today it seems. so, we are going to do this in as friendly a manner as possible and we will reconvene at 12:35. this committee stands in recess.

>> the committee will come to order. do any other members wish to be recognized for five minutes to discuss the amendment? i recognize the chair for five

minutes. i will let him go, since i recognized him and then i will come back to you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. ivey, i am going to pick on you for a minute. i think, you know, i hear someone who really is stepping into what does the law say? what do the court proceedings say. i took note when you talk about the court yielding to the executive, what is enforced, and how it is enforced. you do not have a jurists document, and it for all of us who know that we did not have a king implemented in our government, our governments, that is really what we are doing, when we allow that ideology to be pervasive to allow the executives, how to enforce, what to enforce, you

granted them the ability to become a king. that flies in the face of party politics, we do not have a king. think about what john adams said. we are to be a, a, a government of law, not of men. what is he talking about? he is talking about the rule of law. think about men being the wisest of law, to secure the liberty and happiness of people whose manners are universally corrupt. don't you think it is quite ironic? we will go through these hurdles all week long. and you have a right to bog this process down. but we are using that tool to make sure that we have here to it and that will be respected by the chairman. we are defending someone who refuses to play by the rules. the alanis morrissette song,

from my youth, isn't it ironic, don't you think? in a moment. when we moved to a place where we are willing to stay, we are going to yield to the executive to determine what to enforce and how to enforce, regardless. they are not violating the role of congress. they are violating your congressional membership because you are the voice of we the people. when we pass laws, and we have bureaucracies that do not follow them, what are we up here for? what are we up here for, other than to maintain a position. i want to end with this. jefferson has an incredible statement. thomas jefferson, in 1820, he says to this gentleman, he said, you, sir, are basically asserting that the judges are

basically the arbiter of all constitutional decisions. he goes on to say, that is a dangerous doctrine indeed. it could lead to an oligarchy. that means absent the control of men. 3000 words, 2000 words, the executive is only 1000 words, because they understood the way that it needed to be left to the legislative voices of we the people. the simplicity of this, we pass laws, they have to be followed. and any ideology that creeps in saying, let them how -- interpret it however they want to, that is dangerous. i yield. >> the gentleman yields. i think mr. magaziner wanted to make a request. >> i want to include george washington's farewell address to the nation, in which he warned that unprincipled men will fail to assert the will of

the people and usurp the government, as we have seen throughout this impeachment process. >> the chair is going to entertain all requests to insert items into the record at the end of our business today. i will not be recognizing members for that purpose, at this time. does anyone else want to make a comment? five-minute discussions on the amendment and the nature of a substitute. >> i yield my five minutes. >> you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. ranking member , for yielding. i want to remind my colleagues, the portion that i read of the supreme court opinion, recognizes that directly. we do not have kings, we have

three branches of government. usually the supreme court resolves the conflict between the executive and legislative branches. but as justice kavanaugh pointed out, in the event that there is a political solution that needs to be pursued, this goes back to the opinion of the united states versus texas, which is now part of the record. congress possesses an array of tools to influence those policies. in other words, if there is a policy dispute, congress has tools and the justice continues the legislative process, senate confirmation, and then the election. with respect to whether this is a king or not, obviously, this is not a king, we have a hotly- contested presidential election coming up. i think, by any measure. i think the point for this particular measure, the supreme court says, these tools do not

mention impeachment. justice kavanaugh's opinion does not mention impeachment as a tool for resolving political dispute, i think based on the document entered earlier, that goes with the maladministration piece, the point there is, this is not for policy disputes. you do not use impeachment for policy disputes because it can get out of control. we want to make sure that we use it for very limited circumstances. >> gentleman, yield for a question? >> yes. >> is one of the tools available to congress, passed statutes limiting the enforcement of the date administration? >> i think that is what justice kavanaugh meant by the legislative process. >> okay, so, that is what congress has done. that is what the court is dealing with in the texas case and the issue is whether or not the administration has

blatantly disregarded those statutes, limiting discretion. so, how does the congress deal with controversy over that? >> that is the point he is trying to make with the other options that he is trying to lay out. >> this is an 8 to 1 decision. and the supreme court, the trump wing of the supreme court is in the statutes, even if you think they are mandatory, by mr. mccall's reading, they were. they are still saying, that these decisions belong to the executive. i will yield to mr. magaziner. >> i want to get to the issue raised by mr. bishop. one thing congress can do is appropriate the fund for adequate capacity.

what we are talking about here, is the secretary exercising his discretion, because the capacity of the centers has been breached. so he is exercising his discretion. >> will the gentleman yield? >> one second. just as the prior administration did as well, under the trump administration, 52% of migrants in detention were released by the trump administration, because they were at capacity, once again, they were using the discussion of the administration and the current secretary is doing the same thing. >> i want to point out that or civic, and the other company that dues -- do the i.c.e. detention have resoundingly been filled with empty beds. look at the numbers, as soon as secretary mayorkas took over.

those i.c.e. detention facilities, there is one that is going to shut, because they have five people and it holds 3000 in the i.c.e. detention beds have consistently been unfilled. i yield to mr. magaziner. >> real quick, again, the data shows, across the system, that the detention centers are above capacity, and again, the prior administration released people from the administration as well. how that was impeachable and this was and is unclear. he needs to yield back. >> i yield back, i apologize. >> the time has expired. >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman? >> for what purpose? >> i would like to respond to my colleague's assertion --

>> we have a q, i will put your name down, next up, mr. gimenez for his five minutes. >> like somebody said it, republicans are businessmen and women, and democrats are lawyers. i am neither. i am neither a businessperson nor an eternity -- i am a firefighter. we tend to look at things, not so much with shades of gray as business people and attorneys do. so, you know, there is a raging fire happening at the border. and that was demonstrated to me, pretty soon after the biden administration took over. as a firefighter, what you do, you tried to put the fire out. and then, you look for what caused the fire, and the fire was lit on purpose and i have

said that for a couple of years, this was actually done on purpose, and the biden administration and secretary mayorkas are using administration. you can talk about policy all you want. that policy is unlawful behavior. it is unlawful behavior that we are talking about. it is not a difference in policy. it is the unlawful behavior of the biden administration and secretary mayorkas that has led to the fire that is putting america at risk. not only is it putting america at risk, it is putting mexico at risk, because of the cartels, they are being enriched by the unlawful policies of the biden administration to the tune of where they were making $500 million per year, now they are making $1 million per month. and, so, the secretary and numerous -- the secretary has

always denied that there is a problem, but now even president biden says, hey, we have a problem. he threw him under the bus. we have had witness after witness after witness saying, hey, we told the secretary what he had to do, in order to stem the flow of illegal migration into the united states, and as my colleagues have so ably demonstrated, that spike did not happen during the trump administration. it happened integrity, 2021, right after president biden and secretary mayorkas changed the policy which is a clear violation of the law and clearly, contrary to the will of this congress. the only remedy that we have. the only remedy that we have is impeachment. for, for, the opposing side, they say, no.

it is discretion. if we write a law that says, hey, you will have to paint that thing blue when they decide to do it read. that is just up to discretion. no. would you violate the law. contrary to the will of congress , congress must act, especially when, when, when failure to do so puts america at risk. and so, again, i see very clearly that this fire was started by secretary mayorkas, issuing policies and that is a discretion to change policy. >> does the gentleman yield? >> i generously yield my time back to >> i now recommend ms. titus, for five minutes, to discuss the nature of substitute. >> first, i want to point out that some of those empty beds

are due to two policies. those covid guidelines went into effect under the trump administration. during a previous attempt, one of the very few, the acting secretary of labor, they failed at that. and history repeats itself. that, too, was a disagreement over immigration policy. mr. post described those efforts as mental wellness and high tension. well, i think that really describes what we are seeing today. mental boldness. they have no basis in law. but ms. taylor green said several times, we are not talking about the constitution here, well, that is pretty obvious. the high tension part, we have

seen our colleagues across the aisle, pontificating, fox news, fund raising, certainly, that is high tension. i bet our founding fathers are simply rolling over in their grave, as they hear some of the interpretations of what they said and did at the constitutional convention. mason, citing that as though that provision went into the constitution, no it did not. selective siting of madison, and not looking at the federalist papers that came later to explain the constitution to serve. this is what the american people want, this is what the american people want, you know, i am not seeing any polling numbers where the american people wanted to impeach secretary mayorkas. they wanted to solve the problem at the border, which we have a number of opportunities to do. there are several bills in this

committee that we could be looking at, involving fentanyl, and the senate compromise, and the budget that came out of the office of the president to increase resources. that is what the polling shows, the public wants us to deal with the border, not to impeach secretary mayorkas. how many can actually name him as the secretary of homeland security? this is demoralizing the people who work with bhs. you talk to one or two people, and we have talked to others, we have testimony. and it the people at the border need the resources, that is what they are telling us consistently. so, you know, i think that the work that we are doing here has serious consequences for the constitution, for our democracy, for the people who are working at the border on

the front line. and all for you to have some kind of political stunt, i think. and as mr. higgins knows, i think there is another saying, appropriately describing what is going on here, and that is shoveling the same old stuff and calling it sugar. i yield back. >> the general lady yields. i now recognize ms. lee for five minutes. >> on that note, here we are again, subjected to the characterizations with the validity of this hearing, they have referred to it today as a waste of time, a sham, a joke, a political game, a policy dispute, and even said that no serious member would pursue

these articles of impeachment. in fact, mr. chairman, the opposite is true, no serious member could sit in this room and look at the american people and deny the catastrophe of our southern borders. no serious member could deny that it is past time for accountability. no serious member can look at the american people and say that lawlessness is acceptable. it is acceptable to defy the other. willfully, purposefully, and with impunity. and that is precisely what alejandro mayorkas has been doing, all of this time. secretary mayorkas has indeed defined, first, the court of the united states of america. of course the states were fighting for the the states are fighting for the safety of their citizens, the security of our borders, and

his subversion is a way to get around the laws of the united states. he's been ordered to desist and he does not. he has been ordered to reinstate texaco, he has not. he has come to this congress and giving testimony before us that was demonstrably false, stating our border was secure, stating that he had operational control of the border would in fact, every person in this room , and i dare say, the vast majority of america, knows that is not the truth. he has misled this committee, he has misled the american people. this process, this committee's process and consideration of this day has been methodical, it has been serious, it has been thoughtful. we have heard from the men and women of local law enforcement and have heard the catastrophic and tragic effects of their communities, that this failure

to enforce our laws has caused. we heard from families who have lost their children, that's from frontal poisoning, stories of human trafficking, not only of americans that those crossing the border illegally that are being exploited. we've heard the stories week after week, and rather than call them a waste of time, as our democrat colleagues have done, we need to hear them and we need to take action because here is the reality. every single day that secretary mayorkas continues in his role, america is less safe. we need to control our border. we have seen the tragic and the recoverable consequences of this. not only are these articles of impeachment appropriate and based in law, it is our duty to ensure that the united states of america is a nation of law.

it is our duty to ensure that our border is secure, and it is our duty to ensure that secretary mayorkas faces the consequences of his actions, and the consequences of deliberately and willfully creating this catastrophe. mr. chairman, with that, i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields. i now recognize mr. jimenez for five minutes. >> thank you. before i go to my remarks, i do want to include in the record the presence of the house of representatives at the last impeachment of the cabinet secretary in 1876. i wanted to ask consent to include in the record presidents of the house of representatives on the last impeachment of a cabinet secretary, which happened in 1876.

>> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you. you know, i agree with my colleague who just spoke a moment ago. i want to see action, as well. i think that many of us coming in here, those that came as freshmen, we came from our district and told our constituents that we were going to go to congress. some of us came from state legislature, because we wanted to build on the work we did in the state legislature and get things done. as i address you today, i do it with a sense of urgency and i've got to admit, frustration. we find ourselves amidst a political spectacle that threatens to overshadow the critical issues facing our nation at the border. there are issues of the border. the call for the impeachment of homeland security, secretary mayorkas, is not only misguided, but distracts us from finding natural and practical policy solutions to the humanitarian crisis within our borders. for more than 17 hearings and

those who have been here through all of these, you know, we've heard colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about how worried they are about the open borders and how it is hurting our community. once in a while, some of our colleagues have even mentioned it hurt asylum-seekers. instead of working on solutions to the horrible and painful reality, republicans continue using our pain for their political theater. my colleagues say they care about the pain of our community. i've heard them say that. they care so much that back on january 18th, they brought mothers who lost their children , just to parade their pain in front of cameras. publicans lied to those mothers and told them that secretary mayorkas was going to be present during the hearing, even when they had knowledge that he was not going to be here. he had asked for a date that was agreeable for the committee and him. he knew he would not be here but they told them he would be.

my colleague say they care about thousands of migrants leaving their homes and dying in the rio grande and being inhumanely denied asylum, yet they celebrate jacobian laws that put in place -- that are put in place by republican governors. there is dissonance between what you say and what your actions are. instead of solutions, we are working on a baseless impeachment and we know impeachment is a consequential action reserved for egregious offenses that undermine the very fabric of our democracy. the charges against secretary mayorkas , willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law and breach of public trust, lacks the substance required for such a drastic measure. let us refrain from allowing political politics to overshadow the moments ahead. i will give you the opportunity to take action by the amendments i will introduce

that actually get us border security and get us to address the issues of those that are already here. i want to employ each committee member to rise above the political theatrics and commit to the severe work our constituents are expecting of us. let's stop weapon is in people's pain. let's end the theater, get to work, and find policy solutions that reflect the compassion and values we hold as representatives of the american people. with that -- the mike wilner gentle lady yields? >> yes. >> thank you. i appreciate your passionate words which are, of course, true. i wanted to respond because i know my colleagues don't want me to speak during their time, to a couple of the confusing arguments i've been hearing. on one hand, you hear that secretary mayorkas should not have changed the policies of the trump administration, but if he is changing the policies

of the trump administration, that means it's a policy decision. that's not a violation of the law. now, you can then argue, as i'm sure you would, that no, it's the policies that are violating the law. you cannot show that any of his policies are actually violating the law. you don't like them, you disagree with them, you do not like humanitarian parole, but there are specific case-by-case evaluations done of every single person. >> the gentle lady's time is yielded. the gentleman is not recognized. i now recognize mr. strong for five minutes a comment. >> i want to respond to my colleagues assertion about this being a political exercise. anyone running for president has plenty to run on. think about it. accordingly, high interest rates, economy, afghanistan

evacuations, fentanyl overdoses, $34 trillion national debt, loss of energy independence, use of the strategic petroleum reserve, crime rates, failure to respond to iranian attacks on u.s. troops, cocaine founded the biden west wing, grocery prices of 21% on every american, gas and energy costs through the roof for all americans, and the democrat push for ev's on americans. you look at it, over 8.3 million illegal border crossings, 7 million encounters of the southern border, 474,046 unaccompanied minors, 2.3 million migrants released at the border, 1.8 million known got a ways, fentanyl seized at

the southern border, 300 and -- 361 individuals on the terrorist watch list stopped trying to cross the border, 40% of catch and release migrants have disappeared, hundred thousand encounters every single month, 13 billion estimated cartel profits in 2021 just off human smuggling, 40% increase encounters in border at -- encounters at the border. of the 300,000 children placed with sponsors or family members in the u.s., 85,000 have gone missing as of july, 2023. the smuggling of children to america is the number one issue facing americans. there's a laundry list of failures.

the secretary of homeland security failed to comply with u.s. law and the answer is clear in the catch and release, cease to the exploitation of parole authority, reinstate remain in mexico, expand and expedite removal authority. the coronation of dhs is to ensure a home and that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other potential threats. no one on this dais believes america is safe, secure, or resilient against terrorism or other threats. this month, 10 retired fbi leaders and counterintelligence expert, who together served under seven different presidents, sent a letter to congress on january 17th about the dire threat that secretary mayorkas's border crisis has brought to the u.s. they wrote in part, "it would be difficult to overstate the danger represented by the presence

inside our borders of what is comparatively a multi-division army of young, single adult males, from multiple nations and regions whose background intends to do damage to america." they are not just coming from a couple different countries, they are coming to america from 160 different countries. they are flying into mexico to come across. they are coming from everywhere in this world. it's unacceptable and i promise the people of america have had all they can stand mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i now recognize mr. pain for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i strongly oppose the articles of impeachment offered by the majority, here,

today. let's talk about the motivations to bring these articles of impeachment to be marked up . they claim it's about law and order, however, the two articles we are considering, today, fail to meet the bar of article two, section 4 of the united states constitution. this little document set the basis for our democracy. this document, here. at times, i wonder if some of you have even looked at this, but if need be, i can have one sent to your office. article two, section 4 states

that the president, vice president, and all civil officers of the united states shall be removed from office, and impeached -- on impeachment or conviction of treason. is there any indication that secretary mayorkas has committed treason? bribery. has there been any indication that secretary mayorkas has accepted money or even legal -- for illegals coming across the border? high crimes and misdemeanors. nothing applies. you can continue to dismiss it. in the constitution, it's interesting how we can ignore the constitution at times, but then when it presents itself to your need to cite it, the

accusations levied against secretary mayorkas in these articles amounts to nothing but more than policy disagreements. then let's work on policy. let's work on policy. if there is a problem, let's give secretary mayorkas the tools he needs. you are unwilling. the senate republicans are willing to work with it, but you've got the tater, one day, telling you not to go along with it. there isn't anything regarding treason, robbery, or high crimes and misdemeanors. secretary mayorkas has carried out his duties and responsibilities with unwavering dedication to the public trust. you may disagree with that, so let's have that discussion.

let's work on the policy that will make it better. he has not broken the law and he has not done the best he can to keep order given the tools the majority has provided with him -- him with, in terms of resources and tools to humanely address the issues along the southern border. it is not about the law and order. maybe it's about policy. as democrats, we laid out, over the past few hearings, that impeachment is a political tool that will fail to solve any issues that requires the policy solutions. once secretary mayorkas is gone, does that mean everything is okay? is that the real issue? or, do problems persist? it's nothing more than a political stunt on an issue

that requires serious policy solution. building a wall with taxpayer dollars is not a serious policy solution. closing our borders in an attempt to ensure no immigrants seeking asylum, and is not a serious policy solution. starving our border patrol personnel of resources that they need to protect the homeland is not a serious policy solution. we should come together and find reasonable, humane, and equitable proposals to address this complex issue and put forth a serious policy solution that upholds our values as a country and society. instead, we have chairman greene and marjorie taylor greene and other members -- >> your time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired

. the gentleman is not recognized. i now recognize mr. gonzales for his five minutes of discussion. >> thank you, mr. chairman. one of the best things about congress is we all represent districts across the country and we have debate and i think that's very positive. one of the most difficult things about congress is it's filled with lawyers and they will talk all day about this, that, or the other, which is frustrating to many americans. this is what going to happen. the house of representatives is going to impeach secretary mayorkas and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to stop it. that's going to happen. in my district, in texas, we are feeling this. in arizona, they are feeling it. in california, they are feeling it. there's not one district in america that's not impacted by this border crisis. i would like to focus on what happens next. what are we going to do after this? are we going to have a

conversation on how we secure the border or are we going to continue to blame others for everything? i would like to see this border secured in a manner that protects everybody and i do think there's an opportunity to do that. i look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come up with a conclusion that makes america on the track of keeping people safe and secure. with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields. i don't have anyone else in the queue. is there anyone else who would like to speak? okay. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will yield my time. >> thank you. it's funny that members of congress would want to focus on the law, given that our job is to write the laws, interpret

the constitution, and to implement, as in past lives. it's crazy to have so many lawyers here who, when we are dealing with laws every day. what we do not have is anyone on the other side of the aisle that seems to understand what a high crime and misdemeanor is. i know that's part of the law, so you don't want to talk about that. it is the requirement for impeachment. now, we agree on a lot of things that have been said, today, as surprising as that may be. the situation at the border is untenable. migration patterns have dramatically changed over the last five years. it started in the middle of president trump's administration , as migrants were coming more and more to the border. not every single person who came over without documents was

deported under the previous administration, and in fact, that has never happened. if you are going to impeach secretary mayorkas because you say that he fails to adhere to the letter of the law under operational control, then you better impeach every single secretary of homeland security during the past five administrations and will be going forward, because it's an impossible standard with the resources that they have. we have not increased the resources that the department of homeland security needs to actually stop every single person from coming over the border. i hear a lot of other things about different ways -- >> i'm sorry, but you did not yield to me so i will continue. i will mention one thing, you mentioned that horrific story of

53 people who died, effectively by heat and suffocation south of san antonio. it's absolutely horrible, and if you had evidence that secretary mayorkas was working with the driver of that truck who abandoned them and left them there, you would definitely have good evidence of an impeachable offense, but the notion that you would say that the cabinet secretary who oversees 260,000 employees is somehow willfully and intentionally responsible for that single incident is preposterous. secretary mayorkas has not , has not disregarded any court order. not one. not one. certainly he was not ordered to return the remaining lexical

policy as one of my colleagues said. he has not defied any court order. you have gone to the court to try to prevent him from doing his job, that's true, and there have been judges who entered preliminary orders. he has adhered to the law in every way he's been required to do. ultimately, as mr. mccall said at the beginning, what you are upset about is that secretary mayorkas rescinded prior executive orders that were working and you have a right to be upset about that. you have a right to talk about that. you have a right to express your dissatisfaction in any way you choose. you have a right to make that case to the american people so that they vote secretary mayorkas and this president out of office in november, if that's ultimately what the

people believe, but you do not have a right to demean this institution, to pasteurize the impeachment clause of the constitution, to belittle the standards of constitutional impeachment to such a degree that you cannot even produce a legal memo in support of your articles of impeachment that do not exist in history, and do not exist in the law. if, in fact, as you allege, there were false statements made to congress for obstruction of congress, those are crimes. you could have charged him with those but you did not want to because you knew you could not actually prove them. you just want to make the allegation and concoct some crazy breach of public trust that does not exist. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i yield back. >> i recognize mr. bishop for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i'm glad to have the opportunity to take issue with the gentleman from new york, but before i do, let's look at the news. there's not much news about these articles of impeachment. we've been moving toward this process with great deliberation for months. it's not a surprise. let me tell you what the news is. the news is that mr. goldman just said the situation at the border is untenable. the news is that on january 20th, the president of the united states when asked by white house correspondent, jacqui heinrich, if the border is secure, he said "no, it's not." he said he has not believed that for the last 10 years. i've set it for the last 10 years. we've heard many members talk about suppose it hypocrisy.

i've got to tell you something, we have been saying the same thing this entire administration , from the beginning, from january 2021 when the president dispose of multiple policies at the border that have been the most successful in history for containing illegal immigration, rejected them wholesale. ever sense -- ever since members of this committee have been trumpeting how successful this has been. it's been great. chairman green has materials released that includes 32 statements, 32 statements. by the secretary of homeland security. asserting that the border is secure and that we have operational control of the border. march, 2021. i want to repeat my assurance to our audience this morning that the border is in fact, secure.

september 2021, senator ron johnson, you have repeatedly stated that our borders are not open, they are closed. do you honestly believe that? let me speak to that. july, 2022, simple question, do you think it's working? secretary mayorkas said he thinks they are doing a good job. november, 2022, secretary mayorkas, do you continue to maintain that the border is secure? secretary mayorkas said yes. it goes on and on. 32 times. suddenly, mr. goldman, and others have said it, it's not tenable. maybe it's because eric adams of new york said you are destroying new york city. maybe it's because the mayor of chicago said you've got to send more money, we are in crisis, or denver, or any other number of democrat run cities. that's the news. that's the news. this impeachment, these articles of impeachment present a narrow question, which no one

wants to seem to follow the line of reasoning long enough to get to. the supreme court said in the united states versus texas, that congress, 20 years ago, mandated restriction of the administrations process doyle -- prosecutorial authority. in certain cases you will be detained and detained until you have been removed. secretary mayorkas has brazenly flouted and disobeyed those laws. those saturable laws, statutory law. he wrote guidelines that said it shall not be a basis to detain anyone, if they are in, just because they are in those categories that congress declared in law. that's what happened. over and over again. the articles of impeachment specify seven separate

statutory commands by congress that secretary mayorkas has similarly flouted and brazenly disobeyed. i asked the question, if someone wants to take it up, if the congress does not impeach, what indeed is the remedy? >> i would love to take it up. >> i've got 37 seconds, you'll have plenty of time to address it and i'm glad, but what is the remedy? justice alito made it clear, congress can impeach. congress can do something. congress could caught off -- cut off the money, but there are limits to what they can do. that's the question. whether congress has any power to restrict the discretion of the executive. the supreme court seems to think it does, but they've said, we are not the form to vindicate those restrictions. that is what this process is about. it's about vindicating the rule of law and our

constitutional system. >> the gentleman yields. we are now up against vote, so we are going to recess until 15 minutes after the last vote. we are in recess.