[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 6, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H459-H476]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the 
gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any 
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation 
of the rules of the House.
  Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Fallon).
  Mr. FALLON. Madam Speaker, how many Democrats or open border caucus 
members--I apologize for my redundancy there--are willing to house 
migrants in their own homes, Madam Speaker? None. Zero. Nada. They seem 
to all be for providing sanctuary, provided they don't have to provide 
it.
  Alejandro Mayorkas, under oath, testified before Congress and claimed 
the border is no less secure than it was previously. Does anyone in 
this Chamber

[[Page H460]]

actually believe that? Does anyone in this country believe that?
  Let's compare the first 3 years of President Trump's and Biden's 
tenures: President Trump in his first 3 years, 1.6 million illegal 
crossings; Joe Biden, 8.3 million, a 519 percent increase. Terror watch 
list suspects apprehended under Trump were 8 in 3 years; under Joe 
Biden, 361. That is a 4,512 percent increase. Chinese nationals, men 
mostly of military age entering illegally, last year under President 
Trump it was 450, and under Joe Biden it is over 24,000. That is a 
5,333 percent increase.

  No less secure. Is that the new math?
  Opioid deaths have doubled. The Mexican drug cartels are enjoying 
record profits.
  Alejandro Mayorkas fostered this mayhem, and he facilitated 
cataclysmic chaos. He is inept. He is weak. He is impotent. He has 
violated Federal law. He has perjured himself in front of Congress. He 
has lied to the American people. He has undermined his own Border 
Patrol agents.
  Mayorkas has shown the world who he is. He is a sheep in sheep's 
clothing. The cartel wolves and our enemies across the world are 
circling.
  This impeachment is richly deserved, and we must fire this bum, this 
second coming of Benedict Arnold, forthwith.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, let's look at the facts. 
Since May 12, 2023, when title 42 ended, DHS has removed more than 
500,000 individuals. That is more people than Donald Trump removed in 
any given year. The border is not open.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Raskin), the ranking member of the Oversight and Accountability 
Committee.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, we are here because the madcap wild goose 
chase to impeach Joe Biden has produced no wild geese. Even FOX News is 
lampooning the fact that their own expert witnesses repeatedly say that 
President Biden did nothing wrong and that there are no grounds for 
impeachment. More than a dozen GOP Members in Biden majority districts 
don't want to go anywhere near that fantasy production.
  So, the Trump-Putin-MAGA faction, headed up by the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene), has been given this worthless 
trinket of a consolation prize--the opportunity to bring this slapstick 
impeachment drive against a Cabinet member of unimpeachable integrity 
who has obviously committed no treason, no bribery, no high crimes, no 
misdemeanors, nothing indictable or even ``in-dict-able,'' if you 
prefer.
  What makes this farce a tragedy is that Secretary Mayorkas and the 
U.S. Senate have been working for months to achieve precisely the 
immigration and border compromise the GOP has been demanding. 
Miraculously, they got to a bipartisan immigration agreement for 
billions of dollars for more Border Patrol officers, immigration 
judges, and fentanyl detection machines--a far tougher border.
  It was good enough for Senator Mitch McConnell and dozens of GOP 
Senators, and it was good enough for The Wall Street Journal, but the 
House MAGAs would not take ``yes'' for an answer. Why? Because Donald 
Trump doesn't want a border solution. He wants a border problem. 
Nothing else to run on.

                              {time}  1545

  Vladimir Putin certainly doesn't want $60 billion going to the heroic 
people of Ukraine defying his filthy imperialist invasion. All over the 
world, democracy and freedom are under siege today and all our 
colleagues can think to do is to sell out our democratic allies and 
sell out the cause of human rights, and then impeach a Cabinet 
Secretary working diligently to solve the immigration problem that they 
claim to care about.
  Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose).
  Mr. ROSE. Madam Speaker, Secretary Mayorkas swore an oath to defend 
the U.S. Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. 
Unfortunately, it seems as though he hasn't defended it from a single 
one.
  Since President Biden took office, there have been more than 7 
million illegal encounters at our southern border and more than 1.7 
million known got-aways. Not once has Secretary Mayorkas issued a 
statement, signed a policy, or taken action to discourage this from 
happening.
  In fact, he has doubled down and encouraged the invasion by endorsing 
catch and release policies, ending title 42, and stopping remain in 
Mexico. This subversion of our Constitution, willful disregard of our 
country's laws, and unfettered dedication to exacerbating the self-
inflicted crisis have left the House with no other option than to 
impeach Secretary Mayorkas.
  Madam Speaker, I urge the House to join me in voting to impeach 
Secretary Mayorkas and I urge the Senate to remove him from his 
position.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I remind my colleagues 
that they voted to terminate the COVID-19 national emergency and thus 
voted to end title 42. In addition, DHS has no role in ending this 
policy.
  Madam Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Magaziner).
  Mr. MAGAZINER. Madam Speaker, the American people want us to be 
working together to solve our challenges at the border. We could be 
working together to vote on President Biden's proposal for $14 billion 
of funding that would add over 1,000 Border Patrol officers. We could 
be working with the Senate on real immigration reform that Republicans 
claimed they wanted until Donald Trump told them that they didn't, but 
instead we are wasting time and energy on an impeachment with no legal 
basis just because it is what Donald Trump wants.
  The facts are this: Congress has allocated funding for 34,000 beds at 
detention centers. The average daily census last year was 37,000. The 
centers are full, and so the Secretary, under the law, uses his legal 
discretion to decide who to detain and who to release--the same legal 
discretion that all of his predecessors have used.
  In the last 2 years of the Trump administration, 52 percent of 
migrants were released, nearly a million people, and I did not hear my 
House Republican colleagues calling to impeach that Homeland Security 
Secretary.
  No. This is about one thing--politics. There are no high crimes, no 
misdemeanors, no treason, no bribery. I would remind my colleagues, our 
oath is to the Constitution, not to Donald Trump.
  Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz).
  Mr. BENTZ. Madam Speaker, it has been said that Secretary Mayorkas is 
dishonest, duplicitous, and derelict in his duties, and I agree.
  However, he has also willfully refused to comply with and enforce our 
Nation's immigration laws and explicitly instructed his employees to 
not enforce these laws.
  Additionally, the Secretary has willfully obstructed inquiries of the 
Judiciary Committee regarding entry of illegal aliens into our country. 
The constitutional standard for impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas has 
been satisfied.
  I commend Chair Mark Green for his excellent work in managing this 
important constitutional matter, and in following regular order while 
doing so.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, despite what Republicans 
want us to believe, the courts at the highest level have not found that 
Secretary Mayorkas is violating the law. Courts are where we go to 
determine whether a Cabinet Secretary is following the law Congress 
wrote, not a partisan impeachment.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Escobar).
  Ms. ESCOBAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
GOP's political stunt of the day: impeaching Secretary of Homeland 
Security Alejandro Mayorkas.
  The real problem here is congressional inaction on immigration 
reform. My community of El Paso, Texas, on the U.S.-Mexico border has 
been on the front lines of this issue and living with the consequences 
of Congress' failure to act.
  Our Federal personnel, local governments, and shelters are all 
overwhelmed, and Republicans continue to withhold vital funding that 
would help address this issue.
  As a border legislator, I have never met a more committed, accessible 
Cabinet member than Secretary Mayorkas.

[[Page H461]]

He is a great public servant doing everything he can with the limited 
resources Congress has given to him.
  Madam Speaker, I invite my Republican colleagues who really want to 
solve this to join the bipartisan coalition supporting the Dignity Act. 
Stop playing games and do your job.
  Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Guest).
  Mr. GUEST. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for 
impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for reasons 
outlined in both Articles of Impeachment, but specifically for Article 
II, breach of public trust.
  Secretary Mayorkas has repeatedly testified falsely, misleading 
Congress and the American people. He has done so by saying that the 
southwest border is secure and that his department has operational 
control of the border.
  Secretary Mayorkas in his previous appearances before the Committee 
on Homeland Security has told me personally multiple times, testifying 
while under oath, that the border is secure.
  Time and time again, Secretary Mayorkas has appeared before Congress, 
both the United States House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and 
has repeated that the southwest border is secure.
  These declarations, Madam Speaker, are patently untrue, and they 
contradict statements made by both his former Border Patrol Chief, Raul 
Ortiz, and by the President himself.
  President Biden just recently said and admitted that the border was 
not secure, and he went on to say that the border has not been secure 
for almost a decade.
  Madam Speaker, Secretary Mayorkas' dealings with Congress indicate a 
lack of transparency and an attempt to mislead the public on the true 
conditions that exist at the border, and we, as Congress, must now hold 
Secretary Mayorkas accountable.
  This is a grave day in our history, a grave day for this Nation, and 
not one that we take lightly. However, in light of all the facts, I 
urge my colleagues to join me in voting to impeach Secretary Mayorkas.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues 
won't admit that this impeachment is a sham, but their favorite 
conservative legal experts will.
  President Trump's impeachment attorney, Alan Dershowitz, accused 
Republicans of ``distorting the Constitution;'' and Republicans' 
favorite legal witness, Jonathan Turley, said that: ``There is also no 
current evidence that [Mayorkas] is corrupt or committed an impeachable 
offense. . . . `'
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the partisan sham 
impeachment proceedings against a dedicated and honorable public 
servant, Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
  Secretary Mayorkas has done his job while operating within a broken 
immigration system that this Congress has refused to fix. Instead of 
working with House Democrats and the Biden administration on serious 
solutions, House Republicans are focused on one thing: appeasing former 
President Donald Trump.
  This impeachment is an unconstitutional abuse of power. It is clear 
that policy differences are not grounds for impeachment. Even worse, in 
the partisan nature of these proceedings are the alleged facts that 
they are based on. To build their case, House Republicans work with and 
cite reports from groups such as the Center for Immigration Studies, a 
Southern Poverty Law Center designated hate group.
  When I attempted to introduce an amendment to point this out, it was 
rejected by House Republicans twice in committee--once in Homeland and 
once in Rules.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 
seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam Speaker, Republicans don't want Americans to know 
the baseless and completely unprecedented nature of this impeachment, 
and that is that antimigrant hate groups form the foundation of the 
case that we are listening to today.
  I stand with my Democratic colleagues against this partisan 
impeachment, and I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to vote ``no.''
  Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, James Iredell, one of the Founders from 
North Carolina, talking about this impeachment clause said: ``The power 
of impeachment is given by this Constitution, to bring great offenders 
to punishment. It is calculated to bring them to punishment for crime 
which it is not easy to describe, but which everyone must be convinced 
is a high crime and misdemeanor against the government.''
  For instance, corruption. ``Its exercise''--the impeachment--``will 
arise from acts of great injury to the community, and the objects of it 
may be such as cannot be easily reached by an ordinary tribunal.''
  That is why you have impeachment. It is necessary here because what 
you have is a Secretary who came into Judiciary, he was given the 
language from the Secure Fence Act of 2006. I said: Is the border under 
operational control? He says: Well, no. We have redefined it ourselves. 
We are comfortable with the new definition that we have made. That is a 
violation of the separation of powers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 
seconds to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, this is the same Secretary who tells his 
ICE agents you cannot remove 1 million, 1.2 million people who have 
actually had due process through the courts and have active removal 
orders.
  He is the same Secretary who said that we don't have to adhere to 
title 8.
  That has resulted in great injury to our communities, and that is why 
he must be impeached--because he falls on the definitions that one of 
the Founders, James Iredell, said. He is right on the money, and I urge 
everyone to support this movement to impeach.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, the definition of 
``operational control'' in the Secure Fence Act of 2006 has never been 
achieved under any administration, including the Trump administration. 
This is not grounds for impeachment.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Garcia).
  Mr. ROBERT GARCIA of California. Madam Speaker, today, Republicans 
are engaging in yet another impeachment scam.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On February 6, 2024, page H461, in the third column, the 
following appeared: the gentleman from California (Mr.GARCIA). Mr. 
MIKE GARCIA of California.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: the gentleman 
from California (Mr.GARCIA). Mr. ROBERT GARCIA of California.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  We are here today because the majority wants to attack President 
Biden and Secretary Mayorkas all to elect Donald Trump. The insane 
leader of their party claims that immigrants, like me, pollute the 
blood of this country.
  Donald Trump's rhetoric is just like Hitler's, and he wants chaos. He 
thinks the border crisis helps him, so he wants it to continue.
  In fact, Border Patrol apprehensions more than tripled in the last 8 
months of the Trump Presidency, but let's remember the Donald Trump and 
MAGA vision for border security.
  These are actually some of their ideas: Donald Trump wants to build 
alligator moats. He has proposed bombing Mexico. He has actually said 
we should shoot migrants in the legs and maybe even electrify the 
fence.
  These are cruel and ridiculous ideas, but they are proposals of 
Donald Trump and the MAGA right. This extreme political stunt should 
fail.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).
  Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I respect my colleagues across 
the aisle who have voiced their opposition. It is important that we 
clarify the legacy that some of us would condemn by impeaching the 
Secretary responsible for this legacy; and, by contrast, the legacy 
that my colleagues who oppose the impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas 
will support:
  300,000 Americans dead from cartel drugs;
  100,000 teenage girls and boys missing, lost by the Mayorkas system 
into the unspeakable horror of sex slavery networks across the 
filthiest corners of criminal organizations in our cities;

[[Page H462]]

  American sovereignty disintegrated, American soil lost to cartel 
human and drug trafficking bases;
  Millions of single military-aged men from over 100 countries 
unvetted, released into our country, creeping into every corner of 
American society, every city, every town;
  Our schools overrun by illegals granted free access to American 
education infrastructure in hundreds of reports with no room left for 
our children;
  Hundreds of thousands of violent criminals released into our Nation, 
despite Federal law stating that DHS shall detain known criminals who 
enter America illegally;
  A thousand or more known or suspected terrorists allowed to pass 
freely into the heart of our Nation, into my State, into yours.
  This is the legacy of Alejandro Mayorkas. By our oath, we must 
impeach this man who has presented an arrogant, defiant tone of denial 
and lies to Congress for 3 years, seemingly content or even proud to 
destroy America day by day. So it is that on this day, it shall be 
written in the historical record of the people's House that Secretary 
of the Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, has been 
impeached. So shall it be written, so shall it be done.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues 
are starving DHS of necessary border security resources while accusing 
Secretary Mayorkas of not doing his job.
  House Republicans refuse to consider the White House's $13.6 billion 
border supplemental funding request that would pay for more border 
agents and officers and detention beds.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington 
(Ms. Jayapal).
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
resolution to impeach Secretary Mayorkas.
  This resolution is as ridiculous as it is dangerous. It has no 
evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors. Are we really debating 
impeaching a Cabinet Secretary because House Republicans don't like the 
policies that he advances under a democratically elected President?
  Far from alleging true high crimes and misdemeanors, this resolution 
relies on the same tired and untrue Republican talking points that 
Democrats have demonstrated for months are not true. With this Marjorie 
Taylor Greene sham impeachment resolution, the majority is bending to 
the will of the most extreme members of their Conference simply because 
they don't like the policies that Secretary Mayorkas is pursuing.
  Secretary Mayorkas is an excellent and dedicated public servant, 
working tirelessly to protect our national security and to address a 
broken immigration system.
  This Republican Congress, the least productive Congress in the 
history of the United States, having passed only 27 bills that have 
been signed into law, despite over 700 votes in this body, is simply 
trying to distract the American people from the fact that they are not 
doing a single thing to address the lives of ordinary Americans across 
this country.
  I keep thinking that the House cannot debase itself further, Mr. 
Speaker, but it appears that we have not reached rock bottom yet. Vote 
``no'' on this sham of an impeachment.
  Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Ciscomani).
  Mr. CISCOMANI. Mr. Speaker, let me start with this: The House is 
pursuing impeachment because there is no option left. Secretary 
Mayorkas has abandoned his job, and he has abandoned the American 
people.
  As the charges describe, the Secretary has willfully and systemically 
refused to comply with the law, and he has put our communities and our 
country at risk by doing so.
  This is not an action we take lightly. The last time a Cabinet 
Secretary was impeached was in 1876. This is a historic impeachment for 
someone with historic failures.
  The time has run out for Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to be able to 
do his job. In order to secure our communities, protect our homeland, 
and keep Americans safe, Secretary Mayorkas has got to go.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record op-
eds from frequent conservative legal commentators Jonathan Turley and 
Alan Dershowitz opposing the Mayorkas impeachment, despite their policy 
disagreements with the Biden administration; and a January 30, 2024, 
editorial by the conservative Wall Street Journal titled: ``Impeaching 
Mayorkas Achieves Nothing.''

                 [From the Daily Beast, Jan. 29, 2024]

     Homeland Security Chief Alejandro Mayorkas' Failures Are Not 
                              Impeachable

                          (By Jonathan Turley)

       Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas has been 
     denounced as dishonest, duplicitous, and derelict by his 
     critics. In my view, all of those things are manifestly true. 
     It is also true, in my opinion, that none of those things 
     amount to high crimes and misdemeanors warranting his 
     impeachment.
       The Republican push to impeach Mayorkas has been gaining 
     steam as record numbers of undocumented migrants pour over 
     our Southern border. Even many Democrats are now alarmed by 
     the numbers and the threat that they pose to our national 
     security and to our economy. Sanctuary cities from Chicago to 
     New York are actively trying to prevent new migrants from 
     seeking sanctuary within their own borders.
       At the center of all of this is Mayorkas, who has long been 
     viewed as an enabling figure for illegal migrations. He is 
     also accused of implementing Biden policy changes that 
     removed barriers to migrants, including rescinding the ``Stay 
     in Mexico'' rule.
       Some of us have also questioned his integrity, particularly 
     in controversies like the false claims that border agents 
     whipped migrants in Texas.
       Mayorkas knew the allegations against his own personnel 
     were debunked, but showed little concern or compassion for 
     agents, particularly after President Joe Biden promised they 
     would be punished before any investigation had even begun.
       However, being a bad person is not impeachable--or many 
     cabinets would be largely empty.
       Moreover, being bad at your job is not an impeachable 
     offense. Even really bad. Even Mayorkas' level of bad. If 
     that were the case, he would be only the latest in a long 
     line of cabinet officers frog-marched into Congress for 
     constitutional termination.
       In history, there has only been one cabinet member 
     impeached. That was Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876. 
     That alone should concentrate the mind of members. Despite 
     decades of controversial cabinet members accused of flaunting 
     the law or abusing their positions, Congress has only crossed 
     this Rubicon once. There has existed a certain detente 
     between the parties; an understanding that policy-based 
     impeachments could open up endless tit-for-tat impeachment 
     politics.
       The charges against Belknap were serious, in that he had 
     allegedly ``disregarded his duty as Secretary of War, and 
     basely prostituted his high office to his lust for private 
     gain.'' The alleged bribes in contracts in the Indian 
     territories would have constituted impeachable offenses, but 
     Belknap had already left office. His case raised the question 
     of retroactive impeachments for former federal officers.
       The jurisdictional concerns made the difference for 
     Belknap. The final vote on the closest article was 37 to 25 
     in favor of impeachment--four votes short of the number 
     needed for conviction.
       There is no jurisdictional question for Mayorkas, but there 
     is also no current evidence that he is corrupt or committed 
     an impeachable offense. He can be legitimately accused of 
     effectuating an open border policy, but that is a 
     disagreement on policy that is traced to the President.
       In fairness to the GOP, they allege that Mayorkas is 
     violating federal law in releasing what he now reportedly 
     admits is over 85 percent of illegal migrants into the 
     country as well as alleged false statements to Congress. Such 
     releases, however, occurred in prior administrations and the 
     merits of these claims are still being argued in court.
       The courts have long recognized that presidents are allowed 
     to establish priorities in the enforcement of federal laws, 
     even when those priorities tend to lower enforcement for 
     certain groups or areas. It is a matter of discretion.
       Indeed, even under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) which 
     holds the government liable for civil damages, there is a 
     discretionary function exception codified under 28 U.S.C. 
     Sec.  2680 (a) for policy-based judgments.
       Immigration has long been an area of intense policy 
     disagreements. Trump policies were denounced by critics as 
     draconian or even racist. Biden's policies have been 
     denounced as fueling illegal crossings and frustrating 
     efforts to curtail the flow, particularly by border states.
       In my view, Biden has been dead wrong on immigration, but 
     voters will soon have an opportunity to render a judgment on 
     those policies in the election. Mayorkas has carried out 
     those policies. What has not been shown is conduct by the 
     secretary that could be viewed as criminal or impeachable.
       If Mayorkas is violating federal law, he can be brought to 
     court to enjoin his actions. A prior case seeking to prevent 
     the termination of the ``Stay in Mexico'' policy resulted in 
     a win for the Biden administration in Biden v. Texas, when 
     the Supreme Court

[[Page H463]]

     ruled the president had the authority to revoke the Migrant 
     Protection Protocols.
       During the Constitutional Convention, there was a debate 
     over the grounds for impeachment with George Mason arguing 
     for a broad scope of offenses that could ``subvert the 
     Constitution.'' His view was rejected. Most notably, there 
     was a rejection of ``maladministration'' as a basis for 
     impeachment.
       An English trial of Warren Hastings weighed heavily on the 
     forging of the impeachment standard. The former governor of 
     India was charged with various offenses including 
     ``mismanagement and misgovernment...and mistreatment of 
     various provinces.'' While figures like Mason saw the need 
     for the adoption of a similarly broad definition, his 
     suggestion of maladministration was rejected as too broad.
       What Mayorkas is guilty of is maladministration. He has 
     failed to secure the Southern border and has long denied the 
     gravity of this crisis, including refusing to call it a 
     crisis even as daily and monthly crossings reached 
     unprecedented levels.
       None of this means that a cabinet member cannot be 
     impeached. However, not like this. Not for maladministration.
       I hold no brief for Alejandro Mayorkas. However, I hold the 
     Constitution more dearly than I despise his tenure. Absent 
     some new evidence, I cannot see the limiting principle that 
     would allow the House to impeach Mayorkas without potentially 
     making any policy disagreement with a cabinet member a high 
     crime and misdemeanor. That is a slippery slope that we would 
     be wise to avoid. Indeed, it is precisely the temptation that 
     the Framers thought they had avoided by rejecting standards 
     like maladministration.
       That is why the case has not been made to impeach Alejandro 
     Mayorkas.

                     [From The Hill, Jan. 30, 2024]

   Republicans Who Voted Against Impeaching Trump Should Not Vote To 
                            Impeach Mayorkas

                          (By Alan Dershowitz)

       When I represented then-President Donald Trump in his first 
     impeachment case, many Republicans praised me for 
     demonstrating that the Constitution permits impeachment only 
     for ``treason, bribery, and other high crimes or 
     misdemeanors.'' Trump had not been charged with any of those 
     offenses, but rather with vague allegations of abuse of power 
     and obstruction of Congress. The Senate voted to acquit Trump 
     of the unconstitutional charges brought by Democrats. 
     Republicans applauded that result.
       Now many of the same Republicans are seeking to impeach 
     Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas on equally 
     vague and unconstitutional grounds. Whatever else Mayorkas 
     may or may not have done, he has not committed bribery, 
     treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. Testifying to his 
     opinion that the borders are secure is a far cry from 
     perjury. Nor is failure to enforce laws a crime. Indeed, most 
     Republicans do not even claim that his actions or inactions 
     meet these daunting constitutional standards, but they are 
     prepared to apply a double standard based on partisan 
     considerations.
       Double standards are anathema to justice under our 
     Constitution. There must be one Constitution for all, 
     regardless of party affiliation. If Republicans want to amend 
     the Constitution, let them try, but neither the Republicans 
     nor the Democrats have the right to redefine constitutional 
     standards on an ad hoc basis in order to serve their partisan 
     interests.
       So, let's hear from some principled Republicans who may 
     dislike what Mayorkas is doing but who understand that they 
     have previously voted for a standard that has not come close 
     to being met.
       The philosopher La Rochefoucauld said that ``Hypocrisy is 
     the tribute that vice pays to virtue.'' It is also the 
     currency of politics in present-day Washington. But it is 
     wrong regardless of which side promotes it.
       Congress has the power to issue a statement condemning 
     Mayorkas, just as it had the power to issue a statement 
     condemning Trump. But the extraordinary power of impeachment 
     should be reserved for constitutionally impeachable offences 
     and not invoked simply because one party has the votes to do 
     so.
       In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton warned that 
     the ``greatest danger'' regarding the power to impeach would 
     be if it were ``regulated more by the comparative strength of 
     parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or 
     guilt.''
       We experienced that danger when President Clinton was 
     impeached by Republicans and when Trump was impeached by 
     Democrats. Now we are seeing it play out once again with 
     Republicans in control of the House of Representatives.
       Hopefully there will be enough principled Republicans to 
     prevent this abuse of the Constitution. But even if not, our 
     system of checks and balances--which requires a two-thirds 
     vote for conviction by the Senate--will prevent Mayorkas's 
     unconstitutional removal. Even if Mayorkas remains in office, 
     a House vote to impeach him would add to the dangerous 
     precedents established by previous partisan abuses of the 
     impeachment provision.
       The time has come, indeed it is overdue, for members of 
     Congress who claim to be originalists when it comes to 
     constitutional interpretation to recognize that the Framers 
     explicitly refused to allow impeachment and removal for 
     ``maladministration'' or other such vague abuses of duty. It 
     is the voters who are allocated the power to vote against 
     those who fail at governance.
       Just because the Democrats were hypocritical when they 
     impeached Trump on nonconstitutional grounds does not give 
     Republicans the right to do the same. Two wrongs make a 
     fight, not a right. And the real losers are the American 
     people, who count on Congress to uphold the Constitution, 
     especially in areas of impeachment, where the courts have 
     taken a hands-off view.
       We live in an age in which partisanship too often trumps 
     principle, and in which noble ends are thought to justify 
     ignoble means. There is a reasonable dispute about how to 
     achieve border security. I may agree with some Republicans 
     who are critical of the current administration's border 
     policies and who place the blame on Mayorkas. But these 
     criticisms--whether one agrees or disagrees with them--do not 
     justify distorting the Constitution.
       It is particularly essential in an age of partisan division 
     that the nonpartisan principles of our Constitution be 
     scrupulously obeyed. So 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.
                                  ____


             [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 30, 2024]

                  Impeaching Mayorkas Achieves Nothing

                        (By The 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.

[[Page H464]]

       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. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, this is so frustrating because today we are, 
in fact, impeaching upon. We are impeaching upon for the President. The 
Secretary is being impeached for what he did wrong. He is, in fact, 
guilty as alleged, but, in fact, he is just part of the high crimes and 
misdemeanors of the President of the United States.
  It was the President's decision to, in fact, undo policies that were 
working, to reverse, to make a systemic change that in my district, 
with over 55 miles of Mexican border, my border agents are reduced to 
being Uber drivers for everyone coming over the border.
  I am perfectly willing to listen to people say that this is a policy 
difference, but it is not. To faithfully execute the mission, you can 
have differences in how to do it. To thwart the very execution of that 
mission, which Secretary Mayorkas has done, is, in fact, an impeachable 
offense.
  I have some sympathy for him because I believe he is just obeying the 
orders of his boss, but that has been said before. That excuse has been 
used. The fact is, he took an oath. He must faithfully execute that 
oath. If he cannot, because the President will not let him do it, then 
he needs to resign.
  As we impeach the first Cabinet officer in well over 100 years, the 
fact is, he should have resigned rather than to do things which were 
adverse to the Constitution, adverse to his oath, but upon the orders 
and duty of the President.
  The President can be wrong. The President can order high crimes and 
misdemeanors. The President can be guilty of them. This President is, 
in fact, guilty of that which we are impeaching the Secretary for 
today, but so is the Secretary, and for that reason, I urge a ``yes'' 
vote.
  Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time 
remains for each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. DesJarlais). The gentleman from 
Tennessee has 22\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  The gentleman from Mississippi has 24 minutes remaining.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, this baseless sham 
impeachment fails to articulate a single charge that rises to the level 
of high crimes and misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for 
impeachment. Mere policy differences do not amount to impeachable 
offenses.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter by eminent 
constitutional scholars opposed to this political stunt, as well as The 
Washington Post op-ed by Joshua Matz and Norman Eisen titled, ``Why 
impeaching Mayorkas would violate the Constitution.''

                                                 January 10, 2024.
     Speaker Mike Johnson,
     The Capitol,
     Washington, DC.
     Chairman Mark Green,
     Washington, DC.

   Constitutional Law Experts on the Impeachment Proceedings Against 
           Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas

       Senior Republicans in the House of Representatives--
     including Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and Chairman Mark 
     Green of the Committee on Homeland Security--have stated that 
     they intend to pursue an impeachment of Homeland Security 
     Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. This proceeding will apparently 
     occur in the Committee on Homeland Security on an accelerated 
     timeframe. As scholars of the Constitution, considering the 
     facts currently known and the charges publicly described, we 
     hereby express our view that an impeachment of Secretary 
     Mayorkas would be utterly unjustified as a matter of 
     constitutional law.
       Although House Republicans have offered various 
     justifications for an impeachment, the underlying basis 
     appears to be their view that Secretary Mayorkas's policy 
     decisions have degraded border security and involved 
     objectionable uses of enforcement discretion. House 
     Republicans have also publicly asserted that Secretary 
     Mayorkas testified falsely in stating that he is enforcing 
     existing federal law and that the southern border is closed 
     and secure.
       When the Framers designed the Constitution's impeachment 
     provisions, they made a conscious choice not to allow 
     impeachment for mere ``maladministration''--in other words, 
     for incompetence, poor judgment, or bad policy. Instead, they 
     provided that impeachment could be justified only by truly 
     extraordinary misconduct: ``Treason, Bribery, or other high 
     Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' U.S. Const., art. II, Sec. 4. 
     Thus, as Charles L. Black, Jr. noted in his influential 
     handbook, impeachment is not permitted for ``mere inefficient 
     administration, or administration that [does] not accord with 
     Congress's view of good policy.'' Simply put, the 
     Constitution forbids impeachment based on policy 
     disagreements between the House and the Executive Branch, no 
     matter how intense or high stakes those differences of 
     opinion.
       Yet that is exactly what House Republicans appear poised to 
     undertake. The charges they have publicly described come 
     nowhere close to meeting the constitutional threshold for 
     impeachment. Their proposed grounds for impeaching Secretary 
     Mayorkas are the stuff of ordinary (albeit impassioned) 
     policy disagreement in the field of immigration enforcement. 
     If allegations like this were sufficient to justify 
     impeachment, the separation of powers would be permanently 
     destabilized. It is telling that there is absolutely no 
     historical precedent for the impeachment charges that House 
     Republicans have articulated. To the contrary, on the rare 
     occasions that Members of the House have proposed impeaching 
     executive officials for their handling of immigration 
     matters, the House has properly retreated from that grave 
     step.
       We hold a wide range of views on the wisdom and success of 
     Secretary Mayorkas's approach to immigration policy. But we 
     are in agreement that impeaching him based on the charges set 
     forth by House Republicans would be a stark departure from 
     the Constitution.
       Of course, our institutional affiliations are listed for 
     identification purposes only, and our signatures reflect our 
     personal capacity, not any position on behalf of our 
     employers.
           Sincerely,
       Laurence H. Tribe, Carl M. Loeb University Professor, 
     Emeritus, Harvard University; Joshua Matz, Partner I Kaplan 
     Hecker & Fink LLP, Adjunct Professor of Law | Georgetown Law 
     School; Donald Ayer, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown Law 
     School; Philip C. Bobbitt, Herbert Wechsler Professor of 
     Federal Jurisprudence, Columbia Law School; Corey 
     Brettschneider, Professor of Political Science, Brown 
     University; Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper 
     Distinguished Professor of Law, Berkeley Law; Gabriel J. 
     Chin, Edward L. Barrett Jr. Chair of Law, Martin Luther King 
     Jr. Professor of Law, Director of Clinical Legal Education, 
     UC Davis School of Law; Rosalind Dixon, Professor of Law, 
     University of New South Wales; Michael Dorf, Robert S. 
     Stevens Professor of Law, Cornell Law School.
       Amanda Frost, John A. Ewald Jr. Research Professor of Law, 
     University of Virginia School of Law; Michael Gerhardt, 
     Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, UNC 
     School of Law; Stuart Gerson, Trustee, Society for the Rule 
     of Law; Aziz Huq, Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of 
     Law, University of Chicago Law School; Kevin R. Johnson, Dean 
     and Mabie-Apallas Professor of Public Interest Law and 
     Chicana/o Studies, UC Davis School of Law; Pamela S. Karlan, 
     Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest 
     Law, Stanford Law School; Jon D. Michaels, Professor of Law, 
     UCLA School of Law; Timothy Naftali, Senior Research Scholar, 
     Columbia University School of International and Public 
     Affairs.
       Victoria Nourse, Ralph V. Whitworth Professor in Law, 
     Georgetown Law School; Deborah Pearlstein, Director, 
     Princeton Program on Law and Public Policy, Charles and Marie 
     Robertson Visiting Professor of Law and Public Affairs, 
     Princeton University; Robert Post, Sterling Professor of Law, 
     Yale Law School; Cristina Rodriguez, Leighton Homer Surbeck 
     Professor of Law, Yale Law School; Jack Rakove, William 
     Robertson Coe Professor of History and American Studies, 
     Professor of Political Science, Emeritus, Stanford 
     University; Kermit Roosevelt, David Berger Professor for the 
     Administration of Justice, Penn Carey Law School; Peter 
     Shane, Professor and Jacob E. Davis and Jacob E. Davis II 
     Chair in Law Emeritus, The Ohio State University Moritz 
     College of Law; David A. Strauss, Gerald Ratner Distinguished 
     Service Professor of Law, Faculty Director, Supreme Court and 
     Appellate Clinic, University of Chicago Law School.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, Jan. 9, 2024]

         Why Impeaching Mayorkas Would Violate the Constitution

                   (By Joshua Matz and Norman Eisen)

       House Republicans appear poised to rush through a partisan 
     impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas, the secretary of homeland 
     security. They do not allege corrupt, abusive or criminal 
     conduct; they accuse him merely of poor judgment, believing 
     he could better use his legal authority and enforcement 
     discretion to safeguard the southern border.
       Whatever the wisdom of Mayorkas's policy decisions, the 
     claim that he should be impeached is indefensible as a matter 
     of constitutional law.
       In designing the U.S. Constitution, the framers adapted the 
     impeachment power from England but made several key changes. 
     Parliament had historically impeached royal ministers for 
     ``maladministration''--for bad policy or poor performance in 
     office. The

[[Page H465]]

     framers rejected that vision. For impeachments of ``the 
     President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the 
     United States,'' they instead required proof of egregious 
     malfeasance: ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and 
     Misdemeanors.''
       This decision was fundamental to the separation of powers. 
     Congress has many tools it can use to shape public policy and 
     express disagreement with the executive. Impeachment, 
     however, is not one of them. To ensure that the president 
     could govern--and that he could select a Cabinet to execute 
     his vision--the framers forbade impeachment over policy 
     disagreements, no matter how fierce or consequential.
       That understanding has endured throughout American history. 
     Despite centuries of heated policy disagreements between 
     Congress and the executive, there has been only a single 
     impeachment of a Cabinet official. In 1876, War Secretary 
     William Belknap was impeached for a corrupt kickback scheme; 
     although he resigned minutes before the House vote, that did 
     not deter House members from impeaching him anyway.
       Of course, not all executive branch officials are angels. 
     But in practice, miscreant Cabinet officials are not 
     corralled through congressional impeachment. They are fired 
     by the president, or they simply resign.
       No official who maintained the president's support has ever 
     been impeached for carrying out policy in ways the House 
     found objectionable. Impeaching Mayorkas on that basis would 
     offend the Constitution and unbalance the separation of 
     powers. Future Cabinet officials would be unduly chilled in 
     doing their job, and presidents would fear that heated policy 
     disputes might engulf their most senior officials in an 
     impeachment quagmire.
       This concern applies with full force in the homeland 
     security setting. The rule that we do not impeach over policy 
     disagreements has had its strongest expression in disputes 
     over immigration enforcement. There are two illuminating 
     precedents.
       The first occurred in 1920, when the House considered 
     impeaching Assistant Secretary of Labor Louis Post. Over the 
     previous year, Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer had 
     carried out his infamous ``Palmer Raids,'' indiscriminately 
     rounding up suspected radicals, anarchists and communists for 
     deportation. When those deportation orders reached Post's 
     desk (the Labor Department then oversaw immigration matters), 
     he canceled more than 1,000 of them, citing the absence of 
     evidence justifying removal.
       The response was explosive. A New York Times editorial 
     claimed that Post ``let loose on the country these public 
     enemies, some of them fugitives from justice.'' Rep. Homer 
     Hoch, a Republican from Kansas, put forward an impeachment 
     resolution, which was referred to the House Rules Committee.
       Post was outraged. He viewed an initial report accusing him 
     of misconduct as ``mental dullness at high tension.'' As Post 
     later wrote, ``I had offended by deporting such aliens as 
     were proved guilty and releasing the others, instead of 
     pitching all of them out of the country indiscriminately.''
       Post's ensuing testimony before the Rules Committee was 
     electric. As one observer remarked, the committee ``had very 
     much the aspect of a group of gentlemen who had picked up a 
     very hot poker and were looking for some place to cool it.'' 
     The drive to impeach collapsed.
       A similar tale unfolded less than two decades later. In 
     1938, Martin Dies Jr., the chairman of the House Un-American 
     Activities Committee, accused Labor Secretary Frances Perkins 
     of wrongly failing to deport an accused communist. As Dies 
     escalated his attacks against Perkins's immigration policies, 
     she bitingly responded: ``It is not usual for the legislative 
     branch which has so many duties to attempt to usurp the 
     functions and duties of the administrative branch.''
       Undeterred, another member of Dies's committee introduced 
     an impeachment resolution. Among other things, and 
     reminiscent of the latest attacks against Mayorkas, it 
     accused Perkins of ``having failed, neglected, and refused to 
     enforce the . . . immigration laws of the United States.''
       Perkins was shaken. But she maintained support from 
     President Franklin D. Roosevelt and vigorously defended her 
     handling of immigration matters, including in closed-door 
     testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.
       Ultimately, the committee concluded that ``sufficient facts 
     have not been presented or adduced to warrant the 
     interposition of the constitutional powers of impeachment by 
     the House.'' The decision was unanimous. With respect to 
     Perkins's handling of a particularly controversial 
     deportation decision, it found that her decision ``involved a 
     question of judgment, and there is no evidence that it was 
     not exercised in good faith.''
       As these cases confirm, disagreement over a Cabinet 
     official's good-faith exercise of enforcement discretion is 
     not a valid basis for impeachment. In launching an 
     impeachment attack against Mayorkas, House Republicans not 
     only violate the Constitution but also defy long-standing 
     precedents. They should step back from the brink.

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice).
  Mrs. BICE. Mr. Speaker, earlier in this debate, the gentleman from 
Mississippi noted that there has been more fentanyl seized at our 
southern border than ever before, but what he did not recognize is that 
there are now more fentanyl deaths in this country than ever before, 
and that is a direct result of what is happening across our southern 
border.
  I rise today in support of the impeachment of Secretary Alejandro 
Mayorkas. This is one of the most solemn and consequential actions the 
United States House of Representatives can take, and I do not take it 
lightly.
  However, under the watch of Secretary Mayorkas, we have witnessed the 
degradation of our border security and the willful and consistent 
refusal to comply with and enforce Federal immigration laws.
  Today, fentanyl is the leading cause of death for those aged 18 to 
45, terrorists on the FBI watch list are being released into the 
interior of the country, and the cartels are a multibillion-dollar 
business.
  The crisis we face today is a threat to every single American, 
causing our communities to be less safe, and it is a direct result of 
Secretary Mayorkas' actions. A clear message must be sent to the 
executive branch that they no longer get to break the law without 
consequences. Secretary Mayorkas must be held accountable.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, today three bipartisan 
former Secretaries of Homeland Security wrote to Speaker Johnson 
voicing their opposition to impeaching Secretary Mayorkas. They agree 
that impeachment for policy is not constitutionally permissible. They 
further warn that allowing impeachment of Cabinet officials over policy 
differences would jeopardize our national security.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letter from Secretaries 
Chertoff, Napolitano, and Johnson.
                                                 February 6, 2024.
     Hon. Mike Johnson,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Johnson: As former Secretaries of Homeland 
     Security who served in Republican and Democratic 
     Administrations, we write to oppose the House of 
     Representatives' effort to impeach Secretary Alejandro 
     Mayorkas.
       We have differing views among us on the policies pursued by 
     President Biden and implemented by Secretary Mayorkas. But we 
     collectively agree that policy differences are not 
     Constitutionally permissible impeachment offenses. Rather, 
     they are issues to be resolved via legislation or elections.
       During our respective terms, when members of Congress of 
     both parties disagreed with the policy choices made by the 
     Presidents we served, they would make their views known, 
     often vociferously, bring us to the Capitol for hearings, and 
     consider new laws. That is the way our political system is 
     supposed to work.
       To instead allow impeachments of cabinet officials over 
     political disagreements would jeopardize our national 
     security; make Cabinet-level positions more difficult to fill 
     under future administrations; and undermine the ability of 
     future officials to fulfill their vital missions.
       And one cannot ignore that the Department of Homeland 
     Security is responsible for much more than managing our 
     immigration system. Impeaching Secretary Mayorkas could 
     undermine the mission for which the Department was created--
     preventing terrorism--as well as our cybersecurity, aviation 
     security, maritime security, our response to natural 
     disasters, and the protection of our national leaders, among 
     many other things.
       If you want a solution to strengthen our border security--
     and a solution is badly needed--you would be well advised to 
     work with the Senate on the bipartisan bill they have put 
     forward. Impeaching Secretary Mayorkas solves nothing and 
     leaves our outdated immigration system exactly where it is 
     now--broken.
       We urge you to set aside this groundless impeachment effort 
     and get back to solving America's real problems.
           Sincerely,
     Michael Chertoff,
       Secretary of Homeland Security, 2005-2009.
     Janet Napolitano,
       Secretary of Homeland Security, 2009-2013.
     Jeh Charles Johnson,
       Secretary of Homeland Security, 2013-2017.

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).
  Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn this 
rushed, baseless sham impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas that will go 
down in history as one of Congress' darkest moments.
  The Republican argument for impeachment boils down to their view

[[Page H466]]

that Secretary Mayorkas has intentionally caused the influx of 
immigrants over our southern border. Never mind that, even if true, 
this is not a high crime or misdemeanor that has ever been used before 
in the history of our country. Never mind that, no court has found the 
Secretary or the Department of Homeland Security to have violated the 
law. In fact, the United States v. Texas case, which my friends on the 
other side of the aisle like to cite so frequently, actually reversed a 
district court ruling and held that there must be discretion given to 
the Secretary as there has been given to every single Department 
Secretary for 27 years.
  Never mind that every one of those Department of Homeland Security 
Secretaries has interpreted the law the exact same way that Secretary 
Mayorkas has. Never mind that Republicans have sued him to stop him 
from implementing the policy changes that the administration has tried 
to put in effect to address the situation at the border. Never mind 
that House Republicans are impeaching him for failing to address the 
problems at the border while he has spent months negotiating a 
bipartisan bill in the Senate to do just that.

                              {time}  1615

  The reason for this partisan stunt is simple. Donald Trump and House 
Republicans want to use the border as an election year issue rather 
than actually solve the problems through necessary legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues who care about the Constitution, 
the rule of law, and this institution to vote ``no.'' They will 
otherwise come to regret this.
  Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman).
  Mr. BERGMAN. Mr. Speaker, the last Secretary of Homeland Security 
appointed by a Democratic President once described a border crisis as 
more than 1,000 Border Patrol encounters per day. In December last 
year, we averaged nearly 10 times that number.
  Perhaps most worryingly, 2023 saw a record-setting 860,000, just a 
little bit shy of a million got-aways, border crossers who were 
detected but who were never apprehended. That is nearly a million 
potential felons, cartel members, terrorists, and drug traffickers 
freely allowed into our country and currently residing in our 
communities and our neighborhoods.
  This crisis has been aided and abetted through the unprecedented 
dereliction of duty of Secretary Mayorkas. As the House Homeland 
Security Committee has uncovered, Mayorkas has repeatedly violated, 
subverted, and simply ignored multiple laws set forth by Congress that 
he swore an oath to uphold, all while ignoring court orders and lying 
to Congress and the American people.
  The evidence of his wrongdoings is damning. His abuse of power goes 
well beyond simple bureaucratic incompetence. His actions, which have 
put our Nation at extreme risk, cannot go unanswered.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are exploiting 
impeachment power to distract from their inability to pass legislation.
  Here is what Republican Representative Chip Roy said in November: ``I 
want my Republican colleagues to give me one thing--one--that I can go 
campaign on and say we did. One. . . . [E]xplain to me one material, 
meaningful, significant thing the Republican majority has done.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Jeffries), the Democratic leader.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the distinguished 
gentleman from the great State of Mississippi for yielding, for his 
leadership, for his dignity, for his decency, for his continued defense 
of our democracy in the face of the extreme attacks coming from the 
other side of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this political 
stunt, this reckless Republican effort to impeach Secretary Mayorkas.
  Let's be clear: Secretary Mayorkas is a good man, a patriotic man, 
and a hardworking man doing the best he can under very difficult 
circumstances. That is not an impeachable offense.
  Extreme MAGA Republicans have produced no evidence that Secretary 
Mayorkas has engaged in a high crime or misdemeanor, no evidence that 
Secretary Mayorkas has engaged in an impeachable offense, and no 
evidence that Secretary Mayorkas has broken the law or violated the 
Constitution--not a shred of evidence, not a scintilla of evidence, 
nothing but extreme MAGA Republican chaos and confusion and the effort 
to avoid doing the hard work necessary to find common ground to 
actually address the challenges at the border.
  What do these impeachment articles have to do with the issue of 
addressing our broken immigration system? Nothing.
  What do these impeachment articles have to do with building a healthy 
economy for everyday Americans? Nothing.
  What do these impeachment articles have to do with addressing the 
inflationary challenges and affordability issues that the American 
people are experiencing day after day as we work to continue to emerge 
from a once-in-a-century pandemic that shut down the economy? 
Absolutely nothing.
  Extreme MAGA Republicans have spent this entire Congress not 
advancing any ideas, acting on any agenda, deciding to work together 
with us to solve problems for the American people.
  You have brought Articles of Impeachment that are not anchored in 
reality. You have brought Articles of Impeachment for one simple 
reason: Because you really want to impeach Joe Biden.
  That is what you were directed to do by the puppet master, the former 
President of the United States, Donald Trump.
  You really want to impeach Joe Biden, but you realize that that is 
politically unpopular, so you have brilliantly come up with, in your 
minds, plan B. Let's go after Secretary Mayorkas. No evidence that he 
engaged in wrongdoing, committed a crime, or violated the Constitution, 
but let's go after Secretary Mayorkas.
  Maybe that will satisfy the quest for revenge of the puppet master 
because when the puppet master, Donald Trump, says jump, extreme MAGA 
Republicans respond: How high? We just got evidence of that over the 
last few weeks because extreme MAGA Republicans have been lecturing 
America that we have to deal with the challenges at the border.
  We agree. A bipartisan process has been underway in the Senate for 
months to try to fix our broken immigration system, but as soon as 
Donald Trump says no, we actually don't want to do anything about the 
challenges at the border because, politically, that might not be good 
for us, you walked away from working together in a commonsense fashion 
to fix our broken immigration system. Instead, what you have to offer 
the American people is this sham impeachment, this political stunt, 
this waste of time.
  You will not fool the American people. You will actually be held 
accountable for your inaction and your affirmative leaning into doing 
things that don't advance progress in any way, shape, or form for the 
American people.
  No reasonable American can conclude that you are making life better 
for them with this sham impeachment, but you will live with this like a 
scarlet letter.

  It may succeed. It may not. Secretary Mayorkas should wear this like 
a badge of honor because it is worthless. It means nothing.
  It is fake. It is fraudulent. It is foolish.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge everybody to vote ``no,'' so we can get back to 
doing the real business of the American people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for 
yielding and for his great work on this impeachment resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, Secretary Mayorkas' political career is on the chopping 
block, where it rightfully belongs. He has failed to apply the laws 
that would stop this invasion at the southern border.

[[Page H467]]

  To those who claim that this impeachment is for purely political 
purposes, you are dead wrong. This is about upholding the rule of law 
that governs our Republic, the same rule of law that Secretary Mayorkas 
has ignored and forsaken every day.
  Secretary Mayorkas has had innumerable opportunities to enforce the 
laws that are already on the books but has chosen not to. He has earned 
his own impeachment.
  Let's be clear: Our entire constitutional system is predicated on the 
idea that Congress creates laws, and the executive branch enforces 
those laws.
  Allowing this abuse of our constitutional system to go unchecked 
could spell the beginning of the end for our Republic.
  I am proud to serve as a cosponsor of these impeachment articles. The 
rule of law must be restored at the border immediately.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, Republicans use the 
language of invasion and great replacement theory, but invasion in the 
Constitution means invasion during an act of war by a foreign nation or 
insurrection from within.
  I direct my Republican colleagues to Federalist Papers Nos. 4 and 43 
if they want to learn why the entry of migrants escaping crisis for a 
better life is not invasion.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank our fearless leader and the good 
gentleman from Tennessee for yielding time.
  Just a comment about this not being an invasion: No honest or 
objective American, from sea to shining sea, could characterize what is 
happening at our southern border in any way other than an invasion, and 
it is destroying our country.
  It is because of willful neglect. It is because of dereliction of 
duty. It is because of the faithlessness to this Constitution and its 
first job: to provide a common defense.
  I thank Chairman Green for restoring the dignity and integrity of the 
impeachment process. I think it is important that we are careful and 
that we make the fullness of due process an important feature, 
restoring what has happened over the last two impeachments.
  This is a yearlong process, and I appreciate his fidelity to the 
Constitution and the integrity of this institution.
  The bottom line, Mr. Speaker: I believe that the Impeachment Clause 
in the Constitution, according to our Founders, was to give remedy for 
this very circumstance, to remove someone who had violated their public 
trust in a way that resulted in serious and systemic injury to society.
  I thank Chairman Green, again, for his leadership. I stand with him. 
This is the right and responsible thing to do in faithfulness to the 
Constitution, in the protection of the American people, and in defense 
of the sovereignty of the greatest Nation in human history.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, the extreme MAGA Republican 
stunt to impeach Secretary Mayorkas is baseless.
  The Democratic staff of the Committee on Homeland Security thoroughly 
documented the many failures of fact and law in the Articles of 
Impeachment contained in H. Res. 863.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the key findings and 
introduction of the Democratic staff report, which can be found online 
at: https://democrats-homeland.house.gov/download/ homelanddemimpeachmentreportfinal.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).

                              {time}  1630

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding.
  In the time that we have had to debate one of the most sacred and 
deliberative responsibilities of the United States Congress--that is, 
impeachment proceedings--there has not been one iota of truth and/or 
facts that would suggest that Secretary Mayorkas is, in fact, guilty of 
the Articles of Impeachment against him: One, the willful violation of 
the law, and the benefit to himself from anything that he might have 
done or that he did not do.
  What it has done is given to this Nation, a Nation of laws and a 
Nation of immigrants, the sense that you cannot flee Nazism, you cannot 
flee Cuba, and come to this country to serve your beloved adopted 
country for more than two decades, that you cannot be the Justice 
Department U.S. attorney, you cannot be a Deputy Secretary and now the 
Secretary of Homeland Security without those who find it strange to 
have you, with your diversity, to be able to lead in this way.
  This is a question of stunts over solutions, and the Constitution was 
created to create a more perfect order, and that is that, under that 
Constitution, precious rights fall under the Fifth Amendment and the 
14th Amendment, due process.
  Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that this Secretary of Homeland Security was 
not allowed to bring his own witnesses. The majority did not allow the 
minority to have its day of witnesses. There were no constitutional 
scholars who pointed to the fact in large numbers, as they would have, 
that this is, in fact, a fraud, and it is fraught with 
misrepresentations.
  Operational control is zero people crossing the border. That means 
they are not crossing for entertainment, they are not crossing for 
business, they are just there.
  This is wrong. This is wrongheaded. This is a stunt, and this does 
not bequeath or equal to the Constitution, which is to create a more 
perfect Union.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against these Articles of 
Impeachment.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke).
  Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 863, the 
impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas.
  Mr. Speaker, Montana is about the same size as from here to Chicago 
plus 2 miles. It is a long, long border. The few border people we have 
generally are deployed down south.
  My friend and the gentleman from New York said: What evidence do we 
offer? What evidence of negligence? What evidence of wrongdoing? I 
would say it is pretty easy to find. It is found in every street, every 
city, every county, every State across this Nation.
  The evidence is found in every fentanyl pill and death. The evidence 
is found in every woman that is raped along our border. The evidence is 
found in every child-trafficking case that is in every city, to include 
Billings, Missoula, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. It is found in every 
evidence of children being sex trafficked, and I could go on.
  The evidence of negligence is the willful blindness to the horror 
that we have on our southern border.
  Our northern border, while not discussed a lot, is wide open, because 
this country doesn't have a border. In Montana, this administration 
can't even prevent a balloon. So the evidence is clear, compelling, and 
not in dispute. The lack of action, willful blindness, and willingness 
to do nothing is deserving of no less than impeachment.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, Secretary Mayorkas is doing 
his job with the resources allotted by this Congress. Not only has no 
administration detained all border crossers, but Congress has never 
appropriated sufficient resources to detain all individuals who should 
be detained under the Republicans' reading of the law.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this impeachment against Secretary Mayorkas is a sham. 
The process was a sham. The charges are a sham.
  You might wonder, if that is the case, then why go through all of 
this trouble?
  Well, last November, a colleague of mine from the State of Texas 
stood up in this Chamber and asked for one meaningful accomplishment 
that the Republican Congress has accomplished this session.
  The answer was nothing. That colleague was not a Democrat on this 
side of the aisle, but a Republican--a Republican, who asked the 
question whether somebody could name one meaningful accomplishment.

[[Page H468]]

  Therefore, the answer to my question: Why does this happen? When you 
have no record of accomplishment to run on--nothing on education, 
nothing on healthcare, nothing about creating jobs, nothing on the 
environment, nothing about keeping people safe--this is what you do. 
You put on a circus, and that is why we are here today.
  If we need an example, let's look to the last few days. For years, 
Republicans have used immigrants as political scarecrows. They are 
using them like scarecrows to put up in the face of Americans and scare 
Americans that every single one of these people, including the 6-year-
old children, are coming to harm you and hurt you.
  Since my Republican colleagues have no positive policy solutions, 
they sell that really hard. You hear it on every radio interview, every 
television interview. You hear it from the people in here. You hear it 
on television on FOX News. Every single place, these people are used to 
scare Americans. That is how Republicans want to win.
  That is why we are here, because there is nothing else--nothing else 
left.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 
seconds to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have claimed that we need to secure the border. Even when President 
Biden made the comment that he would be willing to shut down the border 
because it is overwhelmed, the Republican Speaker says that proposal--
which would allow for what Republicans have been asking for, supposedly 
for years--is dead on arrival. The Republicans are not going to do it.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a show trial. It is a sham.
  Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Ezell).
  Mr. EZELL. Mr. Speaker, before coming to Congress, I spent 8 years as 
a sheriff in my home county and 42 years as a law enforcement officer. 
If I hadn't done my job as a sheriff, I would have been fired and 
removed from office.
  Mr. Speaker, Secretary Mayorkas has not done his job. He has 
willfully ignored immigration laws passed by Congress and allowed our 
southern border to turn into utter chaos.
  His breach of public trust cannot go unanswered. I voted to hold him 
accountable in committee last week, and I will do so today on the 
floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
impeachment and hold Secretary Mayorkas accountable for his actions.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).
  Ms. BARRAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise to oppose this baseless, politically driven impeachment of 
Secretary Mayorkas by extreme MAGA Republicans.
  House Republicans have failed to meet the constitutional standard for 
impeachment and have failed to provide evidence for high crimes and 
misdemeanors because no evidence exists.
  Republicans rant about the challenges at the southern border, and 
their only solution is to remove the person who has been in the room 
trying to work on a bipartisan basis to get tough on border policies 
that I don't even agree with. Republicans are not serious about border 
security. This is all about politics for my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle.
  House Republicans have consistently opposed legislation to increase 
funding for more Border Patrol agents at the southern border, more 
Customs and Border Protection, more money to combat fentanyl from 
coming across the southern border, something Republicans love to talk 
about, but they want to give no resources to make sure that it is not 
coming over.
  Of course, they have even said no to a billion dollars in ICE 
detention beds. This is a Republican talking point, and they have said 
no to this, too.
  So why are we wasting floor time on political games with a fact-free 
impeachment resolution instead of legislation to improve the lives of 
Americans?
  It is because House Republicans can't govern. They want to distract 
from their weekly embarrassments. Their own Members admit they have not 
accomplished anything.
  Mr. Speaker, this sham impeachment is not an accomplishment. It is 
just another embarrassment because they are a do-nothing Congress.
  Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much 
time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee has 12\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Mississippi has 12 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I will address some of the, at a minimum, misinformation that has 
been provided by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This 
notion that Republicans have somehow cut Border Patrol is absolutely 
false.
  In fact, it has been the administration that has brought decreasing 
budget requests, for example, for ICE detention beds every single year, 
and we wound up giving them more than they asked for.
  Our bill, H.R. 2, actually would provide 3,000 new Border Patrol 
agents, and the supplemental request by the President asks for 
approximately 1,400. You can't say we are resourcing less when we are 
actually providing numbers for more. That is just disinformation. It is 
false.
  This notion that seizures are up, if you pour more water through a 
small pipe, there is more volume coming at the fence. They are going to 
seize more. I get that. However, tell me why the price for a hit of 
fentanyl on the street in Tennessee went from $95 a hit when this 
President took office to $28 a hit.
  It is because of the supply and demand of fentanyl. It is the supply 
and demand curve. That is because it is pouring across our southern 
border. It is pouring across our southern border because the cartels 
are jamming folks through the crossing sites. The Border Patrol agents 
are having to move off the border to cover that, and we have a wide-
open southern border.
  We have shown this in our five-phases investigation, videos of 
camouflage-wearing, carpet-shoe-wearing people with backpacks full of 
drugs coming through the remote parts of the country or the border. To 
suggest that just because seizures are up somebody is doing their job, 
that is meaningless.
  I want to make a point here, because several people have said, if we 
were concerned about border protection, we would bring up the Senate 
negotiated bill. Well, I thought the Senate had to pass it before we 
could bring it up. I haven't heard that the bill has even passed 
the Senate. Therefore, this accusation that we somehow aren't for 
Border Patrol because we haven't taken up this bill is false because it 
hasn't even passed the Senate yet.

  I heard someone say Mr. Mayorkas has done his job. The last poll I 
saw indicated approximately 85 percent of Americans think the Secretary 
is failing, but, yes, keep singing that song.
  Rushed? We have been at this for almost a year.
  One gentleman said: No court has actually ruled that Mr. Mayorkas is 
breaking the law.
  The Fifth Circuit court absolutely ruled it. Then the gentleman who 
mentioned that actually said that the Supreme Court overturned that.
  No, they didn't. They decided they weren't going to decide. They 
said: We don't have standing here, or you don't have standing here, so 
their case technically wasn't even heard. They said: You don't have 
standing. Have a nice day.
  To suggest that that was overturned, the Fifth Circuit court's ruling 
on the lawlessness of this Secretary, is just wrong. It is wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Guest).
  Mr. GUEST. Mr. Speaker, I want to push back.
  What is happening here is not political theater, as my friends on the 
other side of the aisle wish to make this.
  The Democrats have sought to blame Republicans, saying that our 
inaction has helped cause this border crisis, but I will tell you that 
nothing is farther from the truth. Almost a year ago, this body passed 
H.R. 2, a border security bill, a border security bill that would find 
a record number of Customs and

[[Page H469]]

Border Patrol agents, a bill which would give raises to those men and 
women who were there on the front lines trying to secure our border, a 
bill which would invest in technology to stop the flow of illegal drugs 
coming across our border, a bill which would have restarted wall 
construction.
  That bill, for almost a year, has sat in the other Chamber, has sat 
in the Senate, and Mr. Schumer has refused to bring that bill to the 
floor.

                              {time}  1645

  This body also passed the Homeland Security appropriations bill, 
giving the Department of Homeland Security more money than that 
Department has ever received. We funded those additional agents. We 
funded those pay raises. We funded additional detention beds. What has 
happened to that appropriations bill? It also sits in the Senate 
waiting for the Senate to take action.
  Today, my friends across the aisle seek to hide behind this Senate 
bill that was crafted behind closed doors, in the cover of darkness, a 
bill that did not include any input from the House of Representatives, 
did not include Homeland Security Chair Mark Green or Ranking Member 
Bennie Thompson from Mississippi. Three Senators out of 100 got behind 
closed doors for weeks, and they sat down and crafted a bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute 
to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. GUEST. Mr. Speaker, with no input on behalf of the House of 
Representatives, we are now supposed to adopt that bill before it even 
passes the Senate.
  I want to give you a number, Mr. Speaker. That number is 370,000. 
That is the number of immigrants who came into our country last month 
alone. That is not a year; that is not 6 months; that is a single 
month, 370,000 people, yet our Homeland Security Secretary continues to 
maintain that the border is secure.
  My friends across the aisle seek to blame Republicans for this 
crisis. I will tell you that their blame is misplaced. If they want to 
blame someone for what is happening on the southwest border, they need 
to look in the mirror. They need to look at what their Secretary has 
done, and they need to look at what their President has done. They can 
no longer blame Republicans for their failures.
  I will close with this, Mr. Speaker. If we are unable to hold 
Secretary Mayorkas accountable for his failures, for his failure to 
enforce the law, we can hold no one accountable. Secretary Mayorkas 
must be impeached.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, the administration is 
enforcing the law. ICE is currently detaining over 38,000 people. This 
is 4,000 more than Congress has provided funding for. If Republicans 
want DHS to detain more people, they should provide the funds the 
administration has asked for in the supplemental request.
  Under former President Trump, Republicans cheered the doubling of 
drug seizures. Now, they view it as a problem. This is hypocrisy at its 
finest.
  Under Secretary Mayorkas' leadership, DHS has seized more fentanyl 
and arrested more criminals for fentanyl-related crimes in the last 2 
years than in the previous 5 years. This impeachment has been a 
preplanned political stunt from the beginning.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a New York Times article 
detailing how Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green promised 
donors that the House would impeach Secretary Mayorkas prior to 
launching any type of inquiry. He said: ``Get the popcorn.''

                [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.''
       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. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that most of my colleagues here and a lot of 
people back home certainly know that I had the unbelievable privilege 
to interview Saddam Hussein on the night of his capture.
  As I was sitting there talking to Saddam Hussein, I asked him why he 
invaded Kuwait. He gave me all these

[[Page H470]]

justifications about who owned which oil field. Then he held up the 
palm of his hand and he pointed to the palm of his hand and said: All 
human civilization is from the Tigress and Euphrates Rivers. Every 
person on the planet is an Iraqi, and I am the President of Iraq.
  What Saddam Hussein was saying was he was the king of the world. The 
thought struck me: How does a person get there? Well, the old adage 
came to mind that absolute power corrupts absolutely. When you 
concentrate power into the hands of fewer and fewer people, you get 
tyranny every time. In this case, one man.
  Our Founders were brilliant. They were following the philosophies of 
Montesquieu, and they decided they would divide power out; they would 
separate three branch of government. Then with the 10th Amendment, they 
would separate power between the Federal Government, the States, and 
the local governments. They did develop three equal and separate 
branches of government, with the legislative branch writing the laws 
and the executive branch executing the laws.
  Interestingly enough, in the Iran-Contra hearing, the Democrats said 
in their report: You can't pick and choose which law you want to 
enforce. It is also fascinating that here we are and they say it is 
about policy. This is about a systemic, planned mechanism to undo the 
immigration laws passed before, just because the current Secretary 
doesn't think that is what they ought to be.
  This Secretary is supposed to execute those laws, but he has chosen 
not to. It says, shall detain criminal felons, and he has directed his 
DHS employees not to do that, violating the laws passed by this body, 
telling this separate but equal branch of government: I don't care what 
you say or have passed as law. I don't care that you represent the 
voice of the American people. I am the guy who knows the best way to do 
it, and I am going to do it my way. That is the road to tyranny, that 
is power in one man's hands, and that is not what our Constitution says 
it is supposed to be.
  He took an oath to that Constitution to defend that Constitution that 
says this branch writes, that branch executes. He has violated his oath 
of office. He has subverted the laws that this body has passed and, 
thus, basically said: I don't care about the Congress. That is 
unacceptable. Whether he were a Republican or a Democrat standing that 
way, I would be here today doing everything I could to remove him from 
office.
  When I was 17, I took an oath to that Constitution for the first time 
and served for 24 years, willing to take a bullet for that Constitution 
and the people of this country. I will not stand idly by while he 
throws it in the garbage.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time for closing.
  Even some House Republicans have acknowledged that there is no 
constitutional basis for impeachment. Representative McClintock called 
this effort an unconstitutional abuse of power and reckless, partisan, 
and unserious. Representative Buck said: It is not an impeachable 
offense. This is a policy difference.
  Mr. Speaker, besides failing to articulate a single cognizable charge 
that would meet the constitutional impeachment standard of high crimes 
and misdemeanors, this sham impeachment has been marred by procedural 
failures.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record documentation of those 
procedural failures.
                                   Committee on Homeland Security,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, January 26, 2024.
     Hon. Mark E. Green,
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Your ill-advised decision to rush to a 
     markup of an impeachment resolution of Secretary Alejandro 
     Mayorkas without any form of due process or Democrats' 
     properly requested minority-day hearing is disappointing yet 
     expected.
       Nothing about this sham impeachment has abided by House 
     precedent, but all of it has been done to reach the 
     predetermined outcome you promised your donors last year.
       1. This impeachment inquiry was not authorized by the full 
     House. Until this Congress, Republicans have railed against 
     pursuing impeachment without formal authorization by the full 
     House. The last time a Cabinet official was impeached--the 
     1876 case of Secretary of War William W. Belknap--the full 
     House authorized several committees to investigate well-
     publicized cases of fraud in the Federal Government. In this 
     case, however, the full House was not permitted to debate the 
     merits (or lack thereof) of impeaching Secretary Mayorkas or 
     consider the proper procedures for any such investigation.
       2. Secretary Mayorkas was not afforded any rights in the 
     absence of an authorized impeachment inquiry. Authorizing 
     resolutions not only imbue investigative committees with 
     additional authority and legitimacy, but they also afford 
     subjects of such investigations the ability to respond to the 
     investigation. When the House authorized its impeachment 
     inquiry into former President Donald Trump during the 116th 
     Congress, for example, House Resolution 660 authorized the 
     Committee on the Judiciary to adopt rules allowing for the 
     participation of the President and his counsel. In the 
     Belknap impeachment, the committee of primary jurisdiction 
     ``gave [Belknap] opportunity to explain, present witnesses, 
     and cross-examine witnesses.'' No such rights were afforded 
     to Secretary Mayorkas.
       3. Secretary Mayorkas was not afforded the opportunity to 
     testify before the Committee despite his willingness to do 
     so. Secretary Mayorkas has testified at congressional 
     hearings 27 times during his tenure--more than any other 
     Cabinet secretary. The Secretary said he would ``make himself 
     available'' to testify before the House Homeland Security 
     Committee, but you refused to accommodate his request and 
     find a mutually agreeable date. Instead, on January 18, 2024, 
     you offered the Secretary the opportunity to include written 
     testimony for the record of that day's hearing. The window to 
     submit such testimony will still be open by the time the 
     Committee proceeds to markup a resolution impeaching him on 
     Tuesday, January 30, 2024.
       4. Democrats' properly entered minority-day hearing request 
     will not be acted upon prior to the markup of an impeachment 
     resolution. At the January 18, 2024 Committee hearing, I 
     furnished you with a timely demand for a minority-day 
     hearing, signed by all Democratic Members of the Committee, 
     pursuant to clause 2(j)(1) of rule XI of the Rules of the 
     U.S. House of Representatives. The rule is clear: ``[T]he 
     minority members of the committee shall be entitled . . . to 
     call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with 
     respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of 
     hearing thereon.'' When presented with that demand, however, 
     you erroneously said, ``So as I understand the rules, the 
     request is only in order when you don't have a witness 
     present and today, you have a witness present, so this not 
     [in] order.''
       Nothing in the text of the rule supports that assertion. 
     Indeed, as I pointed out during our exchange, the rule states 
     the precise opposite: ``Although a majority of the minority 
     members of a committee are entitled to call witnesses 
     selected by the minority for at least one day of hearings, no 
     rule of the House requires the calling of witnesses on 
     opposing sides of an issue.'' The Chair is required to 
     schedule a minority-day hearing. Having a witness selected by 
     the Minority at a hearing does not preclude the request for a 
     minority-day hearing under rule XI.
       Democrats intended to call additional Constitutional and 
     legal experts to continue to inform the Committee of the lack 
     of any grounds to proceed with the impeachment of Secretary 
     Mayorkas. Indeed, even frequent Republican impeachment expert 
     Jonathan Turley thinks that Secretary Mayorkas has not 
     committed an impeachable offense. The impeachment resolution 
     will proceed to markup without this hearing required under 
     House rules and the benefit of such testimony.
       5. The Committee was used as a platform for Members to 
     campaign for other office. In blatant disregard for the House 
     Code of Official Conduct (House rule XXIII) and chapter 4 of 
     the House Ethics Manual, a Republican Member referenced his 
     campaign for State attorney general during his questioning 
     of hearing witnesses on January 10, 2024. As I pointed out 
     to you at the time, ``I just ask that if [the Member is] 
     going to run just go run, just don't run when the 
     committee is in session.'' This violation of ethical 
     standards underscores the political nature of this entire 
     impeachment farce: it bears no relationship to the 
     Constitution or whether Secretary Mayorkas has committed 
     an impeachable offense.
       Despite these obvious defects and departures from 
     precedent, the Committee will regrettably proceed to a markup 
     of an impeachment resolution next week.
       This unserious impeachment is a testament to partisan 
     politics over rules and reason. Just two legal experts 
     testified before the Committee, and both participated at the 
     invitation of Democrats. Both of these distinguished scholars 
     plainly stated that the Constitution did not support the 
     impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas. Given the grave importance 
     of impeachment--which you once described as ``probably the 
     most extreme remedy that our constitution affords for taking 
     someone out of office''--this Committee should do better. At 
     the very least, it should follow the rules and practices 
     established over more than two centuries of congressional 
     history.
       In 1788, Alexander Hamilton wrote: ``In many cases 
     [impeachment] will connect

[[Page H471]]

     itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all 
     their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on 
     one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always 
     be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated 
     more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real 
     demonstrations of innocence or guilt.''
       In the inept and inappropriate ways you have handled the 
     Committee during this partisan sham, you have proven Hamilton 
     correct.
           Sincerely,
                                               Bennie G. Thompson,
     Ranking Member.
                                  ____

                                   Committee on Homeland Security,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, January 18, 2024.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Pursuant to clause 2(j)(1) of rule XI, 
     the Democratic Members of the Committee on Homeland Security 
     request a hearing to call witnesses selected by the minority 
     to testify with respect to the impeachment of Secretary 
     Alejandro N. Mayorkas, currently before the Committee.
           Sincerely,
     Bennie G. Thompson,
       Ranking Member.
     Sheila Jackson Lee,
     Eric Swalwell,
     Donald M. Payne, Jr.,
     J. Luis Correa,
     Troy A. Carter, Sr.,
     Seth Magaziner,
     Dan Goldman,
     Delia C. Ramirez,
     Dina Titus,
     Shri Thanedar,
     Glenn Ivey,
     Robert Garcia,
     Yvette D. Clarke,
     Robert J. Menendez,
       Members of Congress.

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, the statements from the 
other side this afternoon have misrepresented the facts and the laws of 
this baseless, sham impeachment.
  This extreme MAGA Republican majority is more about stunts rather 
than solutions. This political stunt is about placating extreme 
elements within the Republican Conference rather than doing what is 
right for America, because it is clear that Republicans have failed to 
make the case for impeachment. They have failed to articulate a single 
high crime and misdemeanor. The other side of the aisle wreaks of 
desperation.
  Sadly, many Republicans appear willing to undermine the Constitution 
they claim to hold dear to score cheap political points. I am holding 
out hope that some of my colleagues across the aisle will do the right 
thing, that they will join us in upholding the oath we all swore to the 
Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject H. Res. 863. Vote ``no'' 
on this sham impeachment.
  Mr. Speaker, the Department of Homeland Security has issued a 
detailed rebuttal of this sham impeachment in a letter to the House 
Rules Committee. I include in the Record an extract of the legal 
analysis of the Department. The full letter can be found at
https://democrats-homeland.house.gov/imo/media/doc/
dhs_letter_to_rules.pdf.
         Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of 
           Homeland Security,
                                 Washington, DC, February 5, 2024.
     Chairman Tom Cole,
     Ranking Member Jim McGovern,
     House Committee on Rules,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Cole and Ranking Member McGovern: We write in 
     connection with House Resolution 863 (the ``Resolution''), 
     which was introduced by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene 
     and approved along partisan lines by the Committee on 
     Homeland Security (the ``Committee''). The Resolution 
     contains two articles impeaching Secretary Mayorkas.
       Passage of this Resolution by the House of Representatives 
     would be unconstitutional. The effort to impeach Secretary 
     Mayorkas represents a dramatic departure from over two 
     centuries of established understanding and precedent about 
     the meaning of the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution and 
     the proper exercise of that extraordinary tool. In addition 
     to lacking any basis in the Constitution, the impeachment 
     articles reflect a basic misrepresentation of key statutes 
     governing immigration law. Contrary to the Resolution's 
     charges, the Department of Homeland Security (``DHS'' or the 
     ``Department'') under Secretary Mayorkas's leadership has 
     always followed the law in good faith, and any suggestion 
     otherwise is false.


                      I. Introduction and Summary

       This letter explains why the proposed impeachment of 
     Secretary Mayorkas is illegitimate, invalid, and dangerous. 
     It proceeds in three parts. Part I describes the broad and 
     overwhelming consensus that the constitutional standard for 
     impeachment--``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and 
     Misdemeanors''--does not encompass mere disagreements with 
     policy decisions made in good faith or the lawful exercise of 
     enforcement discretion. Both the Constitution's text and the 
     Framers' explicit intent make clear that impeachment is not a 
     lawful remedy for partisan disputes, nor is it a permissible 
     means for Congress to voice its disapproval of how a Cabinet 
     Secretary is furthering the Administration's policies. 
     Indeed, Congress has twice rejected proposals to impeach 
     Executive Branch officials based on partisan disagreement 
     with their immigration enforcement decisions.
       Part II explains why the effort to impeach the Secretary 
     lacks any basis in law and consists only of a thinly-veiled 
     dispute about border security and immigration policy. While 
     the Resolution has charged the Secretary in Article I with 
     ``willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law,'' 
     there is no legal or factual basis for that allegation. At 
     its core, the Article is nothing more than a simple list of 
     criticisms of the policies of the current Administration. 
     These assertions do not meet the Constitutional standard for 
     impeachment. The Secretary has followed the law in good faith 
     in each and every action that the Resolution cites as a 
     purported ground for impeachment, whether related to asylum, 
     detention, removals, parole processes, or any others. All of 
     those decisions find ample support in existing provisions of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (``INA''). To the extent 
     Congress wants to change the Administration's policies, the 
     Constitution prescribes a different path: passing 
     legislation. In fact, the Secretary has worked for months 
     with Members of Congress from both parties to seek bipartisan 
     legislation--the draft of which was released yesterday--to 
     help solve the challenges faced at the border. There has been 
     no ``refusal to comply with the law,'' much less the kind of 
     deliberate malfeasance or personal corruption that the 
     Constitution requires for the extraordinary remedy of 
     impeachment.
       Finally, Part III addresses the hodgepodge of claims under 
     Resolution Article II, entitled ``Breach of Public Trust.'' 
     That Article claims that the Secretary made false statements 
     about ``operational control'' or border security, that he 
     inappropriately reversed Trump-era immigration policies, and 
     that he failed to comply with unidentified Congressional 
     subpoenas. These conclusory assertions are false, and the 
     Resolution provides no support for them. As detailed below, 
     the Secretary has not made false statements about conditions 
     at the border but rather transparently provided his opinions 
     about border security. His reversal of certain earlier 
     immigration policies is the result of a change of 
     Administrations, not a breach of the public's trust. And he 
     has not failed to comply with subpoenas or other oversight; 
     under his leadership, DHS has been extraordinarily 
     cooperative with Congress. It is the Committee, not the 
     Secretary, that has departed from regular order by abandoning 
     established standards and procedures that have characterized 
     every relevant impeachment effort in this Nation's history.
       Impeachment in these circumstances, and on this record, 
     would represent a radical and dangerous step in violation of 
     the Constitution. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would 
     alter the balance between the Legislative and Executive 
     Branches and would disrupt the relationship between a 
     President and his or her Cabinet. The House of 
     Representatives should reject the proposed Articles of 
     Impeachment.


 Impeachment Based on Partisan Policy Disputes is Unconstitutional and 
                             Unprecedented

       Under the Constitution, impeachment is an extraordinary 
     measure limited to ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes 
     and Misdemeanors.'' Although the Resolution alleges a 
     ``Willful and Systemic Refusal to Comply with the Law'' and 
     ``Breach of Public Trust,'' there is no basis to support 
     either Article. To the contrary, the entire Resolution 
     reduces to an expression of disagreement with and disapproval 
     of the Secretary's good-faith policy decisions, judgments, 
     and opinions about how best to pursue the Administration's 
     policy choices on border security and immigration enforcement 
     within legal bounds. Disagreement with an Administration's 
     policy positions and opinions is not a valid basis to impeach 
     a Cabinet Secretary, whose job is to execute those policies. 
     Constitutional text, historical precedent, and the 
     overwhelming body of scholarship--including every 
     Constitutional scholar who testified before the Committee and 
     dozens of others who have commented publicly on these 
     proceedings--confirm that impeachment of the Secretary in 
     these circumstances would be unconstitutional, unprecedented, 
     and destabilizing.


   The Framers Established a High Bar for Impeachment That Does Not 
                     Encompass Policy Disagreements

       The Framers carefully erected a high bar for impeachment, 
     deliberately rejecting the more liberal use of that tool that 
     had characterized British Parliamentary practice. The Framers 
     specifically limited impeachment to a narrow set of 
     intentional and grave crimes against the public that could 
     undermine the constitutional order. In adopting the phrase 
     ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' as grounds for impeachment, 
     the Framers first considered, and squarely rejected, a lower 
     standard that would have encompassed less severe offenses 
     such as ``malpractice,'' ``neglect of duty,'' and 
     ``maladministration.'' The Framers thereby sought to prevent 
     impeachment from becoming a mere partisan weapon that could 
     be

[[Page H472]]

     used to supplant the President's policies for those favored 
     by the legislature. As the Constitution's text, the Founding 
     debates, and overwhelming weight of expert opinion make 
     clear, impeachment is not an appropriate means for Congress 
     to express disagreement with an official's exercise of his 
     duties or the policies he pursues. Rather, the Framers 
     determined that impeachable conduct would consist only of the 
     most serious intentional wrongdoing that regular elections 
     could not adequately remedy.


    The Constitution's Text Makes Clear That Policy and Enforcement 
           Decisions Are Not ``High Crimes and Misdemeanors''

       Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution limits Congress's 
     power to impeach the President, Vice President and, as 
     relevant here, officer of the United States to: ``Treason, 
     Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' Because 
     Secretary Mayorkas has not been accused of either treason or 
     bribery, any article of impeachment against him must 
     establish that he committed ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' 
     The Framers of the Constitution intended that this term of 
     art encompass a narrow set of ``great'' and ``dangerous'' 
     crimes against the public characterized by serious and 
     intentional ``abuses of official power.'' That was the kind 
     of ``breach of the public trust,'' in which the office-holder 
     pursued some illegitimate interest over his duty to country, 
     that the Framers deemed worthy of impeachment.
       The Framers recognized treason and bribery as the most 
     serious offenses one could commit against the constitutional 
     system of government. The use of the word ``other'' before 
     ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' signaled that this category 
     comprises only those offenses that are similar to ``treason'' 
     and ``bribery'' both in kind and degree. Any impeachable 
     ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' must involve an act of 
     deliberate malfeasance as serious and damaging to the 
     constitutional order as betraying the Nation in exchange for 
     personal gain, ``not merely a mistake in judgment or policy 
     or partisan differences.''


   The Framers Rejected ``Maladministration'' and Good-Faith Policy 
                  Disputes as a Basis for Impeachment

       While American impeachment practice has roots in the 
     British Parliamentary system, the Framers intentionally 
     rejected the lower impeachment standard that system applied. 
     Consistent with the separation of powers established in the 
     Constitution, the Framers rejected ``maladministration'' as 
     grounds for impeachment, instead requiring deliberate and 
     egregious misconduct. The Framers thereby sought to prevent 
     Congress from employing impeachment as a mere political tool 
     that could subordinate the Executive to the will of Congress.
       The Framers adapted the concept of impeachment from the 
     British Parliament, which first employed impeachment 
     procedures in the fourteenth century as a legislative check 
     against disfavored royal ministers. Because the hereditary 
     monarchy wielded absolute power that insulated it from direct 
     criticism, Parliaments dissatisfied with a monarch's policies 
     devised a method for removing ministers charged with carrying 
     out royal policies by alleging that the ministers were 
     incompetent or malicious in the execution of their duties. In 
     practice, this broad standard meant royal ministers served at 
     the pleasure of Parliament. Parliament's impeachment power 
     was limited to instances typically involving an abuse of 
     power exercised either through corruption or 
     maladministration. Because there was no formal codification 
     of the term, however, British officials were impeached for a 
     wide variety of misdeeds, ranging from personal corruption 
     and the commission of crimes to neglect of duty and even 
     providing bad advice.
       Against this historical backdrop, the Framers debated 
     whether to adopt the British use of ``high crimes and 
     misdemeanors'' but decided to narrow it to willful and 
     egregious abuses of power. Under the resulting American 
     formulation, good-faith policy decisions or the exercise of 
     discretion do not constitute impeachable conduct.
       Initially, some delegates to the Constitutional Convention 
     proposed that the Constitution provide for impeachment in 
     cases of ``mal-practice or neglect of duty.'' That language 
     was rejected in favor of the phrase ``treason, bribery, or 
     corruption,'' a revision that ``seemed to exclude mere 
     mismanagement or incompetence.'' George Mason then proposed 
     adding ``maladministration'' as a basis for impeachment. The 
     delegates also rejected that formulation, believing ``[a]n 
     election of every four years will prevent 
     maladministration.'' James Madison added that if the 
     Constitution made ``maladministration'' impeachable, ``[s]o 
     vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure 
     of the Senate'' rather than allowing officials to serve out 
     their terms and execute the policies that they were elected 
     to pursue. In other words, ``maladministration'' would create 
     an impeachment standard more analogous to the British 
     Parliamentary system. It would thereby subject the Executive 
     Branch to the will of Congress and allow for the removal of 
     the President or other Executive Branch officials for a wide 
     range of common transgressions, including ``inefficient 
     administration, or administration that did not accord with 
     Congress's view of good policy.'' Having created a government 
     executive power that, unlike the monarch in Britain, was 
     answerable to the voters, they concluded the impeachment 
     power should and need not be available for mere policy 
     differences or failure to perform the job adequately. The 
     Framers thus established that ``high Crimes and 
     Misdemeanors'' would not encompass mere 
     ``maladministration.''
       Additional historical records indicate that impeachment is 
     reserved for conduct characterized by intentional or 
     purposeful wrongdoing. For example, during the Virginia 
     Ratifying Convention, Edmund Randolph remarked that even in 
     England, ``[n]o man ever thought of impeaching a man for an 
     opinion.''
       Scholars across the ideological spectrum agree that the 
     ``Framers' rejection of `maladministration' as a basis for 
     impeachment was, in effect, a rejection of a standard'' that 
     lacked prerequisites such as bad faith or corrupt intent. As 
     Professor Charles Black explained in his seminal treatment of 
     impeachment, ``certainly the phrase `high Crimes and 
     Misdemeanors,' whatever its vagueness at the edges, seems 
     absolutely to forbid the removal of a president on the 
     grounds that Congress does not on the whole think his 
     administration of public affairs is good.'' Thus, ``whatever 
     may be the grounds for impeachment and removal, dislike of a 
     president's policy is definitely not one of them, and ought 
     to play no part in the decision on impeachment.'' Likewise, 
     impeachment scholar Professor Michael Gerhardt observed, 
     following a comprehensive review of historical impeachment 
     precedent, that the Senate has ``concluded that impeachable 
     offenses do not include errors of judgment or policy 
     differences.'' Professor Keith Whittington similarly 
     concluded that the adoption of the phrase ``high crimes and 
     misdemeanors'' ``seemed to capture the range of potential 
     dangers that concerned Madison and others, without leaving 
     the president vulnerable to impeachment over routine 
     political and policy disagreements.''
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, Homeland Security Committee 
Chairman Mark Green denied Secretary Mayorkas the ability to testify 
during the committee's sham impeachment ``investigation.'' Secretary 
Mayorkas, however, wrote the Chairman to set the record straight. I 
include in the Record the Secretary's January 30, 2024, letter to 
Chairman Green.
                                                U.S. Department of


                                            Homeland Security,

                                 Washington, DC, January 30, 2024.
     Hon. Mark E. Green,
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Green: On January 5, 2024, you sent a letter 
     to me requesting that I again appear before the House 
     Homeland Security Committee to provide testimony. I have 
     testified before this Committee seven times. I agreed to 
     testify again and asked to work with your staff to identify a 
     mutually agreeable date. You did not respond to my request, 
     changed course, and instead invited me to submit written 
     testimony. Two days later, you issued a statement 
     representing that every member of the Committee's majority 
     already had rendered their decision. I respectfully submit 
     this letter in response.
       The problems with our broken and outdated immigration 
     system are not new. I assumed office in February 2021. 
     Immigration cases concluded that year reportedly had been 
     languishing in court for an average of 1,319 days. In 2010, 
     that average was 347 days. The Department of Justice's 
     Executive Office for Immigration Review reports that at the 
     end of Fiscal Year 2020, there were 1,261,144 cases in the 
     immigration court backlog. In 2017 that number was 656,383. 
     The DHS Office of Immigration Statistics reported that there 
     were approximately 11.4 million undocumented individuals 
     present in the United States in 2018. Our immigration laws 
     last received an overhaul in 1996. Our immigration laws were 
     simply not built for 21st century migration patterns.
       In 2019, prior to the onset of COVID and as country 
     conditions in Latin America were on the decline, the number 
     of migrants encountered at our Southwest Border increased 
     almost 100 percent over the prior year. In this post-COVID 
     period, the challenges at our border have again intensified 
     as the world experiences the greatest displacement of people 
     since World War II and our entire hemisphere is gripped with 
     mass migration brought on by violence, food insecurity, 
     severe poverty, corruption, authoritarian regimes, and the 
     destruction of homes and communities by extreme weather 
     events. These movements are facilitated by human smuggling 
     organizations that exploit migrants as part of a billion-
     dollar criminal enterprise. The depth of suffering that 
     migrants are willing to endure speaks to the desperation they 
     feel about their prospects at home.
       We need a legislative solution and only Congress can 
     provide it. I have been privileged to join a bipartisan group 
     of United States Senators these past several months to 
     provide technical and operational expertise in support of 
     their efforts to strengthen our country's border security. 
     These efforts would yield significant new enforcement tools 
     and make a substantial difference at our border.
       Our law enforcement personnel need additional resources to 
     execute our border security and enforcement strategy, which 
     is why the Administration requested supplemental funding in 
     August and then again in October 2023. That request included 
     the hiring of an additional 1,300 Border Patrol Agents, 1,000 
     law enforcement officers and the purchase and deployment of 
     over 100 cutting-edge

[[Page H473]]

     Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) systems to prevent cartels 
     from moving fentanyl into the country, and 1,600 additional 
     asylum officers to rapidly adjudicate claims for asylum and 
     facilitate timely decisions so that those who are ineligible 
     can be quickly removed and those with valid claims can 
     receive prompt resolution.
       Instead, you claim that we have failed to enforce our 
     immigration laws. That is false. We have provided Congress 
     and your Committee hours of testimony, thousands of 
     documents, hundreds of briefings, and much more information 
     that demonstrates quite clearly how we are enforcing the law. 
     The extensive material we have provided informed you that, 
     for example:
       This Administration has removed, returned, or expelled more 
     migrants in three years than the prior Administration did in 
     four years.
       Since May 12, 2023, DHS has removed or returned more than 
     500,000 individuals, the vast majority of whom crossed the 
     Southwest Border.
       Total removals and returns since mid-May 2023 exceed 
     removals and returns in every full fiscal year since 2015.
       Daily removals and returns are nearly double what they were 
     compared to the pre-pandemic average from 2014 to 2019. The 
     majority of individuals encountered at the Southwest Border 
     throughout this Administration have been removed, returned, 
     or expelled.
       We have significantly increased the number of removal 
     flights within the Western Hemisphere since the end of Title 
     42, sending over 20 flights per week of individuals who have 
     been rapidly processed and determined to be removable. We 
     continue to repatriate individuals to more than 150 
     countries.
       Before 2013, the majority of individuals attempting to 
     cross the border entered without being caught. Under this 
     Administration, the estimated annual apprehension rate has 
     averaged 78 percent, the same average rate of apprehension as 
     in the prior Administration.
       We developed and implemented a regulation that created a 
     presumption of ineligibility for asylum if an individual who 
     crossed the Southwest Border without authorization traveled 
     through another country and failed to meet defined criteria, 
     including the use of lawful pathways made available to them.
       We have been executing an unprecedented and high-impact 
     campaign to disrupt and dismantle the smuggling 
     organizations. More than 14,000 smugglers throughout the 
     region have been arrested and thousands have been prosecuted 
     under federal law.
       We have worked with Mexico to conduct mirrored patrols 
     along the Southwest Border, and we have worked with Mexico 
     and other countries to increase interdictions along the 
     migratory routes, increase repatriation flights, and execute 
     the removal of third-country nationals.
       Last year we secured funding to hire 300 more Border Patrol 
     Agents, the first increase in more than a decade. Last year I 
     was honored to promote Jason Owens, a career Border Patrol 
     Agent, as the new Chief of the United States Border Patrol.
       Undoubtedly, we have policy disagreements on the 
     historically divisive issue of immigration. That has been the 
     case between Administrations and Members of Congress for much 
     longer than the past 38 years since the last overhaul of our 
     immigration system. I think it is unconscionable to separate 
     children from their parents as a tool of deterrence. I 
     believe that law enforcement at the border can be tough and 
     humane. It is our responsibility to the American people to 
     work through our differences and try to reach solutions 
     together. The bipartisan group of United States Senators is 
     currently doing just that.
       The trafficking and use of illegal drugs are also not new 
     problems for our country. We have been fighting the war 
     against drugs for decades. When I was working to convict drug 
     dealers and traffickers as a federal prosecutor throughout 
     the 1990s--including the prosecution of the largest cocaine 
     money laundering operation in the country at the time--I saw 
     up close the loss and damage wreaked by black tar heroin, 
     methamphetamine, crack cocaine, and other illegal drugs. I 
     was dedicated then, as I am now, to defeating this scourge 
     upon our country.
       What I saw for twelve years as a federal prosecutor does 
     not compare to what our country has experienced and what we 
     have been fighting for more than the past seven years. The 
     addictiveness and fatality of synthetic opioids have cost 
     hundreds of thousands of lives and have ravaged communities. 
     The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports 
     that overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids--primarily 
     fentanyl--began to climb in 2014 and have accelerated since. 
     Provisional data from the CDC reflects 28,659 overdose deaths 
     involving synthetic opioids in 2017, escalating to 56,894 in 
     2020; 71,143 in 2021; and 74,789 in 2022. Every death from 
     drug overdoses and poisoning is a tragedy.
       The battle against fentanyl presents unique challenges 
     because fentanyl is cheap to make, easily concealed, and made 
     with precursor chemicals and materials that have legal uses. 
     We have intensified our efforts against the cartels and 
     developed new strategies in response. In Fiscal Year 2023 our 
     targeted operations seized more than 43,000 pounds of 
     fentanyl, 3,600 pill presses, and $16 million in currency. We 
     work closely with partners in other countries. Homeland 
     Security Investigations has established 16 Transnational 
     Criminal Investigative Units (TCIUs) that are successfully 
     supporting investigations and prosecutions abroad. In Fiscal 
     Year 2023, efforts by the Mexico TCIU resulted in more than 
     59 criminal arrests and the seizure of 64,138 pounds of 
     precursor chemicals.
       To better detect smuggling, we are dramatically expanding 
     the use of NII technology at ports of entry, through which 
     more than 90 percent of fentanyl is smuggled into the United 
     States. We are adding new state-of-the-art NII systems to 
     complement those currently in use across Southwest Border 
     ports of entry, with 72 construction projects underway at 15 
     ports.
       Our strategy has evolved to target not just fentanyl, but 
     also the tools and materials the transnational criminal 
     organizations use to make it. We are interdicting and seizing 
     precursor chemicals, pill press machines, die molds, and pill 
     press parts used in the manufacturing process. We are 
     targeting Chinese pill press and precursor supply chains, 
     Mexican pill press brokers, the Mexican transnational 
     criminal organizations and the domestic traffickers who are 
     producing and moving fentanyl, and the money launderers who 
     help facilitate this illicit trade. Our efforts over the past 
     year have resulted in the seizure of nearly 1 million pounds 
     of fentanyl and methamphetamine precursor chemicals.
       Our Department is helping partners in the Western 
     Hemisphere and Asia build their own capacity to combat the 
     smuggling of illicit fentanyl. We recently established a 
     working group for ongoing communication and law enforcement 
     coordination with the People's Republic of China to increase 
     cooperation and information sharing.
       We are innovating with the responsible use of artificial 
     intelligence at our ports of entry. This year alone, machine 
     learning models that help CBP Officers determine which 
     suspicious vehicles and passengers to refer to secondary 
     screening have led to 240 seizures, which included thousands 
     of pounds of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and fentanyl. 
     More details about our efforts to combat fentanyl can be 
     found in this recent DHS fact sheet.
       There is much more to do in the fight against fentanyl and 
     other synthetic opioids. We must reduce both supply and 
     demand. To accomplish this, we must work together to tackle 
     what we all agree is a horrific problem that poses grave 
     danger to our citizens, our communities, and our nation.
       The Chairman and Members of the Committee's majority have 
     harshly criticized the Department's responsiveness to 
     oversight. The allegations are baseless and inaccurate.
       I take very seriously my responsibility to cooperate in 
     good faith with Congress's oversight function. I have devoted 
     significant Departmental resources and personal time to this 
     effort. I have testified publicly in 27 Congressional 
     hearings since I became DHS Secretary. Twelve of those 
     hearings were in the House of Representatives, including 
     seven before the House Homeland Security Committee. I have 
     testified more than any other member of the Cabinet.
       In every House hearing, I was asked and I answered many 
     questions about immigration and the border. In all but one of 
     those hearings, I was asked and I answered questions about 
     our counter-fentanyl work. The Department has produced 
     thousands of pages of documents, provided countless 
     briefings, and sent dozens of witnesses to appear in hearings 
     and transcribed interviews. We have produced more than 13,000 
     pages of documents and data in response to this Committee's 
     requests alone. Further information evidencing the 
     Department's response to Congressional oversight is attached.
       Whatever proceedings you initiate, however baseless, my 
     responsiveness to oversight requests will not waiver. The 
     Department has been committed to responding and will continue 
     to respond in good faith to Congressional oversight requests.
       I will defer a discussion of the Constitutionality of your 
     current effort to the many respected scholars and experts 
     across the political spectrum who already have opined that it 
     is contrary to law. What I will not defer to others is a 
     response to the politically motivated accusations and 
     personal attacks you have made against me.
       I have been privileged to serve our country for most of my 
     professional life. I have adhered scrupulously and fervently 
     to the Oath of Office I have taken six times in my public 
     service career.
       My reverence for law enforcement was instilled in me by my 
     parents, who brought me to this country to escape the 
     Communist takeover of Cuba and allow me the freedoms and 
     opportunity that our democracy provides. My parents 
     experienced such loss at the fisted hands of authoritarianism 
     that the American law enforcement officer stood as a tangible 
     symbol of safety and the rule of law in our new home. When I 
     was a boy, my mother would have me jump out of the back seat 
     of our family's station wagon, approach a police officer in 
     uniform, extend my hand, and say thank you.
       It was because of everything America meant and gave to my 
     family that I was motivated to enter public service. It was 
     because of my admiration and respect for the men and women 
     who wore a badge that I wanted to work with them to enforce 
     our country's laws. In 1989, I was privileged to take the 
     Oath of Office and be sworn-in as an Assistant United States 
     Attorney for the Central District of California.
       For the next nearly nine years, I worked with federal, 
     state, and local law enforcement agents and officers in the 
     investigation and prosecution of federal crimes. We seized

[[Page H474]]

     and forfeited property purchased with proceeds of drug deals, 
     and successfully prosecuted bank robbers; counterfeiters; 
     members of the MS-13, 18th Street, Crips, Bloods, and other 
     street gangs; cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana 
     traffickers; migrant smugglers; illegal border crossers (most 
     often criminals with multiple felonies, deportations, and 
     reentries); fraudulent document manufacturers; illegal 
     telemarketers; and many others. In 1996 I became the Chief of 
     our General Crimes Section, where I trained all new Assistant 
     United States Attorneys in the investigation and prosecution 
     of federal criminal cases and how to try them before a jury. 
     I have represented the United States in a federal courtroom 
     in hundreds of hard-fought criminal cases.
       In 1998 I was confirmed to serve as the United States 
     Attorney for the Central District of California. I was the 
     first federal prosecutor in our office's history to be 
     promoted from within to the top leadership position. To have 
     my father at my side as I took the Oath to assume that role 
     was one of the proudest moments of my life.
       Over the next three years, I prosecuted cases of national 
     and international significance, enforcing a wide breadth of 
     criminal statutes. I pursued the death penalty against 
     members of the Mexican mafia, brought RICO charges against a 
     Los Angeles street gang, and successfully prosecuted federal 
     cases of money laundering, public corruption, human 
     trafficking, foreign corrupt practices, drug trafficking, 
     securities fraud, violent crime, immigration fraud, organized 
     crime, and much more. A partial list of the recognition I 
     received for my work as an Assistant United States Attorney 
     and as the United States Attorney is attached.
       I returned to public service in August 2009, upon my 
     confirmation as the Director of U.S. Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services. I vividly remember taking the Oath and 
     getting to work on a top-to-bottom review of the agency and 
     leading a subsequent realignment to best serve its mission. 
     As a result of that review, I created a new Directorate 
     within the agency--the Fraud Detection and National Security 
     Directorate--to prioritize and more effectively fulfill the 
     fundamental responsibilities of safeguarding our homeland and 
     protecting the integrity of our legal immigration system.
       I served as the Director of U.S. Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services for four years, until I was nominated 
     and confirmed by the United States Senate to serve as the 
     Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security. My responsibilities as 
     the Deputy Secretary covered the entire expanse of the 
     Department's work, from going after the drug cartels, 
     building the Department's cybersecurity capabilities, 
     combating illegal immigration, and strengthening the 
     Department's partnerships with state and local law 
     enforcement, to negotiating security agreements with foreign 
     countries, implementing new trade and travel protocols, and 
     advancing our interests in the Arctic.
       For my service as the Deputy Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, I was awarded the Distinguished Service Award, the 
     Department's highest civilian honor; the Distinguished Public 
     Service Award, the United States Coast Guard's highest 
     civilian honor; and recognition and awards from law 
     enforcement agencies across the Department and the federal 
     government.
       On February 2, 2021, 1 took the Oath for the sixth time in 
     my public service career and was sworn-in as the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security. I am now in my 22nd year of service to our 
     country. I no longer introduce and argue evidence in a 
     federal courtroom to persuade the jury to convict a dangerous 
     criminal, but the mission to which I remain devoted is the 
     same: to safeguard the American people.
       I assure you that your false accusations do not rattle me 
     and do not divert me from the law enforcement and broader 
     public service mission to which I have devoted most of my 
     career and to which I remain devoted. The privilege of 
     working alongside the 260,000 men and women who serve in the 
     Department of Homeland Security--the privilege of working 
     with incredibly talented and dedicated people on behalf of 
     the United States of America--is the greatest thing one can 
     do.
           Secretary,
                                            Alejandro N. Mayorkas,
                                                        Secretary.

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, former Department of 
Homeland Security officials recognize that this impeachment is baseless 
and has the potential to distract from the ``actual business of 
legislating.'' A divisive impeachment is far from a constructive 
solution. I include in the Record a letter by former senior homeland 
security officials who are opposed to this political stunt.
                                                 January 17, 2024.
     Representative Mark E. Green, MD,
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Representative Bennie G. Thompson,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.

   Opposition to the Impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas Sign-On Letter

       As former senior homeland security officials who served in 
     administrations of both parties, we are compelled to express 
     our deep concern regarding the potential impeachment of 
     Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
       Impeaching Secretary Mayorkas over long-standing political 
     differences on immigration and border policies would be a 
     grave mistake with far-reaching consequences for our national 
     security and economic prosperity. The U.S. southern border is 
     undeniably facing challenges, but assigning blame solely 
     based on political and partisan grounds will do little to 
     address the complex issues at hand.
       It is imperative to consider the historical context; 
     Congress has not impeached a Cabinet Secretary in over a 
     century. Impeachment is a tool to remove officers of the 
     government for treason, bribery, and high crimes and 
     misdemeanors. The Founders never intended it to be used as a 
     tool for mitigating policy disagreements.
       Initiating such proceedings not only threatens to undermine 
     national security but sets a perilous precedent that could 
     have dire implications for the stability of our government. 
     Impeaching Secretary Mayorkas would only serve to distract 
     from the pressing need to implement effective policy 
     solutions to rectify our immigration system and fortify 
     America's national security.
       The bipartisan struggle to assert control over the southern 
     border has persisted for more than two decades, transcending 
     administrations of both Democratic and Republican 
     orientations. Resorting to a partisan impeachment would be 
     counterproductive, exacerbating the existing polarization 
     around this critical issue without addressing its root 
     causes.
       Furthermore, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has 
     grappled with challenges in attracting and confirming senior 
     officials, a situation detrimental to its overall 
     functionality. Impeaching a Senate-confirmed Secretary would 
     only contribute to the chaotic leadership structure, 
     hindering the crucial mission of DHS in ensuring the security 
     and economic success of our nation.
       The significance of DHS's mission cannot be overstated, 
     ranging from processing legal travelers at air and seaports 
     to confronting drug-related threats at the border to securing 
     aviation and other critical infrastructure to cybersecurity 
     and many other missions. The performance of DHS directly 
     impacts the lives of everyday Americans, and it is incumbent 
     upon us to navigate the current challenges with a focus on 
     constructive solutions rather than divisive measures.
       We urge both Republicans and Democrats to set aside 
     political differences and collaborate to develop genuine and 
     meaningful changes to address the situation at the border. 
     Ongoing negotiations around border security and funding 
     present a potential opportunity for constructive development. 
     We advocate for legislative solutions, including adequate 
     funding, to replace the outdated policies that currently 
     characterize our immigration system. It is crucial that 
     Congress prioritizes solutions that strengthen our borders, 
     treat migrants with dignity, and reduce backlogs that delay 
     decisions on asylum claims, legal immigration petitions, and 
     other cases and applications.
       To be clear, the signatories to this letter do not all 
     agree with the wisdom or effectiveness of all the immigration 
     and border policies Secretary Mayorkas oversees, just as we 
     often disagreed with policies his predecessors implemented. 
     However, escalating these policy disagreements into an 
     impeachment proceeding is a dangerous distraction from the 
     actual business of legislating, where Congress' focus should 
     lie.
       We urge the House of Representatives not to initiate or 
     conclude impeachment proceedings against Secretary Mayorkas. 
     If the House completes such an impeachment, we urge the 
     Senate to reject the proposal.
           Thank you,
       Jayson Ahern, Former Commissioner (A), U.S. Customs and 
     Border Protection; Ross Ashley, Former Assistant 
     Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency; Thomas 
     Atkin, Former Special Assistant to the President and Senior 
     Director for Border and Transportation Security Policy; 
     Douglas Baker, Former Special Assistant to the President for 
     Homeland Security and Senior Director for Border and 
     Transportation Security Policy; Alan Bersin, Former Assistant 
     Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, U.S. 
     Department of Homeland Security; William Booher, Former 
     Public Affairs Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency; 
     Ed Cash, Former Director, Intergovernmental Affairs, U.S. 
     Department of Homeland Security; Gus Coldebella, Former 
     Deputy and Acting General Counsel, U.S. Department of 
     Homeland Security; Gil Kerlikowske, Former Commissioner, U.S. 
     Customs and Border Protection.
       Prakash Khatri, Former Citizenship and Immigration Services 
     Ombudsman, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Admiral 
     James M. Loy, Former Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of 
     Homeland Security; David A. Martin, Former Deputy and Acting 
     General Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Lynden 
     Melmed, Former Chief Counsel, U.S. Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services; Robert Mocny, Former Senior Executive, 
     U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Michael Neifach, Former 
     Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement; Elizabeth Neumann, Former Assistant Secretary 
     for Threat Prevention and Security Policy, U.S. Department of 
     Homeland Security; Leon Rodriguez, Former Director, U.S. 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services.
       W. Price Roe, Former Counselor to the Secretary, U.S. 
     Department of Homeland Security; Paul Rosenzweig, Former 
     Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of 
     Homeland Security; Seth Stodder,

[[Page H475]]

     Former Assistant Secretary for Borders, Immigration & Trade 
     Policy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; C. Stewart 
     Verdery, Jr., Former Assistant Secretary for Borders and 
     Transportation Security Policy and Planning, U.S. Department 
     of Homeland Security; Dave West, Former Advisor, 
     International Affairs, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; 
     Jim Williams, Former Director, US-VISIT, U.S. Department of 
     Homeland Security; Julie Myers Wood, Former Assistant 
     Secretary, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. 
     Department of Homeland Security; James Ziglar, Former 
     Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service.

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, former Secretary of 
Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, who was appointed by Republican 
President George W. Bush, wrote an op-ed for the conservative Wall 
Street Journal opposed to the baseless impeachment of Secretary 
Mayorkas. Former Secretary Chertoff wrote that House Republicans have, 
quote ``failed to put forth evidence that meets the bar'' for an 
impeachable offense. I include in the Record the Chertoff op-ed.

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 28, 2024]

                    Don't Impeach Alejandro Mayorkas

                         (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. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, it comes as no surprise 
that the Biden administration is opposed to this sham impeachment. The 
Biden administration has done everything in its power to uphold the law 
and have an orderly, humane approach to border security. I include in 
the Record a Statement of Administration Policy opposing the baseless 
impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


   H. Res. 863--Resolution Impeaching Secretary of Homeland Security 
                 Alejandro Mayorkas--Rep. Greene, R-GA

       The Administration strongly opposes H. Res. 863, a House 
     resolution introduced by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene to 
     impeach Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas.
       Secretary Mayorkas, a Cuban immigrant who came to the 
     United States with his family as political refugees, has 
     spent more than two decades serving his country with honor 
     and integrity in a decorated career in law enforcement and 
     public service. From his time in the Justice Department as a 
     U.S. Attorney to his service as Deputy Secretary and now 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, he has upheld the rule of law 
     faithfully and has demonstrated a deep commitment to the 
     values that make our Nation great. Impeaching Secretary 
     Mayorkas would be an unprecedented and unconstitutional act 
     of political retribution that would do nothing to solve the 
     challenges our Nation faces in securing the border.
       This impeachment effort clearly fails to meet the 
     Constitution's threshold for impeachable offenses. The 
     Constitution permits impeachment only for ``Treason, Bribery, 
     or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' The impeachment 
     power was never intended as a device for members of an 
     opposing political party to harass Executive Branch officials 
     over policy disputes. Legal scholars across the ideological 
     spectrum, including every scholar who testified to Congress 
     about the Resolution and conservatives who have previously 
     sided with Congressional Republicans on matters of 
     impeachment, agree that impeaching Secretary Mayorkas would 
     be an ``abuse of the Constitution'' and that there is no 
     ``cognizable basis'' for it.''
       The Resolution's purported grounds for impeachment have no 
     basis in law or fact. The Resolution does not demonstrate a 
     failure to follow the law in any respect, let alone a 
     ``willful'' one. Nor does it demonstrate that Secretary 
     Mayorkas has ``breached the public trust.'' To the contrary, 
     the Secretary has scrupulously followed the law, faithfully 
     implemented policies to address the significant and 
     longstanding challenges at the border, and engaged with 
     Congress and the public in a manner that is truthful and 
     transparent.
       Impeaching Secretary Mayorkas would trivialize this solemn 
     constitutional power and invite more partisan abuse of this 
     authority in the future. It would do nothing to solve the 
     challenges we face in securing our Nation's borders, nor 
     would it provide the funding the President has repeatedly 
     requested for more Border Patrol agents, immigration judges, 
     and cutting-edge tools to detect and stop fentanyl at the 
     border.
       If the House of Representatives wishes to address these 
     challenges, the Constitution provides an obvious means: 
     passing legislation. The Administration will continue to 
     engage with Congress to enact bipartisan solutions for 
     securing our border and strengthening our immigration system 
     and strongly urges the House of Representatives to join us, 
     instead of supporting this baseless impeachment.

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  As you have heard, the evidence against Secretary Mayorkas is 
compelling, but so too is the constitutional justification for 
impeachment. The constitutional history and the Framers' intent are 
clear. We, the people's Representatives, have no option but to exercise 
this duty when executive branch officials blatantly refuse to comply 
with the laws we have passed, threaten the separation of powers, 
imperil the constitutional order, and expose Americans to untold 
suffering and death.
  This historical record is unambiguous. From Madison to Hamilton, the 
Framers uniformly believed that executive branch officials who fail to 
defend the Constitution and enforce the law should no longer hold 
office.
  We know that Secretary Mayorkas has refused to comply with the law. 
We know that he lied to Congress and breached the public trust. We all 
witnessed the horrific consequences.
  In closing, my question to my colleagues is this: If Secretary 
Mayorkas' brazen, blatant disregard for the laws we have passed is not 
enough to warrant action, why are we even here? What is the point of 
passing laws if we allow the executive branch to violate those laws 
with impunity?
  Do we care so little for our constitutional role and responsibilities 
that we would allow an official of either party to openly defy laws 
passed by this House, the people's House? I truly hope not. That would 
be a dangerous precedent and a serious abdication of our duty.
  Willfully violating the law to open America's borders to millions of 
unvetted migrants and breaching the public trust are grave offenses 
against our country, our Constitution, and our constituents. It is, 
therefore, incumbent upon us, on this solemn day, to fulfill our oaths 
to the Constitution and exercise the power to impeach.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 863, 
Republicans' sham effort to impeach Department of Homeland Security 
Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
  House Republicans are choosing to pursue an impeachment that has no 
basis in wrongdoing by Secretary Mayorkas. Their cynical ploy has 
everything to do with weaponizing a constitutional process in an 
attempt to divert attention from their inability to provide viable 
solutions to the border crisis. Secretary Mayorkas has not violated the 
law, let alone committed ``high crimes and misdemeanors,''

[[Page H476]]

which is the constitutional standard for impeachment.
  Rather than working toward bipartisan solutions, House Republicans 
are doing the bidding of former President Donald Trump in a pointless 
attempt to reinstate the Trump administration's failed and inhumane 
border policies. They know these policies will not become law. They are 
actively blocking real solutions for the complex issues that impact 
border communities and migrants.
  House Republicans should stop wasting time and taxpayer resources by 
pushing lies and to score cheap political points with their MAGA base 
and instead work together with Democrats to solve problems for the 
American people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 996, the previous question is ordered on 
the resolution, as amended.
  Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of H. Res. 
863 is postponed.

                          ____________________