[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.

                          ____________________