrative, civil, or criminal matter.
Mr. BURGESS. In this memo, he basically says he is going to make the
laws that he then purports to enforce.
He bemoans the fact that there is no path for citizenship that has
been established, but then goes on to say: ``The fact an individual is
a removable noncitizen therefore should not alone be the basis of an
enforcement action against them.''
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, Michael Chertoff, the former Republican-
appointed Homeland Security Secretary, the first-ever Homeland Security
Secretary, has also come out in support of Secretary Mayorkas.
He said: ``I can say with confidence that, for all the investigating
that the House Committee on Homeland Security has done, they have
failed to put forth evidence that meets the bar.''
He went on to say: ``I don't agree with every policy decision the
Biden administration has made. There are aspects of immigration
strategy that are worthy of debate. But House Republicans are ducking
difficult policy work and hard-fought compromise. Impeachment is a
diversion from fixing our broken immigration laws and giving DHS the
resources needed to secure the border.''
{time} 1315
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record an
opinion piece written by Michael Chertoff and published by the Wall
Street Journal titled: ``Don't Impeach Alejandro Mayorkas.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
[From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 28, 2024]
Don't Impeach Alejandro Mayorkas
House Republicans are misusing the process to target an official who
has done nothing wrong.
(By Michael Chertoff)
Political and policy disagreements aren't impeachable
offenses. The Constitution gives Congress the power to
impeach federal officials for treason, bribery and ``other
high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' That's a high bar. In the
history of our republic, only one cabinet secretary has been
impeached (for receiving corrupt kickback payments).
The House Homeland Security Committee is moving toward a
Jan. 30 vote on articles of impeachment against Homeland
Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, with a possible vote
by the full House on Feb. 5. As homeland security secretary
under President George W. Bush--and as a former federal
judge, U.S. attorney and assistant attorney general--I can
say with confidence that, for all the investigating that the
House Committee on Homeland Security has done, they have
failed to put forth evidence that meets the bar.
This is why Republicans aren't seeking to hold Mr. Mayorkas
to the Constitution's ``high crimes and misdemeanors''
standard for impeachment. They make the unsupported argument
that he is derelict in his duty.
Since Mr. Mayorkas took office, the majority of migrants
encountered at the Southwest border have been removed,
returned or expelled. In fact, since the pandemic-era Title
42 policy was ended last May, DHS removed, returned or
expelled more noncitizens than in any five-month period in
the past 10 years. The truth is that our national immigration
system is outdated, and DHS leaders under both parties have
done their best to manage our immigration system without
adequate congressional support.
I don't agree with every policy decision the Biden
administration has made. There are aspects of immigration
strategy that are worthy of debate. But House Republicans are
ducking difficult policy work and hard-fought compromise.
Impeachment is a diversion from fixing our broken immigration
laws and giving DHS the resources needed to secure the
border.
Our nation is at its best when our leaders work together to
confront the seemingly intractable.
The situation at our border and our national security,
demand such bipartisan collaboration. Despite our different
parties, I know Mr. Mayorkas to be fair and honest--dedicated
to the safety and security of the U.S. He has represented DHS
to the country and to both parties in Congress with
integrity. Republicans in the House should drop this
impeachment charade and work with Mr. Mayorkas to deliver for
the American people.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record an
article detailing the number of children that the Department of
Homeland Security has lost.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
[From the Washington Times, Friday, Sept. 9, 2022]
Rep. Michael Burgess Demands Answers After Illegal Immigrant Children
Go `Missing'
(By Stephen Dinan)
Rep. Michael Burgess warned the Biden administration that
it is endangering children and may be breaking the law after
many illegal immigrant juveniles have gone `missing' in
Houston.
Mr. Burgess, Texas Republican, said he was alarmed by a
Reuters report earlier this month that said roughly 48
illegal immigrant children went missing from the Houston
homes where the federal Health and Human Services Department
had placed them with sponsors. Another nine children ran away
from HHS-operated shelters.
HHS began a frantic effort to track the children. As of
late August, 46 of them had been `confirmed safe,' Reuters
reported.
Mr. Burgess, in a letter to HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra
this week, demanded quick answers on what is going on, saying
there were signs the department was putting kids in unsafe
situations.
``These patterns have been brought to light by the Houston
police chief after noticing an increase in missing UACs from
the homes of their U.S. sponsors,'' the congressman wrote.
``Of even greater concern, dozens of these children have been
released to similar addresses.''
The Washington Times has reached out to HHS for comment.
UACs, or Unaccompanied Alien Children, are juveniles who
jump the border without a parent.
Under the law, UACs are to be quickly transferred from
Homeland Security's custody to HHS, which places the children
in shelters until sponsors can be found.
Sponsors are often relatives--usually in the country
illegally themselves--but can be just about anyone willing to
take a child. Some parents will send their children to the
border as UACs, with names, addresses and phone numbers for
potential sponsors tucked in the children's clothing.
But there have been horrific abuses.
The Times reported last month on a case out of Illinois
where a 10-year-old girl was placed with a purported aunt who
turned out not to be related. The fraudulent aunt now stands
accused of terrifying abuses, including stabbing the girl and
allowing male members of her household to repeatedly rape the
young girl.
UACs began to surge into the U.S. in 2014, and there have
been subsequent waves, but the Biden administration has
shattered all previous records with more than a quarter of a
million UACs nabbed at the border in just 18 months.
Overwhelmed by the numbers, the Biden administration tossed
some of the safety checks the Trump administration had put in
place to try to better vet sponsors.
In his letter, Mr. Burgess said the fact that the same
addresses kept popping up as placement locations in Houston
should have been a warning sign about possible exploitation.
He also questioned whether those placements were even
legal.
``I am not certain that releasing UACs to non-parent
sponsors complies with current law,'' he wrote.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, that number has increased year over year.
It was 100,000 kids last year. What are we doing if we are losing track
of 100,000 children that have come into this country illegally?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H446]]
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for
closing.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record an
editorial piece from the Wall Street Journal titled: ``Impeaching
Mayorkas Achieves Nothing.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
[From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 30, 2024]
Impeaching Mayorkas Achieves Nothing
A policy dispute doesn't qualify as a high crime and misdemeanor
(By Wall Street Journal Editorial Board)
House Republicans are marking up articles of impeachment
against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and
the question is why? As much as we share the frustration with
the Biden border mess, impeaching Mr. Mayorkas won't change
enforcement policy and is a bad precedent that will open the
gates to more cabinet impeachments by both parties.
The Homeland Security Committee on Tuesday began marking up
two articles of impeachment against Mr. Mayorkas--one for
breach of trust and the other for ``willful and systemic
refusal to comply with the law.'' The articles say these are
``high crimes and misdemeanors'' that justify removal from
office.
The 20-page political indictment certainly is a sorry list
of policy failings on Mr. Mayorkas's watch and their damaging
consequences for American cities and states. These include
the entry of migrants on the terrorism watch list, and an
increase in average encounters at the border from 590,000 in
fiscal years 2017-2020--to 1.4 million in 2021, 2.3 million
in 2022 and 2.4 million in 2023.
These are failures of policy and execution, but are they
impeachable offenses? That seems doubtful. The first article
cites Mr. Mayorkas for refusing to implement a law that
requires detention of aliens. It says his policy of ``catch
and release'' is impeachable.
Yet the Supreme Court has not ruled that the Biden policies
are illegal. The High Court in 2022 let the Biden
Administration end Donald Trump's Remain in Mexico policy,
and last year it ruled 8-1 that states don't necessarily have
standing to challenge the federal government's enforcement
priorities.
As for catch and release, one problem is the statutory
``credible fear'' standard for claiming asylum in the U.S.
The standard is too low, but it isn't clear under the law
that the Administration can legally deport people claiming
asylum before they get a hearing. The U.S. lacks the
facilities to hold asylum claimants, so they are released to
await their hearing--and that can take years. But the problem
is asylum law, as Republicans have long argued.
Article I also claims Mr. Mayorkas has violated the law by
expanding humanitarian parole beyond Congress's intent.
That's probably true, but the law puts no cap on parole
numbers. Texas and other states challenged the President's
authority to use parole for large classes of migrants, but
the Supreme Court ruled against them.
House Republicans dislike how the Administration is
interpreting immigration law. But Congress has failed to
reform asylum standards or humanitarian parole, or to
otherwise tighten immigration rules. That's why Senators are
now negotiating over language to reform both the asylum
standard and parole.
If Congress holds Mr. Mayorkas impeachable for policy
failure, what's the limiting principle? Are his deputies also
guilty of ``high crimes'' for implementing the Biden
immigration agenda? Career officials? How many GOP cabinet
secretaries will the next Democratic House line up to
impeach? Policy disputes are for the voting booth, not
impeachment.
All the more so because the main architect of the border-
security fiasco isn't Mr. Mayorkas. It's his boss, President
Biden. ``If you want to flee and you are fleeing oppression,
you should come,'' said Candidate Joe Biden in a 2019 debate.
Mr. Mayorkas is following White House orders.
Impeaching Mr. Mayorkas won't have any effect on policy, or
even on the politics of border security. Most voters don't
know who Mr. Mayorkas is. Even if the House passes the
articles, on a largely partisan vote, there is no chance the
Democratic Senate will convict him. Impeaching Mr. Mayorkas
would be the political equivalent of a no-confidence vote.
This would continue Congress's recent trend of defining
impeachment down.
Grandstanding is easier than governing, and Republicans
have to decide whether to accomplish anything other than
impeaching Democrats. Mr. Mayorkas is an easy political
target, but impeaching him accomplishes nothing beyond
political symbolism.
A better idea is to strike a deal with Mr. Biden on serious
border-security reforms that would restrict his discretion on
parole, rewrite the asylum standard, and give the executive
other tools to control the border. If Messrs. Mayorkas and
Biden refuse to use them, the GOP will have an election
issue. And the tools will be there for the next President to
use.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, everything we have heard from the other
side has confirmed that this impeachment is a predetermined political
stunt. Again, this is the first time in American history an impeachment
could go to the floor of the United States House of Representatives
with no evidence, no proof, no elements of a crime, nothing at all. Not
my words, Mr. Speaker. It is your own colleagues who say that.
Here are a few more quotes. Jonathan Turley, a top Republican legal
adviser, says: ``There is also no current evidence that he [meaning
Secretary Mayorkas] is corrupt or committed an impeachable offense.''
Donald Trump's own impeachment defense lawyer, Alan Dershowitz: ``I
urge principled Republicans who care about the Constitution to oppose
those in their party who are seeking to impeach and remove Mayorkas
based on nonconstitutional accusations.''
Republican leaders told their donors behind closed doors that they
were going to impeach Mayorkas before they even began their sham
investigation. They raise money off of this. They promised Marjorie
Taylor Greene last year that they were going to impeach, no matter
what, in order to help Donald Trump, to distract from his legal
troubles and their own incompetence.
I get why they need to change the subject. Trump was the worst
President in my lifetime, probably in history. He tried to overturn the
election results when he lost. He said he wants to be a dictator ``on
day one'' and he invokes Adolph Hitler, saying: Immigrants poison the
blood of our country.
He had the worst jobs record since the Great Depression. He told
everyone to drink bleach and take horse medicine during COVID. He has
been indicted more times than elected and is currently in trial for 91
felony charges. That is after being ordered to pay $83 million after a
jury of his peers decided he was a rapist.
That is the leader of the Republican Party. That is who this
impeachment is about, Donald Trump; not Secretary Mayorkas, a good,
honorable, decent man. Donald Trump is a corrupt, dishonorable,
disgraceful man.
This is all about helping Republicans rile up MAGA voters and
distracting from their inability to govern and address the critical
issues facing our country.
Instead of legislating, they are being led by Marjorie Taylor Greene
and the extreme MAGA chock-full-of-nuts caucus to pursue this baseless,
extreme, and harmful impeachment charade that distracts from actually
securing the border.
Do we have a problem at the border? Absolutely. Democrats and
President Biden want real, comprehensive solutions to fix it, but the
MAGA extremists have shown no interest in working with House Democrats
to address the challenges facing the American people.
What we need is Republicans to stop playing political games. That is
the exact opposite of what is happening here, the exact opposite of
this cynical, reckless, impeachment stunt.
We are going to continue, as Democrats, to put people over politics,
to fight for issues that matter, to try to lower costs, grow our
economy, and, yes, to secure our border.
If Republicans decide they want to join us as partners in government
to solve these challenges, we welcome that. If they don't, there is an
election coming up in November.
I would say history is going to judge this Republican majority, but I
don't think we need to wait for that. The voters are going to judge us
all in November, and I think people are going to look at this
fraudulent impeachment and they are going to look at Republicans' lack
of accomplishments and they are going to vote them out because of their
incompetence, their extremism, and their refusal to work with Democrats
to address the challenges our country faces, including the border.
As I said before, this entire impeachment stunt is an absurd, cynical
exercise in extremism. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and a
``no'' vote on the underlying resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
[[Page H447]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 8 minutes
remaining.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have seen one of the worst cases of Trump
derangement syndrome ever recorded.
I would just remind people that I am not running for reelection, so I
am not beholden to anyone. As I told the gentleman last week, I am
bulletproof. I am only beholden to the constituents I represent. And
the constituents I represent do not understand why Texas has had to
endure basically an invasion during the tenure of this Secretary of
Homeland Security, why he has not enforced the laws that he swore an
oath to uphold and enforce. He won't do it.
What are we left to do when we have someone who is charged with
protecting our country, charged with enforcing our laws, and he says it
is too much trouble, I can't do it?
We know it is possible, because I was on a codel with Speaker Johnson
down to the border down at Eagle Pass not but a couple weeks ago. The
week before, we had seen on Bill Melugin's report on FOX News thousands
of people on the riverbanks on the United States side who were there
awaiting processing to be released into our country to parts unknown,
for lengths of time unknown. When the Speaker of the House goes down
there, there is not a soul on that riverbank.
This problem can be stopped literally overnight, if the Secretary and
the President would make it a priority and would do it, but they won't.
What are we left to do?
I agree with the gentleman that there is an election coming up. I
hope people do remember that. I hope they do remember they have a
President who, under 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, has
it in his power right now to suspend activities on the southern border,
but he won't do it.
We are being invaded, Mr. Speaker. My Governor, Governor Abbott, has
officially declared an invasion. I don't think there is any debate
about that. The administration and this Secretary have done nothing to
help Texas. Instead, they have turned around and sued the State at
every turn. Mr. Speaker, $12 billion dollars is what Texas has had to
spend over the last year to do the job that Secretary Mayorkas should
have been doing.
Just by the numbers, over 2 million illegal aliens apprehended last
fiscal year, 15,000 pounds of fentanyl seized from drug smugglers
crossing our border. How many families need to lose a child? How many
American lives have to be cut short before Secretary Mayorkas,
President Biden, and his border czar, Vice President Kamala Harris,
change course and actually enforce existing law?
The consequences of this administration and Secretary Mayorkas'
actions have been staggering: A southern border open to drug cartels,
criminals, human traffickers, and potential terrorists; a record number
of migrant deaths; rising human trafficking; exploitation of minors; a
growing public health disaster; and an annual net burden to the
American taxpayer exceeding $150 billion.
Mr. Speaker, each of these consequences would have been avoidable if
Secretary Mayorkas had just enforced existing law. This willful and
systemic refusal to comply with the law and the continued breach of
public trust by Secretary Mayorkas will not be tolerated. For this, he
must be impeached.
I also thank Chairwoman McMorris Rodgers for her leadership in
bringing H.R. 485 to the floor and Chairman Mark Green of the Homeland
Security Committee for his work on a proper and thorough investigation
leading to consideration of H. Res. 863.
Madam Speaker, I stand in strong support of the rule and the
underlying legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 996 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 12) to protect a person's ability to determine
whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a
health care provider's ability to provide abortion services.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on
any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 12.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Van Duyne). The question is on ordering
the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.
____________________