resolution when

members return tomorrow for business.

and consequences of our border crisis. producing seven separate ones, told more than 400 pages. our members visited notable sectors on the southwest border and dealt with everyday americans affected by this crisis. we had a variety of witnesses including former dhs officials as well as victims of secretary mayorkas's crisis. impeachment is a tool the framers wrote into the constitution to do with the greatness of situations like the one we have today where the laws actions of the cabinet secretary have led to the chaos and destruction across our land. our investigation and impeachment proceedings resulted in two articles of impeachment. article one charges him with systemic refusal to compile with

the law. article two charges with a brea. with viable alternatives and he knowingly made false statement about the consequences of his refusal to comply with the law. we are compelled to act.

i want to address just a few claims he will no doubt hear from the democrats today. claims that are false and easily disproven. one of the reasons i am these articles and not the chairman of the judiciary immunity. every democrat voting that day voted to refer articles of impeachment to our committee. we gave sec. mayorkas multiple opportunities since august to defend his record each time he delayed and invaded. we ultimately offered to take written testimony from them. he decided to respond at 448. the lack of seriousness with which he takes these proceedings is shocking. a third of the house republicans have consistently voted substantially responding for cvp hrt. border security bill has passed last year on the increase of roughly 3000 word patrol agents. more than double what the white house wants in its supplemental. don't let the democrats false

claims distract you from the truth and the truth is sec. mayorkas refused to comply with the law. even after seeing the devastating consequence. the truth is sec. bjork's book public trust by claiming the board was secure. even while drug cartels to control of large swaths. sec. mayorkas america's double down on his decision against a national security threats. he has failed to do either of those things and must be held accountable. what is the point of us being here? what is the point of congress if we allow the executive branch to ignore the laws we pass? if we do not hold officials accountable, there are no longer any checks and balances. that is not a constitutional republican. that is the road to tyranny. because across the aisle will

ensure this does not rise to the level of impeachment. there is a direct article with impeachment articles against richard nixon. nowhere is there any reference to a crime committed by the president himself. this refers to president nixon's acting in ways not authorized by law and in ways that constituted unlawful activities. that is exactly what sec. mayorkas has done. he charged nixon with making false and misleading statements. also, misleading testimony. they conclude he acted in a manner contrary to constitutional government. that is exactly what sec. mako -- secretary mayorkas has done. the evidence is indisputable. the moment is urgent. al hunter mayorkas must be impeached. thank you mr. chairman, i would force your questions.

quest thank you very much. i am appearing before you today in strong opposition to age 63 which was appointed out of the committee of homeland security last week on a party-line vote. the rest of the resolution this was established in the wake of 9/11. republic members of congress's want to support and defend the constitution are projecting the framers clear intent over two centuries of president and all of that in favor of a shame impeachment of the secretary of homeland security, secretary merrick -- sec. mayorkas. neither of the impeachment charges reported by the committee are high crime and

misdemeanor. under article two of the constitution, note serious person believes they are. this was ultimately rejected by the framework as a grounds for impeachment. they settled in the court system, not through impeachment. policy disputes republicans listed in the articles have already been addressed and decided in the biden administration's favor. or they are currently working their way through the system. constitutional experts have told the committee that part of the reach of public trust to rise to the high crimes and misdemeanors is for conduct intended to serve officials own benefits or a benefit of a foreign power. no serious person can think that

sec. mayorkas's actions meet the standards for public trust. law is clear. so are the secretary's records. he has all the authorities at his disposal. he has removed record numbers of migrants from the u.s. and detained more people than congress has provided funding for and prevented record levels of fentanyl from entering our communities but the shame impeachment effort is really about border security. it is about republican politics and subversion of the constitution. in testimony before the committee, these up as published in major new staples, bipartisan constitutional law and impeachment experts agree the sec. has not committed an impeachable offense.

sec. mayorkas has faithfully implemented the initiation of board policy from the funding congress has provided. republicans have refused to provide resources to the department of homeland security. it has republic's are serious about improving the conditions along the border, they will provide the department with the funding necessary to do so. they have not. it has republic's were serious about improving conditions at the border, they would negotiate would legislation with the white house and senate, they have not. extreme mega republicans were running the house of representative's want solutions. they want a political issue. house republicans take their marching orders from donald trump. he has directed them to object a bipartisan deal. the shame impeachment is about

has republic is distorted constitution and the secretary's record to cover up their inability on -- and unwilling us to work with democrats to strengthen border security. the secretary of format security michael chertoff recently called against inpatient secretary -- sec. mayorkas. he said our nation is at its best when our leaders were together to confront -- our board and our national security. despite how different parties, i know mayorkas to be a fair and honest, dedicated to safety and security of the u.s.. he represented dhs and to both parties in congress with integrity. that is the kind of

bipartisanship we need for our border challenges to strengthen our immigration system. unfortunately this shame impeachment has been nothing but partisan. going for consideration with the homeland security next week. the box democrats from offering the men the resolution. the extreme mega republicans before thousands of democrats it attempted to inject a dose of reality into the proceedings. they even blocked democrats from including material on the marker record. the truth is republicans actually showed they don't have faith in their own case against the secretary.

this nonsense has to stop. it should stop here. republicans need to start doing the work that americans were sent here to do. democrats are winning few to join us. i encourage my colleagues on their oath to the constitution. drop this shame impeachment. >> you heard a lot up here. >> there is a lot of it. the first accusation was a rush. we have taken almost a year of looking at this, 400 pages of reports, five phases of investigation.

and then the waste of millions and millions of dollars of unused ice detention beds. we have exhausted our resources. we looked into this incredibly lengthy. i could go on but i'm sure you have other questions. >> i appreciate you bringing it to our attention. this was referred to your committee through the judiciary. some might ask why. i appreciate it.

we have exhausted their resources. we have looked into this

this is a catastrophe beyond anything that has ever happened. there were problems during the trump years. the amount of human suffering that has been caused by the border in this administration. can you provide us some highlights from your investigation? >> this is a catastrophe of our own creation.

the drug cartels have seized the opportunity, they are trafficking everybody who comes through mexico, charging $70,000, making tens of billions of dollars for themselves just from human trafficking but what they do is they take those and control them, they hit a crossing's night -- crossing site and then they are free to come across the border with the fentanyl.

what congress told the executive branch, shall detain. only this secretary sent a memo to his people saying, do not do that. >> and he was well aware? >> yes. the secretary bay oak us has been in the department many times and he knows with the laws are and he has created systems to divert those laws. >> i appreciate your efforts on this. i know it has been a long task for the committee. i will defer further questions because i will talk about this on the floor tomorrow. i -- >> chairman green, i have respect for you as a member of this congress but quite frankly,

watching, reading what is before us and watching all of this unfold, i think you be ashamed of yourself for bringing this kind of trash before this committee. we are here because marjorie taylor greene in the chock full of nuts caucus wanted us to be here. chairman green, if you succeed and secretary mayorkas is impeached, who replaces him? do we know who who will be in charge? >> i assume there is a deputy that would step forward. i do not see why it is relevant. >> will it be somebody implementing bidens policies? [crosstalk]

>> the answer the question is you do not know. >> you are right. i don't. >> when did you decide to impeach sec. mayorkas? before or after april 18, 2023? >> we have proceeded with a five phased approach looking at this as fairly as possible. >> before or after? >> i cannot tell you what i thought this needed to happen. >> i am looking at a new york times article entitled keep republicans tell donors he will pursue impeachment of mayorkas and they have you on audio saying you would deliver charges to the host judiciary committee which handles impeachment proceedings. i would like to submit this article into the record. why would you tell donors you

were going to impeach sec. mayorkas before you opened an investigation? why would you do that? >> the article misquoted me. >> they have you on audio. >> i went back and checked. they escorted me. >> we can ask the producer of the article. before completion of your investigation, marjorie taylor greene, the author of this, said impeachment had been, quote, guaranteed to her. that was november 30, 2023. she said it again, i have been guaranteed by speaker johnson and chairman green that the house would impeach sec. mayorkas. why would you promise her that you would impeach, no matter what the evidence said? >> by that time we had been through a lot of hearings. >> so in november 30th, you

promised her? >> i do not remember ever promising her. >> is she lying? >> it could be a misunderstood conversation. that happens all the time in this building. >> it sounds like this is a predetermined performative political stunt. it is not about the evidence or the constitution. i think what is happening is you guys are doing it because trump told you to. >> mr. trump never asked me to do that. that accusation has been made multiple times. i took this oath to the constitution when i was 17. the constitution matters to me. [crosstalk] >> trump tweeted that he wanted him gone.

you would have me believe that there are republicans in this house that do not pay attention to everything that trump's and others? because you seem -- utters? because you seem to be following what he says to a t. some say you have no cognizable basis for impeachment. i would like to ask you to respond to these clients. -- quote spirit a political stunt -- respond to these quotes. a political stunt. sec. mayorkas did not meet -- commit impeachable offense or is guilty of high crimes. may i have order in the committee, please? >> the committee will come to order. >> these are not impeachable offenses. i have not seen the constitutional standard met yet,

mitt romney, who actually ran for president against barack obama. there is no current evidence he is corrupt or committed impeachable offense, which is why the case is not to impeach mayorkas. i find it shocking the number of republicans who have basically come out and said that this is nuts, and these are just moderate republicans. a lot of hard-core conservatives have said we should hit the brakes. what is your response to all of these people who seem to have a real problem with this on the republican side? >> i obviously disagree with them. i took the oath to the constitution when i was 17 and lived under that oath as it officer in the u.s. army and my oath was not to the people or geography or flag, it was to the

constitution. it same oath we take for this secretary has disregarded a co-eagle -- coequal branch of government. he has had his people break laws. having a cabinet secretary get to pick and choose which laws are passes is unacceptable and if you were a republican i would be doing the same thing. >> that is not the answer to my question. yes or no. one word answer. do you think congress needs to pass new laws to fix our problems at the border? >> we absolutely need to pass laws. the chart two is waiting on the senate to pass it. >> we have a republican-controlled house and democrat controlled senate. barely. democrat president. so obviously there has to be some give-and-take.

this senate has been working in a bipartisan way and you are saying something that frankly one of our colleagues said the opposite last week, that we did not need any new loss but you say we need them and if that is the case, what is your response to speaker johnson refusing to bring up the senate bipartisan bill to address the problems that the border? people complaining we need to better control our border but there seems to be a pretty tough border security bill coming out of the senate and you guys are basically saying it is dead on arrival. >> a couple of reasons. the way the bill is written facilitates what is happening now. it codifies the things that are

currently against the law that mr. mayo gus is doing and it is interesting that we are negotiating more law, which i agree we need to fix some things, to hand to a secretary who has chosen to break the law. in hr 2 we requested more border patrol agents than the president did in his supplemental. the issue is what the people will be used for. processing more people into the country just creates more incentives and brings more waves of people. >> policy disagreements are not the basis to impeach. [crosstalk] homeland security is attaining more people at the border then congress has given them money for. >> they decrease their request

for ice detention beds every year. that does not make sense. >> back to my question, why not have a debate and vote on what some very conservative senators have negotiated with democrats? why should congress not have the opportunity to debate or vote on it? >> i don't understand why senate has in [crosstalk] passed a version or they take our version and amended and then it goes to congress. >> i think the difference here, to be clear, to the best of my knowledge, chair thompson, i do not think you were asked to sit down and negotiate with republicans on hr2? >> this is a truly bipartisan

bill and by contrast in the senate it works because i think they realized that bipartisan bill will never see the light of day so the question is you want to get something done you have to work in a bipartisan way and you guys take control of the house and you win the senate and the presidency, you can do whatever you want to do, that is just not the reality we are dealing with. for the record, breaking news in a statement to fox news, the border patrol union said they support and endorse bipartisan border deal negotiated in the senate, saying it is not perfect but far better than the status quo. and so again i am curious why not welcome an opportunity to have that debate and discussion on the floor? even if you cannot get 100% of what you want, something is

better than nothing. >> if you take the 5000 they want to allowed to come in every day and multiply it by 365 and that by an average of $15,000 that drug cartels collects per person, that is how much money we are giving to the drug cartels with bill and sorry i cannot support that. >> so the answer is to hell with bipartisanship. >> i bring democrats and republicans to my house and we sit down and negotiate and talk about stuff. [crosstalk] i will be surprised if it gets out of the senate. >> trump's that he is against it, so maybe not. you said you -- trump said that he is against it, so maybe not. you said you would impeach a

republican. >> i said if they were violating the laws. >> but you keep talking about somehow the border was solved when trump was president. in the final two years of trump's presidency, the cato institute says there were 700,000 migrants released into the united states pending immigration. was that secretary nielsen's fault? in the final two years of trump's presidency. cato says. was that secretary nielsen's fault? should she have been impeached for that? >> as i understood the way she executed the law she attempted to detain first and when resources were asked we did there were people who were on a case-by-case business paroled into the country. the current methodology as the

courts have ruled is just the opposite. >> resources are exceeded now, chairman green. >> they are leaving ice detention beds empty. >> should she have been impeached? >> as the courts ruled, mr. mayorkas, contrary to even barack obama and many other president secretary of homeland security has done just the opposite of what they have all done and is releasing immediately into the country against the laws written by this congress. >> you know what? it is so sad that this is what we are doing right now. i want to ask unanimous consent to submit into the record the wall street journal article entitled do not impeach secretary mayorkas.

let me quote a little from the article. he said, i can say with confidence that we are all investigating the house committee on home security has done, they have failed to put forth evidence that meets the bar. he went on to say, i do not agree with every policy decision the biden administration has made. there are aspects that are worthy of debate. but most republicans are ducking difficult policy work and hard-fought compromise. impeachment diverts from fixing broken laws and giving dhs the resources needed to secure the border. you know, i say that, i want to highlight this because this is a republican and the former head of the hartman of homeland security. one thing he and others has set, even though they might not agree with everything mayorkas has done is that he is a decent and

public honorable servant who has given his life to the service of this country and the fact that for political purposes, because this is what this is all about, this is the first time we have ever impeached a sitting cabinet member or try to. i hope at the end of the day it will be republicans who understand the severity of what we are doing here. to go after a good decent man and try to drag his name through the mud like this, i think it is unconscionable. we want good people, democrats and republicans, to serve in government. if policy disagreements where the basis for people to impeach cabinet secretary's, i would vote to impeach every single one of them in the last administration. they were horrible. but that's not how it works. let me ask if mr. thompson has

anything to add. >> thank you. i think the issue for a lot of us is that congress makes the law. the administration deals with the policy. all the issues that have been identified in this impeachment has a fixed congress can do. the secretary has to do it within whatever the law is. he has tried and had opportunities to interpret policies and make them work, but we need to provide more resources to the department. only congress can do that. we need to make sure that we have more patrol along the border. congress can do that. we need technology. a lot of those things. and one of the things that concerns me the most is that the

majority of the people on the committee who have had an opportunity to provide resources to the department voted against providing them. now you want to impeach the man because you say he is not doing his job because the border is not secure. give him the resources. a majority of our committee who has had an opportunity to vote to provide resources to dhs voted against it. >> i appreciate that and again, with all the things we should be doing, that we are here doing this, which to me is purely political, is really a shame. i am looking at what you guys have been working on. or not working on.

your committee, chairman green, has had zero full committee hearings on emergency preparedness, cyber threats, infrastructure protection, transportation security, homeland security management, or information sharing and intelligence efforts. only 14 bills thus far this congress compared to the 36 passed in the committee by this time last time congress had democratic control. instead, we are here bringing this sham impeachment to this committee today. i would urge may be for attention to be given to other matters that are clearly important for the security of our country. i want to close by going back to senator langford, and impeccably conservative senator, who said, quite frankly i was surprised some folks said it will take days and weeks to be able to agree to a bill that democrats

and republicans agreed to yet within a few minutes, he tweeted their opposition. after saying it would take them days and weeks to read the bill. he had a fox news interview and a key aspect of this is that we as republicans will have press conferences and complain the border is bad, then intentionally leave it open. during trump administration we had days of more than 1000 people illegally crossing the border in 2019 and they were struggling because there were gaps and loopholes in the law. mayorkas is carrying out president biden's policy. we can swap secretaries and the policies will be exactly the same. a follow-up to that is unless you change the laws. this is all about here today is not about securing the border.

it is not about stopping the flow of fentanyl into the united states. it is not about anything that matters to anybody in this country. this is politics at its worst. this is a marjorie taylor greene production. if that is the face of the republican party now, have added. i feel bad for my republican colleagues, many of whom i know no better. this is not what we should be doing. in defense of sec. mayorkas, he is a good honorable man and he does not deserve this. with that, i yield back. . thank you gentlemen. >> chairman green, congratulate -- i congratulate you on the whole the hard work you put into this. is there any additional information you would like to add? >> a couple of things i would like to address.

this is the second time cabinet secretary other times where one has been brought but one that was successful before that is mr. bell not and article three on his impeachment was simply he was doing a horrible job that harmed the country. i know we have had discussions about administrations and i am not making the case of impeachment about maladministration, we are making the case he is breaking the laws and it is interesting, we talk about congress acute -- executes laws but if you go back to the iran contra hearings it is the democrats who made the recommendation from the hearing said specifically the president cannot pick and choose which laws he wants to enforce. it is clear that this body writes the laws and they enforce them. very clearly mr. mayorkas has picked and chosen which laws he will enforce, many of which he

has subverted just the opposite. so those are a couple of comments to address. >> i yield back. >> the gentlelady from pennsylvania is recognized for any questions she may have. >> has one of the members of congress who has the honor of representing philadelphia, the birthplace of our nation on constitution, i take seriously the references to what the constitution requires and i have to agree that none of the sham impeachment brought by the maga majority are led by constitutional scholars. when the framers gathered to write the constitution, they spent months debating the contours of the document and our new republic. they created a government by and

for the people, laying out the executive branches and the system of checks and balances and while they deemed it necessary to give congress the power of impeachment, they were clear from the outset that they believed impeachment would be limited to situations that were extraordinary, solemn, and rare. if marjorie taylor greene and her colleagues cared about the founding of the constitution, they would be familiar with the debate from 1787 where the framers debated what would qualify as impeachable offenses. they rejected the idea that impeachment could be used for malpractice, maladministration, neglect of duty, saving that most extreme sanction for instances involving bribery, treason, height crimes and this to high crimes and misdemeanors. they would know that hamilton warned of the danger that

impeachment might be driven by animosities and faction and cautioned that it will always be the greatest danger that the decision to impeach will be regulated more by the comparative parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. isn't that what we have here today? a cynical, partisan impeachment divorced from real evidence of innocence or guilt, brought solely to score cheap political points. it is outrageous and real constitutional scholars and the american people know it. for more than a year house republicans in the chapel -- chokehold of some of their most extreme members have been gelled and to impeach anybody in the administration. they have been guided not by constitutional scholars, but by the demands the disgraced former president and his most shameless

followers, even if all of the allegations in the resolution were true, which they are not, there is nothing in the impeachment resolution that rises to the level of impeachable offense. instead we have a naked political ploy to smear a dedicated public servant because the former president would rather campaign on border issues than solve them and i am sad to say coming from this majority it is hardly shocking. the weaponization of our constitution and impeachment process of policy disputes after maga majority refused to engage in bipartisan proposals is unprincipled. it is shocking to see members of the house using constitutional

powers to intimidate public servants and take down political rivals and undermine the integrity of our country's institutions. members of congress must say where the loyalty lies, is the oath to the constitution or with the former president or the maga that runs the house. because that is the choice. i hope that this time our colleagues find the courage to choose the constitution but based on the proceedings so far, i fear they will not. ranking member thompson, i understand that homeland security committee took testimony which you reported in your dissenting views on h. res. 863. that was echoed in past impeachment hearing. can you talk about the standard for impeachment and what did the scholars say to the committee? mr. thompson: we had witnesses before the committee that basically said that impeachment is not a tool that can be used as a penalty, but it is clearly

and extraordinary remedy under the constitution if not a tool for policy or political differences. the framers never intended for the legislative branch to wield its impeachment powers to extort political powers from the executive branch. so what we heard during our hearing is just the opposite of what the framers intended and what the testimony we heard from expert witnesses before the committee. and just a reminder, the federal government has wide discretion on how to enforce the laws. the supreme court has not found to this day that secretary mayorkas has broken any law.

so for whatever reason, the high crimes and misdemeanor accusations have not been proven. and so we take a position in opposition to this impeachment resolution because of that. ms. scanlon: it is remarkable to know what is in the constitutional debate to hear what leading scholars say both in the testimony that you heard and in testimony we have heard in recent years, including from jonathan turley who is brought to us repeatedly as a republican expert that what is alleged is not high crimes and misdemeanor or impeachable offenses. this is a political ploy in search of a justification and doesn't meet the constitutional standard.

mr. thompson: we disagree as democrats and republicans all the time. i think it's how ultimately that things become law. those disagreements are discussed. but at this point where we are moving with this impeachment is far beyond what the framers inextended. -- intended. and i think it's being used to satisfy extremists in the other party for the wrong reason. we can differ. i have been on the committee ever since it was created. and i have never seen the committee move in this direction. historically we have been bipartisan. the legislation the chairman is referring to in terms of house bill two, we were not allowed

any amendments or anything as it related to the committee. they rammed it down our throats. and that's not who we are. when the enemy shows up, they do not ask about party. and i would long for the day for that kind of leadership to come back to the committee so we can start continuing to protect the greatest country in the world as well as the best and finest citizens that i know. and they are americans. ms. scanlon: i think many people across this country and across this congress share your desire. to not have things based on bullying, on my way or the highway, it doesn't work for my

constituents and i appreciate your testimony. i yield back. mr. cole: the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized for any questions she may have. mrs. fischbach: i don't even know where to begin. i am sitting here listening to the other side of the aisle talk about impeachment as a political stunt and other various things that they are calling to discredit. i was trying to take a few notes, cynical, politically driven impeachment, purely political, and it just seems very odd coming from that side of the aisle after what witnessed a few years before we were in the majority. given that, chairman green, they are saying it is driven by policy differences. you have developed a clear case of willfully failing to enforce

the laws that congress has carried out. when congress instructs the executive branch, is abiding by those instructions optional? >> it is not. it is the law of the land when we pass it. they have a responsibility, as i mentioned before, the iran-contra hearing, the president doesn't get to pick and choose. this memorandum directs d.h.s. employees to violate the law in terms of detaining criminal felons. the law is specific and lists the types of felonies and he told i.c.e., that is not a reason to detain. and those individuals are directed by the secretary to not detain them when they are criminal felons. we are not talking about people who violated the law coming in, but criminal felonies.

it is contrary to the laws this body past. he doesn't get to pick and choose. so, yeah, it's not optional. mrs. fischbach: and i was going to ask if you had examples you wanted to put it on the record. so i appreciate that because of your investigation, you are able to have the proof that you need to proceed. and i find it just ridiculous that they call this a political stunt and all kinds of things because you have the proof, you have done your investigation and you have done your work and made a solid case and i appreciate that. and if there is anything else you have to have to add. and i know there are a few more questions but if there is anything else, i am so disappointed that that's the tact that my colleagues have taken from the other side and i

want to make sure you say anything you want to? mr. green: this notion of what the framers intended and i have a quote from federalist 65, i want to go, you know, i know evenings are very busy and the guy that helped write the constitution, mr. james madison. he ran for congress. became a congressman and they were debating the formation of what would become the state department and the debate on the floor of the house, if we create this department, what happens if an untrustworthy person gets in the job? this is what james madison said. if an unworthy man be continued in office by an unworthy president, the house of representatives can impeach him and the senate can remove him whether the president chooses to or not. the founders insisted that congress has the ability to impeach unworthy cabinet

officials, not just president's. public officials who refuse to comply with the laws of congress and breach the public trust are the type of unworthy men that james madison called them who were worthy of impeachment. our investigation found at least 7 laws where he has disregarded. 40-plus times where i sent for information, he refused and not responding to the oversight responsibility that we have. we asked him four different times to come to our committee. and he said no or evaded. judicial rulings have said to stop doing certain things and he has ignored those court rulings. the separate branches of government was set up by our country to prevent tyranny and he is operating however he wants to. contravening the laws,

disregarding court orders. that's not what we should expect from a cabinet secretary and that's why i am passionate about this. mrs. fischbach: it truly is disappointing that our colleagues don't recognize that and can't see the facts there you've got on paper and you talked about the judicial proceedings and disappointing that they won't help us with that and make sure that the laws are followed. with that, i yield back. mr. cole: the gentlelady from new mexico is recognized. ms. leger fernandez: thank you, chairman. we are back here again with extreme republican politics, grievance, acrimony, chaos over governance. we don't want to become numb to this kind of behavior and this kind of legislating. we must condemn political

vengeance and trump's desire for political revenge every time it rears its ugly head. maga marjorie taylor greene filed 10 impeachment proceedings and censure motions. we should say no. reasonable republicans should say no. reasonable republicans have said no. former homeland security secretaries said that's the republicans have failed to put forth evidence that meets the bar. one of your colleagues, ken buck, said this is a policy difference. over and over again we are hearing that there is a distinction in policy differences do not rise to what the constitution calls for with impeachment. and to talk about unworthy men

is precisely an issue that then james madison went on to define. i would point out that after that discussion was had, there was an attempt to say mal administration, we don't like your policies should be a cause for impeachment. chairman green, your point about unworthy, james madison himself argued against allowing policy differences for being a part of impeachment. and i will quote this as he sought to defeat that constitutional amendment. he said that would be to be equivalent of a tenure at the pleasure of the senate. there was an effort to make sure there was a separation of powers. as our ranking member thompson pointed out, if you don't like

what they are doing, take them to court. if you don't like what they are doing, there are remedies unless it is treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors. the constitutional convention rejected a vague standard of simply unworthy and instead said i would hope my reasonable republicans would also reject this attempt. and i think it is very different of what has pointed out before. ranking member thompson, i need to tell you that i am so grateful, so grateful for the work you did as chair of the january 6 committee, because you shone a bright light for all americans to see in prime time and in detail how close we came,

how close the insurrectionists came to the members of congress, some of whom are sitting here today, and their staff. how close we came to allowing a president who had lost an election, who knew he lost an election, from staying in power. i know from watching you in those hearings how much you believe in our democracy, how much you have worked, as you have pointed out, during your entire tenure, the entire time, the entire time there has been a homeland security committee, you have been on it. tell us what you see when you look at what happened around january 6 and how close we came there and what we are looking at now with this mayorkas impeachment? mr. thompson: thank very much. i think there are sharp differences between this sham impeachment and the work of the january 6 impeachment bipartisan. the select committee uncovered actual crimes committed by the

former president. in fact, he is facing trial for some of them in federal court in georgia right now. those are clearly impeachable offenses. republicans cannot allege that secretary mayorkas has committed any particular crime, let alone high crimes and misdemeanors, and instead they are relying on vague and poorly written charges. the other comment i make is that in reviewing secretary mayorkas 'enforcement guidelines that were referred to earlier, the supreme court recognized that setting immigration enforcement guidelines is necessary and common. they sided with secretary mayorkas 8-1. they are saying you have to use the discretion of the secretary

to administer the law. it's not a, here it is, you have to do the best you can with it. and it is that discretion the court says the secretary has and it continues to rule in that favor. so, again, there is no bribery alleged against secretary mayorkas. there is no documented high crime or misdemeanor as we have had in other impeachment settings. so, again, it's people saying we are going to impeach him, and not using any facts that will hold up in a court of law. obviously, the impeachment will go through the house and if it passes, it will go to the senate. it is so unfortunate that the last time we brought it up was

148 years ago and here we are at this point 148 years later with what a lot of us think is, in fact, a sham impeachment. we can work it out as democrats and republicans. but the die was already cast before we considered any of the other so-called charges. one of the things i can tell you, i offered a simple amendment that the secretary afforded due process. and i was ruled out of order. and then i offered an amendment in the markup and it was defeated. i mean that's -- that's how we as a country got to our

greatness is assuming that everyone has an opportunity not just to face his or her accuser, but also have an opportunity to provide a defense. we made that effort to just set some ground rules consistent with the rules of every other impeachment hearing, and it was failed. so, it was clear when due process failed in the markup, i knew democracy was in trouble. ms. leger fernandez: democracy was in trouble. and i think that that's part of the concern, is that when we are using impeachment process rather than election, policy issues are for elections, that we are using this impeachment process for something that is not intended.

and the chairman referenced the impeachment. bribery. what was the real reason? it was bribery, is that correct? bribery? >> the third article was the failure to do his job. three articles. there were crimes, you're right. but our -- ms. leger fernandez: can you share with us what the crimes were? mr. green: bribery. ms. leger fernandez: in that instance, he was getting a cut from a traitor and living the lavish lifestyle, big parties, had a lot more money than his salary would intend. he was engaged in bribery. mr. green: he engaged in a crime but they also put a third article in there for failure to do a job.

president nixon did not commit a crime himself but had impeachment articles against him for being dishonest and not following the law. ms. leger fernandez: he was engaged in bribery. using president nixon, i agree with some of the actions president nixon did in policy. i mean to use nixon as an example. he resigned in disgrace. mr. green: using an example of the impeachment people. ms. leger fernandez: but i would ask besides talking about bribery and the salary as a public servant, did you receive any testimony that secretary mayorkas received any financial benefits? chairman? mr. green: that's not in the article, but the articles is him violating the law passed by congress with his memos and other things. that's not even in our article, of course not. ms. leger fernandez: progressive deborah pearlstein testified and

said impeachable offenses against the public trust are instances in which a public official is willfully acting for his own benefit or power or a foreign power. and she found no evidence of any financial benefit flowing to him. no political benefit. in fact our ranking member pointed out that this is a thankless job. he took a job for which he has been attacked daily out of his love for this country. so i am struck by the floor speech of the floor chairman, republican tom mcclintock who described this attempt at impeachment as a perilous path. he said house resolution 863 would utterly destroy the

separation of powers at the heart of our constitution. ranking member thompson, do you want to think that this is so dangerous to the separation of powers? mr. thompson: the framers of our constitution, as a number of people have indicated, spent a lot of time putting this document together. and i think they respect the separation of powers. and so we make the laws. and after we make the laws, we pass them onto the executive branch to carry forth. in this instance with the secretary, we do not give him enough resources to do a job. so he has to use whatever level that he can to address the problem. and so in trying to address the problem without the proper

resources, he's doing the best job he can, but he's not breaking the law. he is doing the best he can with the resources congress has provided. as i said, a majority of our committee who had the opportunity to vote on providing more resources to the department have voted against providing resources, and now want to impeach a man not doing his job when you didn't give him the resources to do it. ms. leger fernandez: republicans have voted against providing mayorkas with the resources necessary to do the job, is that correct? mr. thompson: yes. ms. leger fernandez: refused to entertain the supplemental appropriations request sent to the hail in october and now as we have heard they are trying to sink the bipartisan border bill because trump told them to sink the border bill?

mr. thompson: it is disingenuous to say the border is broken and when opportunities to put resources to address those issues, you vote against them. and then, we get word that the former president is saying he is against the bipartisan bill, but he is for the impeachment of secretary mayorkas. none of that makes any sense. we have to put resources that our men and women need along the border. the technology is so important. it is a force multiplier for security. in order to do it, we have to invest in it, and at every

opportunity. when we don't invest, we make that border a vulnerable situation. the secretary can only do with what the resources we provided. -- we provide to him. ms. leger fernandez: you keep saying it doesn't make any sense , but it does make political sense if you want to run on this and have chaos because republicans seem to run on chaos. sadly we do know what an impeachable offense looks like because the american people lived through what evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors looked like. we lived through evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors looked like when insurrectionist storms the, threatens to hang mike pence and kill speaker pelosi, they attacked us because trump wanted to delay and

overturn the 2020 election. that violent attack on our democracy led to the death of five law enforcement officers and seriously injured 140 other officers. that's what an impeachable offense looks like. that is what high crimes and misdemeanors look like. 179 republicans voted against impeaching trump for an insurrection they witnessed firsthand as they ran for cover or barricaded themselves in their office. there are too many of those same republicans who vote for this sham impeachment of a cabinet member when there is no evidence of any financial harm or crime. mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the january 30, 2024, "wall street journal" article "impeaching mayorkas means -- achieves nothing." a policy dispute does not

qualify as a high crime and misdemeanor. >> without objection. >> the op-ed points out that house republicans, quote, disliked how the administration is interpreting immigration law. but congress has failed, close quote. so they point out that it's congress that has failed to reform our immigration laws, as we heard from our ranking member. it's congress that's failed to provide for the resources that are needed. the op-ed goes on. "the wall street journal" is not seen by anybody, i think, as a liberal rag, it's a reputable journal, often described by some as conservative, i'm not taking a stand there but they end with this sentence. "grandstanding is easier than governing. and republicans have to decide

whether to accomplish anything other than impeaching democrats." grandstanding is easier than governing. i end where i began. that republicans don't seem to be able to govern. ranking member pointed out how little legislation has come out of this congress. pointed out how little legislation has come out of homeland security. we need to get back to the business of bipartisan legislation that solves the problem, rather than seeking to get camera clicks and impeachment articles written up when we know they're not going anywhere because there's nothing there. with that, i yield back.

>> gentleman from kentucky is recognized for whatever question he may have. >> thank you, chairman cole. ranking member thompson were you chairman of the january 6 committee? what was the purpose of that committee? >> to look at the facts and circumstances that brought about the actions of january 6 and make recommendations as to congress and that it would not happen again. >> it included things up to january 6 and also including the day of january 6? >> that's correct. >> is it true that the secret service cell phone records were deleted for that day? on january 6? >> i'm not certain that all of them. we had difficulty getting some of them. >> was your investigation hindered in part by the deletion of those secret service text

messages? >> we could have had a better and more thorough report had we had access to all those records. >> when did you discover those messages were deleted? >> during the course of the investigation. >> who was the secretary of homeland security at that time? >> no, when you discovered the messages were deleted. >> alejandro mayorkas. >> secretary mayorkas was the secretary of homeland security when you found out those messages were deleted. >> as best i can recollect. >> do you recollect making this statement with ms. cheney?

i will ask you to submit this to the record. july 20, 2022, statement by thompson and cheney on the united states secret service's response to january 6 subpoena. you said four house committees had already sought these critical records before the records were apparently lost. additionally, the procedure for preserving content prior that o this purge appears to have been contrary to federal records retention requirements and may represent a possible violation of the federal records act. the select committee is seeking additional secret various -- secret service records as well. every effort must be made to retrieve the lost data as well. do you still believe there may have been a violation of the federal records act? >> yes. >> when do you think these secret service records were deleted? >> they were deleted when

president trump was in office. we found out about it later. >> so, here is a statement of anthony guglieme, chief of communications for united states secret service on accusations of deleted texts. i ask unanimous consent to submit this for the record and i ask unanimous consent if i forgot to do it for the thompson-cheney statement. this is from the secret service themselves. before i get into that, i believe there were four committees chaired by democrats who asked for preservation of all communications including electronic communications of the secret service on january 6. this is relevant because the secret service works for homeland security.

correct? >> they are in homeland. >> some people may think they're in treasury but after 9/11 they were transferred to homeland security. here's what the secret service said about those records. it says that the o.i.g. requested the communications on february 26, after the migration was well under way. the secret service notified d.h.s. o.i.g. of the loss of certain phone data but confirmed to o.i.g. that none of the text s it was seeking had been lost in the migration. i think we later found out they were lost. but when he said this on february 26, the migration was underway. didn't say it was complete. that it was underway. now secretary mayorkas was confirmed on february 2. so this would have been 24 days after that, that the secret service themselves is saying they're still in the process of migrating.

now what the secret service claimed is that they swiched phones and phone providers and then deleted all of the old phones. but it seems, according to the secret service, that they were still in the process of doing that while secretary mayorkas was in charge of homeland security which is the umbrella over the secret service. so i forgot if i asked you. do you still think it appears there may have been a violation of the federal records act? >> the issue of that with the secret service came up when the ig was trying to get access to the records and did not tell us. that he was trying to get access to the records. we found that out later in the investigation. >> who kept you from getting

access? >> to be honest with you, a number of us wrote letters. four of us signed a letter asking for that information. but in reality, we were not afforded that opportunity to get it. but at the time we asked for it, the trump administration was still there as president. >> did secretary mayorkas hold anybody accountable for the deletion of those cell phone records? >> i'm not aware of that. >> are you still trying to get them? >> our committee has disbanded. >> so you're not interested in pursuing that further? i'm going to read your words back to you, appears to be con trary to the federal records retention requirements

and may represent a possible violation of the federal records act. i think if four committees of congress gave a preservation notice and the secret service deleted those communications, that's obstruction of congress. i think we should still be looking into that. regardless of when we found out about it. and frankly, regardless of who the president is. but it seems to me that mayorkas hasn't done anything about this. and according to the secret service statement from 2022, it looks like they were still in the process of deleting these cellphone records when mayorkas was secretary. i would hope that he would be as troubled about this as i am. let me tie this back. who is responsible on january 6, who was responsible for the health and well being of the incoming vice president? >> the incoming?

>> incoming. this would be senator kamala harris time. she was under the protection of them. >> secret service. >> correct. where was she on january 6? while all this was going on over at the capitol? >> i don't know. >> did you know there were pipe bombs allegedly present on january 6? >> i know there were two pipe bomb, one at the democratic headquarters and one at the republican. >> so you're in charge of the entire investigation of what happened on january 6, what led up to january 6 and you don't know that the vice president -- the incoming vice president was in the d&c when that pipe bomb was sitting there? >> we did not -- our

investigation was looking at the facts and circumstances, we knew that there were pipe bombs. i'm sure the evidence will say she was wherever she is but you know, i'm trying to get to your point. >> my point is, if this bomb had gone off just a few feet from her, this could have been the worst assassination since jfk . i looked at your january 6 report can you tell me what you , wrote about this pipe bomb and the fact that she was almost blown up that day? >> will the gentleman yield? >> not right now. >> it's in the report in terms of the commission. it's not in the 850 page document. >> so your committee kid did or did not investigate the

pipe bomb? >> i'm trying to figure out. we're not a criminal investigation. we were an oversight body looking at the facts and circumstances. we were not a criminal body to see who laid the bomb or anything like that. >> i'll give you that. but it seems like a lot of criminal indictments came out of the result of your investigation. but here's my concern. we unearthed the video, i don't know if you've seen it, when that second pipe bomb is found. and the secret service, it's a videotape of the dnc, and a person who doesn't have a uniform on, we're told it's a capitol hill police officer, found that bomb, walked over to incoming vice president kamala harris' detail, told them there

was a pipe bomb. now i believe that to be true, because i have since talked to the capitol police and one of the people on the scene that day. they went over and told the secret service detail there was a pipe bomb there. on this video, about four minutes elapse before the secret service responds. this is why i'm interested, i know you were very interested in at one point about the deletion of the secret service text messages but this is why i'm interested. i would have thought the january 6 committee would have been interested in the two most threatening weapons that were present on january 6 that day. but what happens is, a police officer, without a uniform on, but must have been known as a police officer to the secret service, tells the secret service there's a bomb over here. it takes the secret service

four minutes to respond. it takes them 10 minutes to evacuate kamala harris, who -- and this bomb is maybe 15 feet from the building that she's. and this is why i wonder if you are still the least bit curious about why secretary mayorkas has not followed up on the deletion of all these secret service texts. does it bother you that they deleted them? >> it bothers me that we did not have access to all the tapes. but it also is within the purr view of the o.i.g. and we don't have any say-so of as to what they do until they finish their report. to my knowledge they have not completed that report. >> there were four committees as you told us here that requested preservation of those secret service communications and they specifically said including

electronic communications. and then the credit service proceeds to migrate the phones to a different carrier and destroy the phones that were in their possession. part of this migration, at least part of this migration, happened while secretary mayorkas was in charge of the d.h.s. which is what the secret service is part of. and reports to. this is concerning to me. i don't know if i would have drafted the same articles of impeachment that we see here today. i think if you give 435 people the job you'd get 435 answers. but one of the things that concerns me greatly is here we had on january 6, what we're being told are, by the f.b.i. and a.t.f., viable bombs, within just feet of the incoming vice president, first

african-american female vice president in the history of this country, is within feet of a bomb, a viable bomb, for over an hour. the secret service takes forever to respond to it. and here we have secretary mayorkas who is over all of this, not on that day, but i'm not as concerned about that day as i am now about the information we can't get and the information that he hasn't tried to get as far as i can tell. and i've spoken to the o.i.g. about this. apparently it is still the word of the secret service that this stuff is deleted and it ain't never coming back because they didn't just delete the electronic, they destroyed the phones. this is concerning to me. i believe you were correct when you made this joint statement

with ms. cheney saying that there was a possible violation of the federal records act. and when there is a possible violation of the federal records act, in response to and in contravention of a preservation act from congress, which is trying to investigate this very serious event, i think it's the most serious but least investigated event of january 6. the fact that there was a a pipe bomb just feet from the vice president. and the secret service. they didn't find it when they swept the area, apparently. and they didn't respond to it for minutes after they heard it was there. but i am concerned that secretary mayorkas is either through acts of commission or omission involved in this obstruction of congress. you said it was a possible violation of the federal records act. i agree with you. i think it is a violation of the federal records act.

i don't think we've had such a clear cut case and i don't think we've had such a clear cut case of obstruction. so, i think we owe it to the people to get to the bottom of this. secretary mayorkas is no help. he's still stymying the o.i.g. still claiming that there's no way that you could get these records. these communications. and i think it's a very serious charge. and i would have included it frankly, myself, we sit here and we ask these questions in these hearings and they say oh, congressman, that's a subject of an ongoing investigation. we cannot answer your question. but when they say that to the o.i.g., we have another problem. these are the people that are set up to oversee what we're supposed to not be privy to. although i would argue we should be able to get that too. and i believe that your committee and the other

committees, of which there were four who asked for these records, were within their rights and obligations to the american people to get those secret service cell phone texts, but they apparently don't exist anymore and they disappeared when? when mayorkas was secretary of department of homeland security. i've got a real problem with that. do you want to say anything before i conclude, mr. thompson? >> i put it to you like that chairman green has subpoena power with our committee. if he wants to look into that, i'll support it. >> argue -- are you concerned about the lackadaisical attitude of the -- or maybe you aren't -- have you seen the discovery of the second pipe bomb? >> let me just say, a lot of

what you've said here today i have not been privy to. but i am of the opinion that if the chairman wants to look into that, you convince him to issue the subpoena. i will go with him.

which were never produced. and that's a real problem for me. with that, i yield back. >> thank you. the gentleman from colorado is recognized for whatever questions he has. >> i thank the chairman. first of all, i thank the gentleman, mr. massie, for reminding us of one of the darkest days in the history of our republic, january 6. and by the way, a day that ultimately led to a permissible and appropriate and prudent and necessary impeachment on former president trump was impeached for his conduct leading up to and of course including january 6. i find it fascinating that my friend from kentucky takes issue with the work of the committee apparently shows great interest in the work of the committee. i believe he voted against creating this select committee. to investigate the january 6

attack on our nation's capitol. a bipartisan committee that was led with great distinction and integrity by then-chairman, now ranking member, thompson. i think it's patently absurd to ask questions regarding what was a thorough and comprehensive multi-year investigation without giving the benefit to the witnesses of having the report in the evidentiary record to be able to answer the gentleman's questions. by the way, of course we're here on a completely different subject. the faithless impeachment house republicans have initiated against secretary mayorkas. i, for one, am grateful for the work that the january 6 committee did and for chairman thompson's leadership of the same. i have a number of questions with respect to the actual subject that we are gathered here today to talk about, but before i get into that, i do want to give chairman thompson, ranking member thompson, an opportunity to the extent he'd

like one, to respond and perhaps make any comment with respect to the gentleman from kentucky's soliloquy or diatribe or whatever you want to call it. >> whatever the gentleman from kentucky has uncovered, is still not too late to provide that information to the authorities and hopefully we can capture some people. and i would encourage him to do so. i think we all ought to be embarrassed at what happened on january 6. but we also should fear some of the danger that went on that day and i hope our report talks about how misinformation, improperly promulgated, causes people to do strange things including planting pipe bombs.

so if there is evidence somewhere between a.t.f., secret service, f.b.i., i think they should be made aware of the videos and i look forward to, if the chairman decides to move on some subpoenas with whomever, it'll be a good opportunity to add to the record of the work of the select committee. >> i thank the ranking member and again extend to him, i think, our gratitude for the work of the select committee on january 6 accomplished. chairman green, i want to talk to you about the subject we have here. which is the impeachment proceedings you've initiated and the resolution against secretary mayorkas. it's pretty clear to me, i suspect most americans who have

been watching this proceeding and who watch the proceeding tomorrow on the floor, that this is a total waste of time. it is going nowhere. and it is a distraction from the real, necessary work that congress needs to perform to address the consequential challenges that we face as a country. chairman green, i have an editorial here, i'm going to enter it into the record. the title is americans are the victims of impeachment inquiry. it is an opinion piece. the subtext is a lot of bipartisan legislation that enjoys support sits gathering dusk while congress focuses on the impeachment inquiry. i assume you disagree with this. >> i do. >> it's interesting. these are your words. this is an editorial you wrote five years ago during the debate about the impeachment of former president trump. it is written by mark green, guest columnist in "the tennessean." americans are the

-- local newspaper in your state. americans are the victims of the impeachment inquiry. a lot of bipartisan legislation that enjoys widespread support sits gathering dust while congress focuses on the impeachment inquiry. it's fascinating to me you changed your tune. i'll give you a chance to respond in a moment. mr., i will ask that this be entered into the record. >> without objection. >> part of the challenge for me and so many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle is the hypocrisy that unfortunately we see from our colleagues who argue one thing and then a week later, a month later, a year later, four years later as the case may be, in this instance, argue the exact opposite. now the chairman, or former chairman, ranking member, mr. mcgovern, asked you, mr. green, chairman green, a series of questions about process. and i want to give you a chance, you know, to perhaps expound on

a bit of this and maybe explain to me and the american public your thinking. is it your contention that you went into this impeachment proceeding with an open mind? you're not, i assume, taking that position, right? >> it depends on sort of the process, when someone becomes convinced it's the right thing to do. i can't tell you exactly the day when i said no, this is really, he needs to be impeached. >> can you give me a time period? a season? >> gosh, i mean? we started this almost as soon as we got into the majority. so no, i couldn't tell you when. >> it seems like you were about to say maybe springtime which would comport with the "new york times" article chairman mcgovern mentioned. and i'll give you a chance to, perhaps if you want to, again expound upon this. that article is from april of last year.

this is a quote from that article. quote, 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 mayorkas. saying that the secretary's appearance before the panel this week would be the beginning of his demise. end quote. so, this is before your committee has heard from secretary mayorkas. it's before you've had the witnesses that apparently have come before your committee. it's before you had any meaningful debate. you decide a year ago. that you are impeaching him. >> that's not what we said. >> is this article an accurate? >> parts of it are.

i have been inquiring about it many times. >> it is important to get to the bottom of it. the new york times says this is based on audio recordings of you at this event, and apparently mr. jordan the chairman of the judiciary committee on which i served, was also in attendance. if that is inaccurate, you should get it corrected, because to me it seems like, and as the american people begin to dig into this and learn more, what it will seem like 2:00 is that this process was rigged. was stacked. and i know that you and house republicans in my colleagues on the others of the aisle have taken issue when you believe that an impeachment proceeding is rigged or stacked from the very beginning. as this impeachment proceeding was. just to give you an example of this. in october 2019, your office issued a statement. following your vote against

initiating an impeachment inquiry against former president trump. the first four words of this press release -- quote, the vote is rigged. the next four words, the deck is stacked. that's why i will be voting no on today's resolution to formalize the impeachment inquiry against president trump. so, you take issue with a rigged process -- what you characterized as rigged back then. five is later you are ahead of this committee. you are apparently telling folks you weren't going to proceed with impeaching secretary mayorkas 10 months before you initiate those articles. i don't know how you square that. >> we started a five-phase process as soon as we came here. i will give you the five phases, dereliction of duty, the second phase was how the open border had empowered the drug cartels. the third phase was the human

cost. we brought in all sorts of people to talk about human trafficking and the deaths to fentanyl and things like that. we had a phase that was the costs. it is huge. 400 something billion dollars the open borders is costing the economy. the waste, the empty hotel beds. we look at this almost a year. to suggest it is an abbreviated rushed process that is fabricated or whatever -- i don't remember your exact words -- but that is not a fair characterization. this is been a very fair, thorough systematic process that is 400 pages long. >> let me ask about your five-phase plan. it is interesting. apparently some of these are misquoted. this new york times article --

five-phase plan it was not. >> that is what the intentions were. >> that quote about a five-stage plan and that homeland security would quote put together a packet and we would handed to jim jordan and let jim do what jim does best. that part is true. the part where it says proceeding with impeaching sec. mayorkas is falls? >> i'd have to go back and look at that again. this was month ago when it was brought up by my colleagues on the committee and there were aspects of that article that were not true. that's what i do know. >> i will move on to talking about the process. that press release i quoted in 2019 identified, your office identified a number of issues you took with respect to the process that the former president trump experienced in

terms of the first impeachment back in 2019. you stated at that time, this resolution consolidates adam schiff's power and cuts out the small number of members able to take part in hearings by moving jurisdiction to his intelligence committee. i know you understand this. the chairman of the homeland security committee, the judge dearie -- judiciary committee has by centuries of president been considered the committee that marks. right? i hear you. in this case, impeachment was done exclusively within the homeland security committee. >> 201 democrats voted. >> and apparently you take no issue with the fact that this proceeding was limited to the homeland security committee to a small group of members to participate. you took great issue with this same approach five years ago.

again, part of my frustration, and the frustration the american people experiences this sense of hypocrisy. i will give you another example. this was the most astounding of all. this press release states, i will quote, in reference to the impeachment resolution, it subjects minority subpoena authority to schiff's whims and refuses to guarantee that the minority witnesses will be called. representative thompson, did you have subpoena authority in this proceeding to call witnesses? >> yes. >> was that authority limited in any way? did it require approval of the chairman? >> repeat it again, the question. >> with respect to the subpoena authority that minority had in homeland security in this proceeding, you aren't able to call witnesses you believed were

deemed relevant, it requires the assent of the chairman? >> we had two hearings basically. we were able to afford witnesses, but that's it. we did not subpoena anyone. >> you did not have subpoena authority? >> no. >> as the ranking member articulated, in 2019, chairman green, you took great issue with the notion -- >> five voted against this coming into my committee just so you know. >> i appreciate that. >> we want to be a little more honest with everybody about the circumstances to which this was referred to the committee. it wasn't that there was this bipartisan consensus that we should investigate sec. mayorkas and send it to the homeland security committee. basically we were responding to an initiative by marjorie taylor greene. yet another one of her impeachment resolutions.

and the choice was either we snap impeachment on the spot or a referral. the idea that this is a bipartisan can insist to refer cap -- consensus to refer to the homeland security committee is not the case. it was either a snap impeachment or it was this. >> i couldn't agree more. again, chairman green, to the extent you believed ranking member thompson as the minority on the homeland security committee ought to have subpoena power, as you apparently believed five years ago when you voted against the impeachment inquiry against president trump for that very same reason. you could have easily articulated that. you did not. so again, that parker c -- >> we have a policy on the committee. we issue the subpoena. he never came to us. we offered every witness he asked to bring got to come. >> the resolution -- >> it is not necessarily a

subpoena but we asked for a minority on the committee and it was denied. >> it was not denied. we haven't posted a date on it yet. we are following chairman nadler's policy. that is exactly what happened before in 2019. >> your contention is apparently we will work the schedule and hear witnesses after you voted? >> as chairman nadler said, there is no precedent for it happening before the articles are brought. i'm quoting chairman nadler, of the judiciary committee that you sit on. >> these are the processes you wailed against five years ago. this is my point. i hear you. you are the majority. you make the rules, but spare us the sort of sense that any of this is intellectually honest. or candid. it is folks saying one thing one day and five years later as the

winds shift, another. in any event, i will move on. i thought the effort ranking member thompson and homeland security democrats made to offer an amendment that would've provided standard due process at least a bare minimum to sec. mayorkas in the impeachment process, was prudent. the fact that it was rejected by house republicans in that committee and opposed by you and every republican on your committee, i don't understand how that is justified. but that is for you to defend. ranking number to the extent you would like to talk about that, you are welcome. >> one of the fundamental tenets of democracy is due process. i was trying to establish some ground rules by which this impeachment, as it was going forward, that sec. mayorkas could at least have an

opportunity to present witnesses. to see what the charges were. basic due process. it was denied. in the first hearing. in the formal hearing, i offered an amendment to that process. plain and simple. every republican on the committee voted against due process. >> i think it is shameful. while i'm grateful to you, ranking member, for initiating that i regret that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle didn't see it the way that we do. i will conclude talking a bit about the substance. i use that word liberally. there is very little substance here but to the extent you can call it that, i'd like to talk about the actual articles. i read through the resolution that was marked up in the report, also the dissenting

views which i thought the latter of which were incredibly compelling. here is what i'm trying to understand. chairman green, you i know understand the constitutional standard for impeachment of federal officials, presidents, cabinet officials, and so forth, right? >> i think i do. >> what crime are you impeaching secretary mayorkas for? >> it is clear. misdemeanors from when our founders wrote it did not mean a crime. there was very little crime law back then. >> what offense? that's not a trick question. the standard under the constitution, bribery, treason or high crimes and misdemeanors. it sounds like you are impeaching him for high crimes and misdemeanors. what high crime and misdemeanor are you referring to? >> seven instances of basically subverting the laws passed by

this body. we said "child attain" and he created systems. he created legal pathways that don't exist. you can't just say i don't like the way the immigration laws are written. if you want to do that, you can come to congress and write the laws. >> i think what you said was subverting the law. that is the high crime and misdemeanor you believe he should be impeached for is subverting the law. what are the elements of proving that? >> there is no elements. >> how will you prove that during a trial in the senate? >> a memorandum from him where he actually orders his employees to do just the opposite of what the law says. >> i'm not asking for the evidence. i'm asking for the elements. let me explain this to you. you are not a lawyer by training. i served as one of the prosecutors during the last impeachment after january 6, i

stood on the floor the senate and made the case that president trump should be impeached for a constitutional crime. we laid out elements and made the case for why the evidence much of which we later further developed on the january 6 committee ultimately tied into proving those items. >> there are no elements to a high crime. there is no place in the code. these are the elements of a high crime. >> got it. your intention is passed a resolution of impeachment. walking to the united states senate say here is the high crime and misdemeanor, and if i say i have evidence to prove this crime or misdemeanor, i will not define what the elements are, i will not define the mens rea required to prove this particular offense, i will just say i believe he subverted the law and therefore, he is impeached. >> you should not some further the law.

a judge ordered that and he had been to law school. >> mr. green, all respect here. i can assure you, having studied the records of the federal convention, having read the federalist papers -- that's not what the framers had in mind. the notion that there would be this nebulous phrase high crimes and misdemeanors that would extend to anything and everything you deem a crime. with no definition as to elements of those crimes. that is not what james madison or the framers of our constitution had in mind when they conceived of the constitutional standard for impeachment. period.

a good faith attempt to lay out precisely what the offense standard of proof would be and the ways in which the evidence. i understand, 400 pages, you believe you have ample evidence of this particular policy violation. >> the law is written by congress. >> your own words, you believe policy violation rather than a break of law. i understand that is what you said. i am telling you this is not what the framers had in mind. i mentioned this exchange my colleague, the distinguished gentlewoman from new mexico engaged on a colloquy around james madison, and what he said during the federal convention. and the fact that maladministration was specifically rejected. >> i rejected as well.

>> and you as well. maladministration. you mentioned the five-phase plan at the beginning of questioning. you said dereliction of duty. do you know what this and in is if you google it -- synonym is if you google it? let me read my statement and you can respond. the synonym for maladministration, anybody watching can google it, is dereliction of duty. that has been your definitional narrative for this impeachment from day one. it is what you told this group that you attest was the underpinning, the first part of your five-part plan. the notion that this is not anything more than policy differences that have apparently been enveloped in supposing violations of law, i don't think the american people will buy it. >> i disagree. i will tell you this. if you ever come before my committee, i will never insult you for not understanding what a

procedure is for how diabetic ketoacidosis goes. >> i am not insulting you. >> i have read the constitution. and i am not an unintelligent human being. >> no one is accusing you of that. >> my interpretation of it. >> sarah, the impeachment constitutional standard is an exacting one. and when if in fact this impeachment is approved, i understand you are an accomplished physician. you have served our country. i have respect for you. i am suggesting if and when this resolution passes, managers will be appointed and they will have to walk over to the united states senate and give proof that in fact the constitutional high crime and misdemeanor has been committed. i'm saying that your report does not outline the elements of said offense and it not provide a clear sense, roadmap, to the country or in this case, to the

accused, the cabinet secretary you are trying to impeach for the first, rather the second time, in the history of the american republic. there is no reason, sir, that this is rare. there is a reason why no congress, republican lead or democratic lead, has tried to impeach a cabinet secretary since william belknap in 1876. 149 years. another president this republican congress is slated to break with apparently great pride. please don't mistake the passion that i have and my colleagues on the side of the aisle, for anything but a passion for the constitution, and a very deep concern for the way in which i believe it is being undermined by this proceeding. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the chair would advise the committee and our witnesses that voting is underway.