Bennie Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and service of Dr. Clinton Battle. Born in the 1920s, Dr. Clinton Battle was known for his remarkable medical service to Indianola, Mississippi that contributed to the medical field where he earned nationwide recognition. In the 1950s Dr. Battle received national press for his renowned delivery of first conjoined Siamese twins to ever be successfully separated. Outside of the medical field, Battle helped to revive the local chapter of The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), helping over 100 African Americans register to vote. He always inspired African Americans to rise during the Jim Crow era. Because of this contribution to civil rights and medicine, Dr. Clinton Battle has been named a recipient of the Civil Rights Trail Marker as a trailblazer for Civil Rights and his medical accomplishments. Dr. Battle's legacy and his contribution to medicine will continue to transcend time. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the late Dr. Clinton Battle for his dedication to medicine and Civil Rights.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, extreme MAGA Republicans have engaged in a cynical and unserious attempt to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas. Their report to accompany H. Res. 863 resorted to sloppy misrepresentations in an attempt to justify this baseless, political stunt. For example, the report misquoted Professor Frank Bowman, who testified before the Committee on Homeland Security on January 10, 2024. Professor Bowman testified that the Constitution did not support the impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas over mere policy differences. The majority report, however, twists a passage of Professor Bowman's book on impeachment and uses it out of context to suggest policy differences were grounds for impeachment. Republicans also tried to misrepresent Professor Bowman's writings during the hearing, but they did not afford Professor Bowman an opportunity to explain his work. I submitted clarifying questions to Professor Bowman to supplement the hearing record, but the majority did not transmit those questions to Professor Bowman before the legislative report was filed in the House. I include in the Record Professor Bowman's responses to my questions to make the professor's thoughts on impeachment over policy differences abundantly clear, since the Republican majority cannot be bothered to conduct a proper investigation with a complete record. Committee on Homeland Security, U.S. House of Representatives Responses to Supplemental Questions Frank O. Bowman III, University of Missouri Curators' Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Floyd R. Gibson Missouri Endowed Professor Emeritus (Academic titles provided for identification purposes only. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author, do not reflect those of any other person or entity, and are not endorsed by the University of Missouri.) Question #1 from Mr. Thompson: Republicans have portrayed your previous academic writing as confirming their position that mere policy differences may be a ground for impeachment. In particular, that ``displeasure with administration personnel and policy'' may be sufficient to warrant impeachment. Is that correct? I have never written that mere policy differences would be an adequate ground for impeachment. To the contrary, I join with the consensus view of constitutional scholars that ordinary policy differences are not a proper ground for impeachment. Indeed, this general principle is particularly applicable to a disagreement on policy between a presidential administration and a political party controlling only one house of Congress, and that by the very narrowest of margins. The quotation to which the question alludes, one mentioned by Chairman Green and Rep. Bishop, occurs in the final paragraph of Chapter 4 of the second edition of my book, High Crimes & Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump (Cambridge Univ. Press 2023). Both congressmen take the snippet of text they quote entirely out of context. In the referenced section of Chapter 4, I discuss the only prior impeachment of a U.S. cabinet officer, President Ulysses Grant's Secretary of War, William Belknap. Prior to the quoted passage, I explained why no cabinet officer before or after Belknap has been impeached. The primary, and obvious, reason is that, as I wrote, any cabinet officer ``whose behavior veered anywhere near an impeachable zone'' was simply removed by the President. Which is what happened to Belknap. He took a bribe. When President Grant found out, he fired Belknap. But the House, controlled by Democrats for the first time since the Civil War, impeached the Secretary anyway as a means of politically damaging President Grant and by extension the Republicans in the upcoming 1876 election. In the final paragraph of Chapter 4, I was, of course, not saying that mere ``displeasure'' with either a person or a policy is a constitutionally acceptable ground for impeachment. Rather, when a subordinate official has actually committed ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors'' (as Secretary of War Belknap incontestably did), Congress might elect to proceed with impeachment to signal its displeasure. Secretary Mayorkas has not committed any impeachable offense. Impeaching a cabinet officer innocent of ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors'' to indicate displeasure with administration policy or the officer's administration of that policy would be a profoundly anti- constitutional act. Question #2 from Mr. Thompson: In the past, you have written that impeachable ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' can be interpreted to include ``serious executive misconduct, including . . . betrayal of the nation's foreign policy interests'' such as when a president subordinates the nation's interests to foreign interests. Republican Rep. Guest suggested that you have written in the past about foreign policy differences as grounds for the first impeachment of President Trump--what you describe as Trump's ``rolling destruction of American foreign policy''--and that your past writing contradicts your testimony at the January 10, 2024, hearing. Are foreign policy differences an impeachable offense, and how do foreign policy differences differ from ordinary policy differences? I have written that one of the accepted historical categories of impeachable conduct, in both the pre-1787 United Kingdom and in the United States, has been ``betrayal of the nation's foreign policy interests.'' However, in saying this, I was obviously not saying that ordinary policy differences between a presidential administration and the opposing political party become impeachable simply because the subject matter of the disagreement is foreign, rather than domestic, policy. To the contrary, long precedent establishes that, in the U.S. impeachment context, ``betrayal of the nation's foreign policy interests'' has had certain identifying features. First, for impeachment purposes, a nation's ``foreign policy interests'' are not merely the transient preferences of a political party or faction. Rather, they are enduring interests about which there is a broad societal consensus, ideally one embodied in statutes, treaties, the practice of multiple presidential administrations, and (where applicable) the views of a nation's diplomats, foreign policy experts or professionals. Second, the word ``betrayal'' implies, not merely changing policy or adopting policy views contrary to one's political adversaries, but subverting the national interest for illegitimate, often personal, motives. British impeachments that illustrate these features include the following. In 1667, after an expensive and unnecessary war with the Dutch, the Earl of Clarendon was impeached in part for seeking payments from France to the British crown to evade parliamentary controls on royal finance. In 1678, the Earl of Danby was impeached for soliciting--on behalf of the English King Charles II--a bribe from Louis XIV of France in return for English neutrality in the Franco- Dutch War. Both Clarendon and Danby's solicitations not only undercut longstanding British foreign policy objectives and subjected the British monarch to undue foreign influence, but were a bald attempt to avoid a significant parliamentary constraint on royal overreach--the requirement that the Crown obtain ``supplies'' (i.e., funding in addition to the monarch's private wealth) through the legislature. More relevant to the present case are the American impeachments of Senator William Blount in 1797-98 and of President Donald Trump in 2020. Sen. William Blount: Blount, then a U.S. senator, concocted a scheme to enrich himself by giving Great Britain control of the territories of Louisiana and Florida. Blount's scheme was obviously contrary to contemporary U.S. foreign policy interests inasmuch as the American government and populace wanted to expand into Louisiana and Florida, or at the very least to prevent Great Britain from assuming control over those territories. In addition, the articles of impeachment against Blount charged him with violations of the Neutrality Act of 1794, and also with violation of the Treaty of Friendship, Limits, and Navigation between the United States and Spain (because his scheme involved stirring up Native American tribes to attack Spanish officials and interests). Not only was Blount's scheme undeniably contrary to U.S. foreign policy interests, and to multiple treaty obligations, but it was a ``betrayal'' in the most obvious sense. Blount tried to sell out the interests of his country for personal financial gain. Although Blount was acquitted by the Senate, the historical consensus is that the verdict turned on the decision that senators are not ``civil officers'' subject to the impeachment remedy under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. President Donald Trump: President Trump's first impeachment involved two articles, the first charging that Trump committed ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' in relation to his scheme to coerce the government of Ukraine into announcing investigations into Trump's likely presidential opponent, Joe Biden, and the second charging obstruction of Congress. The first article was captioned ``Abuse of Power,'' but as I have written, it ``braided together three themes . . . corruption, damage to foreign policy interests, and injury to the democratic process. As the first article of impeachment summarized the matter: ``President Trump abused the powers of the Presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal political benefit. He has also betrayed the Nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.'' The ``national security and other vital national interests'' alluded to in the article were the interest of the United States in supporting, militarily and diplomatically, a country threatened, and indeed physically invaded, by Russia, a longstanding geopolitical opponent of the United States, together with the interest of the United States in preventing Russian territorial expansion up to the borders of the countries of the NATO alliance. These objectives had been endorsed as national security interests of the United States over multiple presidential administrations through repeated bipartisan approval of legislation authorizing military and security aid to Ukraine. They were also endorsed by the entire diplomatic and national security apparatus of the U.S government before and during the Trump Administration itself. For example, when Trump's White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) placed a hold on congressionally mandated aid to Ukraine in the July 2019 as part of President Trump's scheme to coerce Ukraine, every relevant agency of Trump's own administration except OMB questioned the hold and supported military assistance to Ukraine as being in the national security interest of the United States. Thus, Trump's first impeachment precisely matches the template for ``betrayal of the nation's foreign policy interests'' described above. First, the foreign policy interests of the United States in that case were enduring interests embraced by multiple presidential administrations, endorsed by the foreign policy professionals of the executive branch, and manifested in bipartisan legislation enacted by multiple U.S. congresses. Second, and critically, the ``betrayal'' of U.S. interests consisted of subverting the national interest for illegitimate personal motives--securing a personal political advantage over a potential political rival. In Trump's case, the betrayal was doubly severe because it amounted to an effort to use presidential power to corrupt the democratic electoral process. Secretary Mayorkas: Nothing alleged against Secretary Mayorkas meets the traditional criteria for impeachment based on ``betrayal of the nation's foreign policy interests.'' The most that can be said against him is that he has executed the policy preferences of President Joe Biden in relation to immigration and border control issues and that the political party in control of the House of Representatives disapproves of those policy preferences. There is no indication that the Secretary's actions, or indeed the Biden Administration's policy choices, are contrary to established national foreign policy interests. To the contrary, U.S. policy regarding immigration and border control has varied from administration to administration and congress to congress as the challenges, needs, and preferences of the country have varied. More importantly, there is absolutely no indication that Secretary Mayorkas has taken any official action for corrupt or illegitimate personal motives. To repeat the central point, ordinary policy differences between a presidential administration and the opposing political party do not become impeachable simply because the subject matter of the disagreement is foreign, rather than domestic, policy. Question #3 from Mr. Thompson: Rep. Crane suggested that Secretary Mayorkas has betrayed the Nation, and that betrayal of the nation would be sufficient to warrant impeachment. Are you aware of any evidence that Secretary Mayorkas has betrayed the United States? And Rep. Crane further suggested that you said ``betrayal of the Nation'' is a potential ground for impeachment, whereas you actually said ``betrayal of the nation's foreign policy interests'' is a ground for impeachment. What precisely did you mean? I did not say in my testimony to the Committee or elsewhere that that ``betrayal of the nation'' is a ground for impeachment. I have agreed with Charles Black that one decent definition of ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' that covers most cases is offenses ``which are extremely serious, which in some way corrupt or subvert the political and governmental process, and which are plainly wrong in themselves to a person of honor, or to a good citizen, regardless of words on the statute books.'' Nothing alleged against Secretary Mayorkas meets this general definition of impeachable conduct. I have also written that one specific category of impeachable ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' is ``betrayal of the nation's foreign policy interests.'' In my previous answer, I explain what is meant by that phrase for purposes of impeachment and I demonstrate why Secretary Mayorkas' conduct does not fall within it. Finally, I am aware of no evidence that Secretary Mayorkas has betrayed the nation. To the contrary, based on the facts of which I am aware, Secretary Mayorkas appears to be a capable, dedicated public servant trying as best he can to carry out the policy priorities of the President of the United States and to manage the perennial and intractable problems related to immigration and control of the U.S. southern border.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, this extreme MAGA Republican stunt to impeach Secretary Mayorkas is baseless. The Democratic staff of the Committee on Homeland Security thoroughly documented the many failures of fact and law in the articles of impeachment contained in H. Res. 863. I include in the Record the key findings and introduction of the Democratic staff report. The full report can be found online at https://democratshomeland.house.gov/ download/homelanddemimpeachmentreportfinal. Committee on Homeland Security, Minority Staff Report, January 29, 2024. key findings Republicans are abusing Congress' impeachment power. Impeachment is an extraordinary remedy under the United States Constitution. It is not a tool for policy or political differences, and constitutional scholars and even some Republicans agree. The Framers never intended for the legislative branch to wield its impeachment power to extort policy changes from the executive branch, and they certainly did not intend for the impeachment power to be used to placate extreme factions of Congress. The Republicans' impeachment scheme is a sham. Republicans' baseless investigation into Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is a politically motivated sham to appease extreme MAGA Members and partisan special interest groups. This impeachment has never been about Secretary Mayorkas' record, as the effort began not long after he was confirmed. In their rush to reach a predetermined outcome, House Republicans have failed to provide the most basic due process considerations to Secretary Mayorkas. Secretary Mayorkas is upholding the law and honoring the public trust. Secretary Mayorkas has not violated the law, let alone committed ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors''--the Constitutional standard for impeachment. Secretary Mayorkas is carrying out President Biden's policies in good faith within resource constraints. He is following the law and has been responsive to Congress and the American people. Republicans are sabotaging Secretary Mayorkas' efforts to secure the border. The Biden administration--including Secretary Mayorkas--is working to solve the challenges at our border in an orderly, humane, and lawful way. Secretary Mayorkas has implemented new initiatives to stop dangerous drugs from entering our communities; cracked down on smugglers and cartels; and increased personnel, technology, and infrastructure at our borders. Unfortunately, Republicans are intentionally sabotaging these efforts by voting against necessary funding because they prefer a political wedge issue to policy solutions. Republicans are perpetuating challenges at the border to help re-elect Donald Trump. Republicans are using Secretary Mayorkas as a scapegoat for the longstanding challenges at our southern border. They are playing the political blame- game to deflect attention from their failure to take meaningful action on border security and immigration legislation and provide necessary border security funding. Republicans should stop this sham effort and instead work with Democrats to enact border and immigration legislation and provide the Department of Homeland Security the funding it needs to carry out its mission.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, though she sits on the Homeland Security Committee, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has raised doubts about 9/11 to the false assertion that 9/11 was done by our own government. She said that is all true. She also thinks Jewish space lasers cause wildfires. She fundraises off defunding the FBI. She is a person whose advice Republicans are taking today on this impeachment. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 863 and the Republicans' sham impeachment of Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Madam Speaker, what is happening here today is a travesty. It is an affront to the United States Constitution, it will do nothing to solve challenges at our border, and it is a baseless attack on a dedicated public servant. Republican Members of Congress, sworn to support and defend the Constitution, are rejecting the Framers' intent and over two centuries of precedent in favor of a politically motivated sham impeachment. Republicans have failed to make a constitutionally viable case for impeachment. Neither of the impeachment charges in H. Res. 863 are a high crime and misdemeanor under Article II of the Constitution. Impeachment over mere policy disputes was deliberately rejected by the Framers, and those disputes are best settled in our court system. In fact, the policy disputes identified in the Articles of Impeachment have already been addressed by the courts. The courts have either decided in the Biden administration's favor, or the disputes are still working their way through the system. Republicans are trying to relitigate court decisions through a sham impeachment, but the Constitution doesn't allow that. Constitutional experts testified before the Committee on Homeland Security that, for a breach of public trust to rise to a high crime and misdemeanor, it would require conduct intended to serve an official's own benefit or the benefit of a foreign power. Secretary Mayorkas has done nothing of the sort. Republicans have misrepresented the law and Secretary Mayorkas' record to justify this sham impeachment. Secretary Mayorkas has served our country honorably over 30 years as a prosecutor and in leadership roles at the Department of Homeland Security. He has been a tireless advocate for the more than 260,000 DHS employees working to secure the homeland every day. He has leveraged all the authorities at his disposal while using every resource provided by Congress to secure the border. Under Secretary Mayorkas' leadership, DHS removed record levels of migrants from the U.S., detained even more people than Congress had provided funding for, and prevented record levels of fentanyl from entering our communities. If House Republicans were serious about improving conditions along the border, they would provide the Department the funding necessary to do so. They have not. At every opportunity, Republicans have refused to provide resources to the Department of Homeland Security. If House Republicans were serious about improving conditions at the border, they would support the bipartisan Senate border bill. They have not. Republicans take their orders from Donald Trump, and he told them to reject the Senate bill. Republicans have been trying to kill the bill before they even knew what was in it. The Republican majority is running a do-nothing Congress. This sham impeachment effort isn't really about border security. It will do nothing to solve the border challenges we face. The truth is the extreme MAGA Republicans running the House of Representatives don't want solutions; they want a political issue. House Republicans want to distort the Constitution and the Secretary's record to cover up their inability and unwillingness to work with Democrats to strengthen border security. It is about Republican politics and subversion of the Constitution. Bipartisan constitutional law and impeachment experts agree the Secretary has not committed an impeachable offense. Former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff agrees, and even some of my Republican colleagues here in the House agree. The gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) said in a memorandum to House Republican colleagues: The problem is that [the impeachment articles] fail to identify an impeachable crime. The gentleman from California is right. I suspect some of his Republican colleagues agree, even if they won't admit it. Secretary Mayorkas has faithfully implemented the administration's border policies consistent with the funding Congress has provided, just like every other Secretary of Homeland Security before him, Democrat or Republican. During consideration in the Homeland Security Committee last week, Republicans improperly shut down the markup and blocked Democrats from offering amendments to the resolution. Republicans couldn't bear to consider amendments to their poorly drafted Articles of Impeachment. They silenced Democrats who attempted to inject a dose of reality into the chaotic proceedings. Yesterday, before the Rules Committee, Republicans again failed to make their case, relying on partisan rhetoric and obvious misinformation, because neither the law, nor the facts are on their side. The truth is Republicans' actions show they don't have faith in their own case against the Secretary. That is why they lack the courage of their convictions to see their markup to the end. This nonsense has to stop, and it should stop here. Republicans need to start doing the work Americans sent them here to do. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to honor their oath to the Constitution, listen to the constitutional experts, listen to your own Republican colleagues who know H. Res. 863 is baseless. Drop this sham impeachment. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, Secretary Mayorkas has invested significantly in stopping dangerous drugs, like fentanyl, from entering the country and launched several efforts targeting smugglers, gangs, and cartels. Under Secretary Mayorkas' leadership, we have more personnel, technology, infrastructure, and resources on our borders than ever. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, Republicans say this impeachment is not about policy disagreements, but every argument they make is about policies. Secretary Mayorkas has taken action to secure the border, but he has used different, more humane policies that are not impeachable. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), our Democratic whip.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, the border is not open. In fact, under Secretary Mayorkas' leadership, this administration has removed, returned, or expelled more migrants in 3 years than the Trump administration did in 4 years. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa), who is the ranking member on our Border Security and Enforcement Subcommittee.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, if my Republican colleagues were serious about the border, then they would drop this baseless impeachment and bring up the Senate's bipartisan border agreement for debate. Be that as it may, they aren't serious about reform. Speaker Johnson made it clear that the bill was dead on arrival before he saw the text of the bill. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez).

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, the Republicans highlight the Secretary's enforcement guidelines as an example of breaking the law. They fail to mention that the conservative Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said: ``The guidance does not necessarily violate a single word of the statute.'' The Sixth Circuit also found that the provision of immigration law that Republicans frequently cite does not ``. . . creates a judicially enforceable mandate that the Department arrest or remove certain noncitizens.'' Madam Speaker I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ivey).

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Illinois.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, 90 percent of fentanyl seized is interdicted at ports of entry, mostly in passenger vehicles driven by U.S. citizens and lawful residents, not migrants. If we invest in our ports of entry instead of pursuing this sham impeachment, we can scan more of these vehicles. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, daily removals are nearly double what they were compared to pre-pandemic averages. The vast majority of individuals encountered at the southwest border throughout this administration have been removed, returned, or expelled. Secretary Mayorkas is enforcing the law. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, Republicans ignore the fact that no administration has ever had the resources to detain all border crossers. President Trump released over 500,000 people without ever detaining any of them. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, if my Republican colleagues were worried about the impacts of migration on our local communities, they should support DHS' Shelter and Services Program. This is the only Federal program that can provide direct assistance to cities and organizations responding to arriving migrants. Instead, they are trying to gut this program and impeach Secretary Mayorkas, which would accomplish nothing. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, let's look at the facts. Since May 12, 2023, when title 42 ended, DHS has removed more than 500,000 individuals. That is more people than Donald Trump removed in any given year. The border is not open. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), the ranking member of the Oversight and Accountability Committee.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I remind my colleagues that they voted to terminate the COVID-19 national emergency and thus voted to end title 42. In addition, DHS has no role in ending this policy. Madam Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Magaziner).

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, despite what Republicans want us to believe, the courts at the highest level have not found that Secretary Mayorkas is violating the law. Courts are where we go to determine whether a Cabinet Secretary is following the law Congress wrote, not a partisan impeachment. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar).

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues won't admit that this impeachment is a sham, but their favorite conservative legal experts will. President Trump's impeachment attorney, Alan Dershowitz, accused Republicans of ``distorting the Constitution;'' and Republicans' favorite legal witness, Jonathan Turley, said that: ``There is also no current evidence that [Mayorkas] is corrupt or committed an impeachable offense. . . . `' Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, the definition of ``operational control'' in the Secure Fence Act of 2006 has never been achieved under any administration, including the Trump administration. This is not grounds for impeachment. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garcia).

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues are starving DHS of necessary border security resources while accusing Secretary Mayorkas of not doing his job. House Republicans refuse to consider the White House's $13.6 billion border supplemental funding request that would pay for more border agents and officers and detention beds. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).