playtime to dress itt but i'll e glad to have the colloquy. but what is a remedy? secretary -- justice alito made it clear in the dissent with the remedy is. congress can impeach. yes, congress can do something else. congress could cut off the money but there are limits to what purpose can do. >> would yield? >> begs the question whether congress has any part of this -- supreme court seems to think it does but it is said we are not the forum to vindicate those restrictions. that's what thiswh process as about. it is about vindicating the rule of law and our constitutional system. >> the gentleman yields. we are not up against votes, so we're going to recess until 15 minutes after the last vote. there are two votes. we are in recess. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> the committee will come to order. i have right now in the queue correa and mr. carter. i don't see correa so mr. carter you were up. >> thank thank you, mr. cha.

it was saidr earlier by one ofy colleagues in the republican party that you are going to impeach mayorkas no matter what. and i quote it was mr. gonzalez is that were going to impeach secretary mayorkas and there's nothing you can doto about it. what happen to due process? what happened to us going through havingpp a hearing to provide evidence, to have discussion? you say we're going to do it no matter what. let me tell you what a dgerous slope this is. because you have votes come simply because you have the votes, you're going to do it and does nothing we can do about it. ensure dangerous it is when the pendulumin swings. ..gs we gone back and forth and

impeach people just because we can. i disagree, we didn't, there was evidence supported. it is my time, it is my time, and i would appreciate your respect. so the slippery slope, just because we can is a dangerous one and we should be very careful how we approach. just because we disagree with someone philosophically, because we disagree with them ideologically, you have no evidence to support why a person should be impeached, and if you are successful, the american people are not stupid. there watching, they understand. demonstrate that you really want to fix the border. somebody mentioned a minute ago what do we do next? why do we have to wait until next? why don't we do it now? what we doing it now? lastly funding and providing resources so we can fix the border, instead of using this

as a way to play political games and make political points. shame on you. i yield the balance of my time to miss titus. >> the gentleman yields to miss titus. >> i would like to ask unanimous consent to add some things in the record. first, the record of the texas tribune article titled texas border republican accused gop of using immigration crisis for politics. and which committee member and republican recognizing the border district, mr. gonzales, rightly points out that republicans are politicizing the border for political gain. and also i ask enormous consent to include in the record a cbs news article, which republican congress -- >> let's rule on the first one with no objection, so ordered. >> i now ask unanimous consent to include in the record a cbs news article in which republican congressman tom mcclintock calls congresswoman

greens impeachmensecretary mayo unconstitutional abuse of power. >> with no objection, still ordered. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask consent to include in the record the bloomberg news article entitled mayorkas uproar puts dhs in familiar spot as political football, describing how the republican sham and peach meant is threatening the ability of dhs employees and officers to do their job, disrupting dhs operations and hurting their ability to recruit. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i now ask unanimous consent to including the record and op- ed published just this week entitled don't impeach alejandro mayorkas , in which the former bush era dhs secretary says that house republicans are misusing the process to target an official who has done nothing wrong.

political and policy disagreements are not impeachable offenses. >> without objection, so ordered. >> and now i ask you, mr. chairman, for unanimous consent to include a record titled opposition to the impeachment of secretary mayorkas from the form in which 26 former dhs officials including numerous officials who served in the republican administration urged the committee not to impeach the secretary because the scam impeachment not only threatens to undermine national security, but sets a perilous precedent that could have dire implications for the stability of our government. >> without objection, so ordered. >> you have 13 seconds. >> i ask unanimous consent to include news channel 5 national article entitled representative green on impeachment. i cannot imagine the founders support anything like this,

which demonstrates that german green had a different standard for the impeachment process from then president trump. >> without objection, so ordered. and the time is up. i now recognize mr. carrere for five minutes to discuss the nas. >> chairman, before i begin, the amendment the time going to present, with unanimous consent includes for record a number of records and a number of articles, the first one united nations high commission for refugees, global report for 2022. the next -- >> without objection, so ordered. >> an article from the center the venezuelan migrant and refugee crisis. >> without objection, so ordered. >> the second article, biden administration white house fact sheet, the los angeles declaration on migration and protection. >> without objection, so

ordered. >> next article, biden administration has admitted more than 1 million migrants into the u.s. and congress is considering restricting. >> without objection, so ordered. >> next article, the record from the new york times titled for people fleeing war, u.s. immigration fight has real- life consequences. >> without objection, so ordered. >> processing cuban haitians, haitians and venezuelans that outlines the nationals from these countries can be paroled into the united states on a case-by-case basis. >> without objection, so ordered. >> dhs fii year in review showing that secretary mayorkas put more personnel, technology and infrastructure and resources on our borders. >> without objection , so ordered. >> george mason university

showed that the humanitarian parole programs help to address the labor shortage and actually helped ease inflation.>> without objection , so ordered. >> in the last article titled funding deadlock threatens to make the border crisis worse.>> without objection , so ordered. >> i would like to yield now to mr. golden. >> mr. ivey, you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i did want to reference my colleague from the ethics committee who direct comparison between mr. santos and mr. mayorkas, which i thought totally missed the mark, so we pulled the statement he made the floor at the time he offered the resolution to remov i just want to point out a couple things since we are both on the ethics committee. this shows a stark contrast

between what we did there and what is happening here today. first of all, the ethics committee moved in a bipartisan way. all the members voted for the removal or for the reporting of removal of mr. santos, which i think led to supporting the legitimacy of the two thirds vote that we got on the floor. by contrast, every vote here has been along party lines, and not just today. i mean, when we voted on hr two and ery "kother vote has been along partisan lines. the second big one was the ethics committee did a very thorough investigation, and we went through 172,000 pages of documents and generated a 50 page investigative report and interviewed 40 witnesses and compare that to what we have done here on a laat they presen three states attorney general's . my recollection is one of them did not say anything in pe

>> with the gentleman yields a mark >> not my time and i'm running out of time, but two made one paragraph comments about impeachment as far as reaching the constitutional standard. and really the only witnesses we have had here that have talked about it says that this does not rise to that standard, and we have submitted multiple versions of that from other constitutional scholars as well. another big one i think too is that mr. santos exhibited criminal conduct and he benefited from it. and those are the arguments that were generated by the report that we released, i think as he sat on the floor, representative santos sought to fraudulently exploit every aspect of his house candidacy for his own personal profit, blatantly stole from the campaign to deceive donors into providing what they thought were contributions. in fact, payments for his own personal benefit. you know, we don't have anything like that with respect

to mr. mayorkas . in fact, we don't have anything that reaches the constitutional standard that we have been discussing here today. and we mentioned -- missed titus put that article in a few minutes ago but he says all of that is inappropriate here, and that mr. mayorkas is a good public servant in a tough job. with that i yield back and thank you for the time. >> the gentleman yields. i now recognize mr. kane for a five minute discussion on the ans. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to yield my time to the chairman after saying that my name is actually crane. >> and you are from texas, right? >> the gentleman yields to me. i just want to clarify here, we have got 400 pages of a report ve different phases of

several months of digging into this. was three states attorneys general that are the only witnesses that have come before the committee and talked about the ure of the secretary to adhere to the laws passed by this congress, you know, that is not fair. >> the gentleman yields? >> no, not going to yield. we have not made a habit of that today. >> whenever you are finished. >> no, no, so i think it is really -- you know, we disagree. i think, even if he was a republican, if it is just elections, and impeachment is for something different than this, you can have a cabinet secretary get in there and do whatever the heck they want. and that is not what our founders intended.

they do not intend for three separate equal branches of government, that somebody in this branch could do whatever the heck they want. that makes no sense. it is not even intuitively obvious to a casual observer. and so, there are people out there that say -- i mean y' had two, the minority had two witnesses coming here and it was fascinating though because when we went back to the statements on the trump impeachment they talked about policy and even policy is a justification for impeachment but now that it is the situation that is not the case. and i actually played the podcast, so you know, i played it on the overhead. so this is a disagreement but i genuinely believe the core of

who i am. if you take an oath to defend the constitution that means the separation of powers is rtained and someone quoted earlier where lawlessness is not -- one of the founders said it, i think it was madison. not acceptable. and so i know we disagree and in my heart of hearts, if i was a republican i would be doing the same thing, and i yield back to mr. crane. >> i yield. >> the gentleman yields. are there any other members who wish to speak on the -- mr. menendez, you are asked for five minutes to speak on the amendment. >> i would like to yield to my colleague from new york, dan goldman. >> thank you, mr. menendez. you know, you had an

opportunity to address a republican subject to impeachment. and at the time of donald trump's first impeachment you made a number of statements talking about the for high crimes and misdemeanors and that this did not meet it. and let's just review the facts. i just wanted to know which one you're talking about, because there were two impeachments. >> and then the -- >> i'm happy to address i just want to clarify because i hear you and many of your colleagues completely misrepresenting what that impeachment was about. that did not includeas or have anything to do with the steel dossier. go look it up, mr. bishop, it did not. it absolutely did not.

it started with rudy giuliani, and ukraine doing donald trump's bidding to try to extort the president of ukraine to open an investigation that would help donald trump's political reelection chances. now whatever you think of if that rises to a high crime or misdemeanor, it was clear based on a bipartisan vote in the senate that donald trump use the power of his office purely for his own personal gain. he did not use it for any official. even one of his lawyers went on the senate floor and tried to make the argument that whatever is in donald trumonal interest is in the national interest, and that is why impeachment should not apply. >> you are said that? >> no, one of his lawyers.

>> so that scenario, no matter if you want to misrepresent the dossier or any of the other red herrings that you all site, showed an official using his official duties for his personal gains, just like every single other impeachment in the history of the united states. and so, what we have here is an official an official capacity for the benefit of the public interest as he has done for his 22 year career in government service. and you like to quote miss pearlstein on the other side of the aisle, i believe talking about your made up fabricated article of impeachment of breaching the public trust and

that she said that actually could be an article of impehm. what she said was that offenses against the public trust are instances in which an official is willfully acting for his own benefit or the and if it of his own power or on behalf of a foreign power, which of course was what the framers were worried about when they talked about unworthy men who bribes from foreign governments when they created what is now the department of state so we can disagree on what is going on at the border. we can disagree about how to solve it that is what congress is about, and that is what the senate is going through right now to give thit needs to be able to address the

situation at the border. about you are sitting there saying that he is violating the law by failing to detain every single person who comes over we -- what do you mean false, mr. bishop? it is in the articles of impeachment. you just listed seven of them. he cannot put them all in detention because they do not have the funding, the resources or the beds to do it. you are trying to hold secretary mayorkas to a puritanical standard that you have never held anyone else to before, including donald trump, who left 1 million migrants go in the united states while he was president. and yet, you say only when the secretary mayorkas does it it

rises to the level -- >> is there anyone further who would like to comment on the amendment? miss clark? you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i have materials that i would like to have included in the record. it is an article from the constitutional law expert, mr. frank bowman, entitled republican's are calling to impeach homeland security alejano here is why the case is bunk. there is no case for impeaching secretary mayorkas . >> without objection, so ordered. >> i yield time now.

>> thanks, he is recognized. >> i just want to follow up at some of the comments that mr. goldman made. with respect to the breach of the public trust article that is in the articles of impeachment, i just want to refer to what was written by the predecessor for mr. mayorkas, and i suppose by the standard that the committee is talking about now he could have been impeached, because he was not able else from crossing the border either. but he points out that since mayorkas took office, the majority of migrants encountered at the southwest border have been removed, returned or expelled. since the title 42 policy was ended last may, dhs returned, removed or expelled more noncitizens than in any five month period in the last 10 years. the truth is that our national immigration system is outdated and dhs leaders under both

parties have done their best to manage the immigration system without adequate congressional support. he goes on to say that he does not agree with every policy decision made by the biden admist but house republicans are ducking difficult policy work and hard-fought compromise. impeachment is a diversion from fixing the broken immigration laws and giving dh the resources needed to secure the border. and you know, in your initial comments, mr. chairman, you referenced that hr to was in schumer's trashcan. you left out that i also said that hr to is in mcconnell's trashcan and they both said when hr two was passed, that it was too radical for them to take up. so when you all talk about you know, why they're doing it in

the senate, they're not sharing it with you, that is because they had to start by scratch. hr 2 was so extreme -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> not yet. he rejected every amendment, not you personally, but the republicans voted on every amendment, even though you, on some instances, said there might be some merit in that. that is why they rejected it. so they are starting from scratch over there because of what they got from us were really house republicans on this committee. and then on top of that, listening to senator langford's comments over the weekend and i don't know m, not familiar with him and he sure did not sound like a liberal to me. but he really did sound like he was deeply concerned about what is going on at the border and it sounded like he had deep republican roots and constituents that were worried about what is going on there. but he is anxious and working hard to pass legislation that can make a difference, which is what we have been requesting

here too. >> will the gentleman yield? >> it is my time -- >> yes, it is. >> additional time to me, please? >> mr. goldman, you are recognized. >> thank you. we hear a lot from my republican colleagues today about how this is our only option. and in fact, if you go to the articles of impeachment, page 15, it says that in light of the inability for inter partes to seek judicial relief, impeachment is congresses only viable option. that is funny. i thought congress was supposed to pass legislation. i thought congress was supposed to address the problems in this country through legislation. and i'm not the only one who thinks that, nor our house democrats only one to think that. the senate democrats think that

, senate republicans think that. and the president thinks that. there are five entities involved in the legislative process and four of them agreed that we need to pass legislation. the house republicans are doing everything they can at donald trump's direction to sabotage any legislation because you don't want solutions, you just want politics. and i yield back■cl. >> the gentleman's time is expired. i recognize mr. garbarino. >> i yield to the chairman. >> interesting that we talk about legislation as a solution to the problem. we did pass hr 2, both out of judiciary committee and this committee as a combined bill on the floor, and it is and some say it is too radical, but we did do the work of

passing the legislation, but interesting you say that legislation is the issue, i think that i recall the first two years you know, we have to have immigration reform fixed. i think i recall in the first two years of this presidents tenure the house was controlled by the democrats, the senate was controlled by the democrats, and the white house was controlled by the democrats. why didn't you fix it then? you are in total control. yeah, it is still messed up, what has happened is that the ho said that i will just ignore these laws and do what i think -- i'm going to take my agenda for immigration, because i cannot get it passedthrough the house or the senate, even when my own party is in charge, and i will just do what i want. and that is not what the founders intended. >> with the gentleman yield? >> i yield back to mr. garbarino. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

>> it just to set the record straight here on this discussion of resources and not enough bed space, i want to ask a question, has any democrat been to the facility in california? okay, so you have not actually been to the facility that has 1940 bed space is there, yet only eight are full. so this discussion, this argument that there are not enough resources or bed space -- >> what is the question? >> i want to continue the thought here, it is completely false. that is not the only facility. in 2021 four out of five beds in tacoma, washington were empty and in 2021 dhs spent $12.5 million on a facility in georgia with unused beds at the same rate. so the tension piece of this argument, the willful refusal to comply with the detention

piece of the immigration nationality act is what we are talking about. that is the law that secretary mayorkas has not complied with. he has not anything, in fact. he had the resources and the ability, and he did not do it. so when i hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and by the way, how many border patrol agents have you actually talked to over the past year? how many people have you actually heard from? mr. chairman, i would like to enter into the record the border patrol union document that talks about the fact that they don't have the ability to actually do their job, and this is called agents are not violating the law or following unlawful orders. >> i will yield back to mr. garbarino. >> i yield to mr. bishop. >> there is one other thing to add to the cogent.

been made by the chairman and by mr. pflueger, it is a strawman argument to say that the republicans are doing this because mayorkas has not detained every single migrant in a particular category. and what i endeavored to suggest was that the articles -- i would ask somebody to point out the line where it says every single migrant. what it is saying is, of course there remains, even when congress passes a law to restrict prosecutorial discretion from being exercised in a certain way, obviously there are certain circumstances where it cannot be avoided. so if the administration is doing its best, the secretary is doing his best or her best to abide the law, but circumstances prevent it. when you are reducing the amount year-over-year that you are asking for detention beds from 54,000 up to 62,000 and

down to 32,500. those are the requests of the department. they are creating the circumstances under which they are accomplishing what they want to do, which is preventing themselves from being able to follow the law in the main. they're trying to change the categorization of migrants, by which they detain or do not detain. that is different than not been able to detain every single migrant, and i can tell you this, if they were trying to follow the law, and or circumstances that were preventing it, there would be a different reaction from this congress. >> i would point you to page 6 -- >> the gentleman yields. his time has expired and you are not recognize. now, is there anyone else who would like to speak on the amendment? hearing none, are there any

amendments to the amendment and the nature of the substitute? >> amendment at the desk. >> the gentle lady from texas has an amendment at the desk. >> mr. chairman, we do not have an amendment at the desk. >> 117? >> point of order is reserved. an amendment to the amendment and the nature of the substitute for h63 offered by miss jackson-lee? without objection, the reading is dispensed with. >> we object to waiving the reading of the amendment and thus could it be read in full. >> we have a motion to dispense with the reading. all those in favor? >> all those opposed? >> i call for roll call.

>> there is a call for a recorded vote. the clerk will call the role. >> mr. mccall? >> aye . >> mr. higgins? >> >> aye. >> mr. guest ? >> tran20 seven. >> mr. bishop? >> tran20 seven. >> mr. jimenez? >> aye. >> mr. pflueger? >> aye . >> stor garbarino? >> aye >> miss green? >> aye . >> stor gonzalez? mr. loder? >> mr. d esposito votes aye.

>> miss lee votes tran20 seven. >> mr. strong? >> tran20 seven. >> mr. strong votes aye. >> mr. crane? >> aye. >> >> 28. >> ranking member thompson votes no. >> miss jackson-lee? >> nay. >> mr. pain? >> nay. >> mr. correa? mr. korea votes nay. mr. carter? >> know. >> mr. carter votes no. >> mr. ivey? >> no. >> stor goldman? >> no.

>> mr. garcia? no. >> misses ramirez? >> no. >> mr. menendez? >> no. >> misses clark? >> no. >> misses titus? >> no. >> may i ask what the tally is? >> mr. chairman, would you like to vote? >> what is lly? just hold on, i can ask the tally. >> we had for teen aye's and 14

no. the chairman is not recorded. >> the chair votes aye. >> the chair votes aye. >> he is not recorded. he votes aye. what is the tally now? how is mr. luttrell recorded? mr. luttrell is not recorded. >> aye. anything else? what is the tally? on that about there were 17 aye's and 14 no. >> the clerk will distribute the amendment.

>> mr. chairman, question on procedure. if the minority is going to require that every amendment they offer be read, not dispensed with the reading, i we can be here all night, that is fine with me. >> we look forward to your vote. the clerk will report to the amendment. >> an amendment to the amendment in the nature of the substitute 4863 offered ■l■uby miss jackso- lee of texas, number 117.

the gentle lady is recognized to speak on her amendment. >> mr. chairman, the founding fathers deliberated for a period of time to ensure that the american public would be protected. and so their interpretation of impeachment, which by the way, to answer questions poised some many minutes and hours ago, yes, there is authority to do our job and yes, impeachment does exist. and professor black as indicated that it deals with other high crimes and misdemeanors, in particular impeachment is focused on the idea of treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors. mr. black notes that, in his handbook, impeachment is not permitted for mere and

efficient administration or administration that is not accord with congress's view of good policy. simply put, the constitution forbids impeachment based on policy disagreement between the house and the executive branch no matter how intense or high- stakes those differences in opinion our. i would venture to say that the disruption of a presidential election in 2020 was not a mere disagreement between congress and the executive. a direct connection to diupting the election and changing the election. nor was it outright insurrection on january 6 two be equal to the idea of a disagreement with congress. and so what we have here today are two articles with no constitutional basis of

charging a secretary or a public figure anything dealing with an unconstitutional violation. it has been nine months since our committees chair told its donors in the tennessee to get the popcorn for the predetermined plan to impeach a cabinet secretary over ■policy differences. the hearing floundered and not a shovel of evidence of high crimes or misdemeanors.iysj why they wish to not read my amendment, which is to eliminate article 1, because as our secretary formally of homeland security for whom i work with as indicated, again, he emphasized political and policy disagreements are impeachable offenses to the american public. he made it as a simple statement of fact. the constitution gives congress

the power to impeach federal officials for treason, bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors. that is a high bar. we do not have that. and now after two impeachment hearings with no republican invited, my colleagues across the aisle have rushed to their pleaãpreplanned, predetermined conclusion to impeach secretary mayorkas. as i said, this is revenge impeachment. i've got you. that is despite republicans not affording secretary mayorkas any rights to participate in the process , unlike the previous impeachments of former president trump. they claim that the secretary is playing a game of cat and mouse but republican colleagues rejected the offer to testify before the committee on a different day. he details that in a very effective lengthy letter that we did receive in the early morning hours, but he did a

day where he was not already planning to host mexican officials to do what our colleagues want him to do, the job of stopping fentanyl. the job was to clampdown on fentanyl trafficking and reducing unlawful crossings prison isn't that interesting? performing his constitutional duties, and he was rejected. and the chair of this committee did not act upon our properly entered minority day hearing request to call on constitutional experts to discuss this impeachment process. the republican attorneys general masquerading as constitutional experts don't provide an insightful view into the impeachment, just a partisan one. but more importantly, they're not constitutional experts. they deal with thw÷e laws of their state. not the laws that we are governed by in the united states. congress or this committee in

particular. they should be guided by the constitution in as much as states are subject to the power of the federal government, that seems to be missing in several of our states today. but i guess republicans consider two impeachment hearings regardless. in light of this observation i am to strike article one of the articles of impeachment. the article is filled with unsubstantiated allegations and a general lack of understanding about the historic border policy and u.s. immigration law. my colleagues want to impeach the secretary for allegedly not enforcing immigration law. >> the gentle ladies time has expired. >> i hope to continue by one of my colleagues yielding. >> the gentle lady yields. >> mr. chairman, i would like to withdraw my point of order. >> does anyone want to speak on the amendment?

republicans go first, so is there a republican? okay, your nice for five minutes. >> i will begin by yielding back. >> thank you very much. what me say this again, my colleagues -- want to impeach the secretary for allegedly not enforcing the immigration law. he was attempting to meet with mexican officials to enforce laws to determine what laws we could work on together and he could not be at this hearing and was not given another option. they seem not to understand that congress provides the funding for and sets the minimum threshold for detention levels, and congress has never provided the resources to detain all undocumented migrants . dhs is currently detaining

more people than required by this body well republicans refused to consider the request for more funds to further increase the bed space. a similarly, congress has never provided the resources to remove all eligible noncitizens. no administration has ever requested funding for such a large deportation schema. we have not even tried to participate in legal, if you will, immigration by providing the necessary tools. i did not say they would all be granted, for asylum. and so we have an extensive backlog in all forms of assessing the migrants coming across the border. therefore, secretary mayorkas uses prosecutorial discretion in the absence of other tools in accordance with long- standing precedent and rightly instructs the officers and agents to prioritize threats to public safety, national security and border security is the american people would want them to do. how do you protect us, mr. secretary? well, i have been given zero by this congress, they have done nothing for comprehensive immigration reform, so in my best judgment, as a public■ servant, following the constitution, doing my duty,

trying to ensure that you will have the opportunity to be safe . the prioritization does not stop him from enforcing the law. he has already expelled more people than the trump administration. my colleagues also want to impeach the secretary for executing his parole authority in a way that aligns with decades of precedent. every administration since eisenhower it. its first use was actually for 30,000 hungarian nationals fleeing communism. president trump used parole to expedite the reunification of cuban families who faced long waits for immigrant visas. now republicans want to say it cannot be used on a case-by- case basis for ukrainians fleeing russian aggression. or the multitude of different persons coming across the border because again, there was no standup republican party to

advise the resources or stand up to the cause or provide the resources that would allow for this secretary to inform his job. my amendment asks them to go back to the table for an opportunity to do their job and to create -- correctly baseless allegations that i would care for them to adopt their own instructions. the secretary said that is why republicans are not seeking to hold mr. mayorkas to the constitutions high crime and misdemeanor standard for impeachment. they make the unsupported argument that he is derelict in his duty, and they have no basis to be able to suggest that. and they go on to say that the truth is that our national immigration system is outdated and dhs leaders under both parties have done their best to manage the immigration system without adequate congressional support. but no democrat during the time

that we were in the majority attempted to impeach our secretaries of homeland security when the respect we had challenges and difficulties sending or returning migrants that were coming to this country. so let me as i conclude, we have been executing and by way of secretary mayorkas. nobody wants to listen to him. we have been executing an unprecedented and high-impact campaign to disrupt, dismantle the smuggling organizations. more than 14,000 smugglers throughout the region have been arrested and thousands have been prussic you did under federal law. we will work with mexico to conduct patrols along the southwest border. protection of the southwest border. we have worked with mexico and other countries to increase introductions along the migratory route. and execute the removal of

third country nationals. last year we secured funding to hire 300 more border patrol.■m we got whatever we could get. >> your time has expired -- i think they will yield to you. >> i yi >> thank you, mr. chair. the gentleman from rhode island. >> thank you, chairman. and thank you representative. i want to speak in favor of the amendment. the legal case for impeachment in this article is incredibly thin and i want everyone to understand this. in article 1, the argument that house republicans are make him is that somehow secretary mayorkas is choosing not to follow the law because a portion of migrants apprehended at the border are not being detained until their cases are heard. but again, there is not enough

detention capacity because this congress has not provided that funding for that capacity. stats and numbers don't lie. for fiscal year 2024, congress provided funding for 34,000 beds in detention centers, 34,000. the average daily population in those detention centers is 37,000 people. they at capacity. so there might be individual examples of certain facilities at certain times that are not at capacity for safety or health reasons or whatever the case may be. but overall across the system we are at and above capacity, and so what should the secretary do? the secretary, because he has not received the funding, to provide adequate attention

capacity has to use his judgment for who to detain and who to release. that is not illegal, that is certainly not impeachable and it is the exact same kind of discretion that every other director before him has used. in the last two years of the trump administration, 52% of migrants apprehended at the southern border were released, not detained, 52%. nearly 1 million people. i did not hear my republican colleagues trying to impeach the secretary, or asking the secretary under the trump administration during those years, but here they are trying toim for doing the same thing. and in fact, the percentage of migrants who have been released under the biden administration, 48%, is lower than the 52% rate under the last few years of the trump administration.

in article 2, and by the way, that is essentially their whole argument in article 1, so we can forget that. article 2, they are arguing that somehow the secretary has lied to congress because at various times he said things like the border was secure or the border was closed. these are subjective terms. again, certainly not impeachable. if he said, you know, we are holding an average daily count of 37,000 people per day when it was really 10,000 per day, that would be a lie. that would be misstating the situation on the ground in a way that my republican colleagues might disagree with is certainly not impeachable or a lie. if i say to you it is hot outside and you think it is cold, i have not lied to yo if i say to you it is 80 degrees and it is 40 degrees, that might be a lie. >> will the gentleman yield? >> you're talking about terms like■ closed, secure, that are

inherently subjective terms. okay. there are certain terms like what was it, operationally secure that may have a legal definition■"b6, but again, the that this would be in impeachable offense is ludicrous. there is no law that my colleagues have pointed to that has been broken. and when it comes to the secretary using his discretion to decide how to manage the lack of capacity because congress is not provided the resources that he has asked for -- he is using the same discretion every secretary before him has used. >> i yield to mr. goldman. >> just to follow up on the point, on the operational control of the border, as that term is defined in the secure fence act of 2006, that of

course requires zero immigrants crossing the border to achieve that standard and that is unreasonable and unattainable. in 2007, under the bush administration, the department issued guidelines to redefine what operational control is. so if you are actually trying to point to this as the letter of the law, then you ought to talk to your colleagues in the way back machine in 2007 who changed that definition. >> the gentleman yields. >> i now recognize misses green for five minutes to comment on the amendment to the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman.we are listening to democrats talk about secretary mayorkas requesting funding from congress and talking about detention the space. about the facts tell the truth. secretary mayorkas has quested

fiscal year 2020, 2.7 billion for 54,000 beds including 2500 per family unit and fiscal year 2021, $3.1 billion for 60,000 beds including 5004 family unit in fiscal year 2022, he requested $1.8 billion. and thatwas for 32,500 beds. fiscal year 2023 he requested $1.4 billion for 25,000 beds, and in fiscal year 2024 he reduced it again down to $1.3 billion for 25,000 beds. this is a reduction of 9000 from the fiscal year 23. dhs does not provide congress with statutory mandated reports on attention needs as required under usc 1368 and requested by the committee in a letter on january 4, 2024 also, dhs

claims in fiscal year 22 and 23 budget requests that a reduction in detention capacity levels will not impede the ability to apprehend, detain and remove noncitizens that present a threat to border security and public safety. secretary mayorkas closed detention facility -- facilities . closed them, while paroling and mass millions of illegal aliens into our country. by 2021 dhs stopped using family detention centers for family units. in march 2022 ice announced it would closein alabama detention facility and limit the use of three others in florida, louisiana, and north carolina. secretary mayorkas refused to utilize it, but let's talk about the result of that. human trafficking is a $150 billion a year industry, and

what has this done for the cartel? the cartels and coyotes are making over $13 billion a year in human traffic team alone. that is off of mayorkas's willful breaking of federal immigration laws. this revenue is 26 times more than cartels earned under president trump. approximately $500 million under trump according to the new york s. but what is that doing? this is trafficking children, trafficking women. this is what he is not holding these people -- he is not detaining these people, he is not asking for more money, he is asking us for less money and less beds, and then he is closing down detention facilities. it is an outright lie to claim

that secretary mayorkas is following the law, when in fact he is not. he is breaking the law. and he is paroling them by the millions into the interior of the united states. what else has happened since nu for americans between aged 18 and 45, let's also talk about how many americans are dying, 300 americans per day are dying . let's talk about what that does to people like two of my constituents who were killed in a human smuggling pursuit caused by mayorkas's open border policies. what about 20-year-old kayla? remember her mother? poor kayla wasand strangled to ms13 gang member who was actually apprehended at the border. apprehended, and he had gang tattoos on his body, but because secretary mayorkas

breaks federal law, he says go ahead and release these people into our country. this 20-year- old was murdered by a gang member who should have never been in the united states. this is the outcome. this is just one example. we could spend hours and hours. we could go all week. i'm sure chairman greenwood let us do it if we talked about every american who has been affected by secretary mayorkas willfully breaking federal immigration law. mr. chairman, i yield. >> i now recognize mr. pain for five minutes discussing the amendment to the amendment. >> i would like to yield to congresswoman jackson-lee. >> i think the gentleman and

forgive me, i didn't think you when you yielded, thank you so very much. let me give us all a suggestion . let us adjourn, move to adjourn this meeting and have an authorization meeting, because my heart goes out to every single victim that has suffered a loss of life whether it be a family member who has died in this terrible scourge of drug trafficking or fentanyl, and let's have a meeting that deals with authorizing secretary mayorkas $20 billion to be able to do the job that we understand he has not been because he has not asked for $1 billion or $5 billion or $7 billion. goes to the very point that we are making. these are policy decisions. these are decisions that the

these are decisions that the or from total. let's have a meeting at deals with authorizing signatureyorkae to do the job we understand is not done because he's not ask for 1 million, 2 billion, bob dylan, 7 billion. becausere making, these are policy decisions. these are decisions the budget committee participates in, the appropriations committee participates inyo and it may ben the overallsu discussion of the budget of this nation or that te secretary was given the amount can work with, policy and it wasn't a constitutional decision, it was this is the budget for dhs.

the billions you are asking or maybe need will have to be brought down so i can see why my colleagues cannot understand y a policy decision and a wise secretary trying to do his job protecting us in the narrow way he's allowed to do so. your my resources. for the information of this committe under many republicans using criminal justice system to solve public health crisis for the secretary. ... the fennel pills and other horrleaspects. and so the real question is,

how long are we going to pursue a question of behavior under a question of behavior under your job versus a direct ask the results in the death of people. are you telling me secretary mayorkas was directly involved in killing people? would we go to that length? would we so much even suggest that the smugglers and the cartels gaining profits have now rendered under secretary mayorkas under article ii? that talks about the breach of trust, or has he benefited monetarily? who would want to stand and say that? and so we're getting to a point now where it really is a question of understanding, and that understanding is that article one does not fit any of the charges that the republicans are making against this

gentleman. they are not constitutionally grounded. and was not allowed the secretary, who is now engaged in negotiations now for over a month i believe, or more, with the senate, a very table that the house republicans have been invited to sit at, the very table that the speaker of the house has been invited to sit at. and my understanding is there seats are vacant, but yet our secretary of homeland security, under the threat of impeachment, at every point has gotten up every day to participate in abiding by laws that he hopes will make this country safer. is at the basis of impeachment? is that the accusation that will hold under this article one? mr. chairman, it will not hold and as my colleagues to support the amendment and vote down article one. >> i now recognize mr. guest for

five minutes to discuss the amendment to the mets were briefly, mr. chairman. i opposed the amendment. i do disagree with ms. jackson lee when she says that members of house have been asked to sit at the table during the senate negotiations. that is completely untrue. you've not been as, ranking member thompson is not been asked. these negotiations are taking place behind closed doors in secret, and we have no input whatsoever. member of to say thatat house republicans have refused to participate is just a complete misstatement of fact. i also disagree with my colleagues. we may argue whether not lying to congress should be impeachable, but i don't believe we can say that what secretary mayorkas has said time and time and time again is not untruthful, is not a lie. argue to close. mr. pflueger asked him in 2023 is aboard a aboard a more secure

under your leadership then when youki start? the secretary said congressman, the border is secure. this is my time, mr. magaziner. i would like to read the statements of your homeland secretary who is misled congress repeatedly. i asked him, i asked secretary mayorkas are you saying that all nine sectors are secure? his testimony was it is my testimony that the border is secure. i later asked him again that in light of the statements made by chief ortiz, is the border secure? and he said congressman, i stand by my prior assessment. mr. bishop asked him,, i've head you and judiciary committee recently this summer testified the borderr secure. secretary mayorkas, do you continue to maintain that the border is secure? his answer was yes. i asked mr. mayorkas on another occasion, so my question to you, mr. secretary, are you testifying as you center today

that the southwest border is secure? his answer, yes, i am. and then when questioned at some point i ms. jackson lee, his response was congresswoman, the board is secure and the border is not open. any hearing in which representative roy asmus relates to the secure fencing act, congressman roy said do we have operational control of the border? secretary mayorkas, yes, we do and congressman, we are working to, and that he doesn't finish that statement. and so we may argue whether or not that is impeachable but i don't think we can argue whether or not he has been truthful. because his statement in and of themselves, how can we say that the border is secure when last month -- >> will the gentleman just? >> -- over 370,000 immigrants come across species with the

gentleman yield? >> i yielded to the chairman. >> i also think it's very important to point out as you brought up the chip roy testimony in judiciary that chip roy read the definitio of operational control from the law, from the law passed by congress and said, do you have operational control by this definition? and the secretary said yes. in another hearing he had said, i don't know if he came first, oh to be very clear, which came first, before this another hearing or after. mr. secretary said nore one has ever had control by that definition. so it's not whether it's warm or cold outside. there is a very clear definition in the code for operational security. he was asked, read the definitionop and asked if he had operational control by the definition and he said just. and later, or before, i'll have to get the date on it, he

admitted that no with his ever had control. >> with the judge would yield?wh >> which is a false statement. that is a false statement. knowing the definition, knowing that no one had ever had control. in fact, mr. biden just a few days ago president biden said no, it is i control for ten years. mr. mayorkas lied to congress to congress. >> with the gentleman yield?he >> i yield back to mr. guest. >> mr. green, thank you, chairman. in my last few seconds and you want to reiterate the point you just made, that the president himself within the last several weeks has made statements that contradict everything that secretary mayorkas has testified repeatedly. the president of the united states said not only is aboard not secure the border has not been secured for well over a decade. so the border has not been secured anytime in which biden has been president. and his statement the border was not secure when donald trump was president. and another his statement the border was not secure when he was vice president.

and so mr.ied to congress. his breach the public trust and with that i yield back. >> yield? >> the gentleman jails. this anyone elsee wish to speak on the amendment to the amendment? >> yes, mr. chairman,. >> mr. goldman you arere recognized. >> so secure as a term of art as you know. operational control and secure the borders under the secure fence act of 2006. the department of homeland security under george bush in 2007 recognize that it's an impossible standard, and the implemented rules and regulations by which the department has operated since 2007 under the bush of administration, obama administration, administration, trump administration, and biden administration. and so when secretary mayorkas says it is secure, it is secure according to the guidelines that overstate the department of homeland security. nobody is escorted into this

country. i want to talk about ms. jackson lee is amendment because it is one thatt, i fully support and want to focus on it. for a reason we have talked about it very much, which is the complete lawlessness of this impeachment process. this was referred to this committee for impeachment but that does not mean that prior impeachments are irrelevant as precedent. prior impeachments have always allowed for due process to the individual who is being impeached. president trump got it in 2019, and every single individual judge, president or otherwise has gotten heightened due process standards where they were permitted to provide

evidence, provide testimony, call witnesses come cross-examine the witnesses. what we had in this impeachment process was one hearing where the republican witnesses were all state attorneys general whoo are suing the biden administration. pretty clear conflict of interest. no impeachment knowledge or expertise. and another hearing where we heard stories, tragic stories from parents of children who have died. and ms. greene says we should sit here and talk about all of the anecdotes of individuals who have died from, at the hands of those who should not have come across. well, i'll tell you what would be much, much longer than that, is going through every single

victim of mass shootings around this country with assaultlt weapons that have no place in our civilian society. two and day. that would take a lot longer than everything else. so we are here in an impeachment process that has no due process. there is absolutely no legal analysis of any of these articles of impeachment, which are unprecedented and have been madede up, and then an article one, which is what we're talking about here, the gist of it as my colleague from rhode island said is that secretary mayorkas has failed to secure the border and specific examples generally relate too his failure to follow

the law and detain everyone. now, i would add of course ms. greene is wrong in the president supplemental appropriations request. the president did ask for more funding for i.c.e. detention. he asked for more funding for border patrol agents for asylum officers come for immigration judges,fo for uscis officials to process everything because with such a backlog of the asylum process. but where he is being impeached right now because he did not put everyone inhe jail. that's what we said. now, mr. bishop has a policy no, no, no, no. well, obviously there arere some circumstances when that everyone can be detained, and in the circumstances then that everybody should be detained. so i figured it out. we have the impeachment of

secretary mayorkas, because the law says that immigrant shall be detained unless it is the judgment of representative dan bishop of north carolina that they are exempt from detention. thank you. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields, in time. i thank the gentleman. ladies and gentlemen, we have votes going on right now. we're going to recess and he will reconvene at 4:40. at 4:40 will be starting back in you. we are in recess. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> comic up more from the house homeland secured communities impeachment resolution against homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas. following the debate members voted 18-15 in favor of impeachment said in a possible house for votes next week. only once before, in 1876. >> the nature of this idea and nature of business information-based anomaly can you recommend expert about generals. i have the right to be in this agreement other than as as a, as an american who wants to play on the one string i have which is my voice, as we all should. and i think, i mean a lot of the things that i think turn people

away from politics aside from the fact that certain issues are complex. we just don't think it works. we think forget policy. structural things. things like term limits, germanic and thinks it actually build the mechanism of politics people become frustrated with. this will think voting, voting such an important thing. any sort of tension also like gerrymandering repeated over and over again. you need a place to do find that some people come to mind it when he said, oh, actually that is gerrymandering. >> we are just creating engagement, creating new generation of voters that care, the realized that that something voting federal or state level d. >> actors chris evans and mark kassen spoke of other video civic engagement platform a starting point and new efforts to engage and prepare young americans and first-time voters for the current election season. you can watch the entire event from the national press club saturday night at eight eastern

on c-span, c-span now our free mobile video app or online at c-span.org.f) >> booktv every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. it can eastern former trump administration white house deputy chief of staff christopher lavelle with this book years ago the five-year presidency about his idea for a new transition for incoming presidents the year before they take office. ten. eastern on "after words", ," te revolution looking at everyday americans are fighting depression in systems and institutions to bring about change in communities. she's committed by author activist. watch booktv every sunday on c-span2. by the full schedule your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.