[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 90 (Friday, June 25, 2004)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1287-E1288]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA

                               of arizona

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 17, 2004

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R.

[[Page E1288]]

     4567) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland 
     Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and 
     for other purposes
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I wish to state for the record my 
vehement opposition to this amendment.
  This amendment purports to deny funds to any state that permits 
undocumented immigrants to obtain driver's licenses or other 
``comparable'' identification documents and to deny funds to any state 
or local government that has passed a policy that limits disclosure of 
immigration status to federal authorities.
  Withholding funds from local governments and from our frontline first 
responders in local level would undermine their effectiveness in a 
critical mission.
  Local law enforcement authorities across the country have made it 
clear that if the federal government abrogates their responsibility and 
forces them to take on what is a federal obligation with regard to 
immigration enforcement, this will be an unfunded mandate, depleting 
critical resources of time and funding.
  The effectiveness of local law enforcement, and our safety, depends 
on their being able to count on cooperation from their neighbors, 
regardless of their immigration status. When local authorities are 
perceived as immigration enforcers, immigrant communities, who may have 
critical information with regard to homeland security, will be very 
reluctant to cooperate or even speak with law enforcement.
  Due to unfunded mandates and a neglect of real security needs at the 
local level, municipal governments and local police are already 
strained, and this amendment would increase that strain.
  This would undermine homeland security, and the safety of immigrants 
themselves. In particular, victims of domestic violence would have to 
decide whether they are willing to risk deportation before seeking help 
from authorities.
  This amendment would undermine security for all who reside in this 
country, and the safety of immigrants in particular. Immigrants who are 
victims of domestic violence would have to decide whether they are 
willing to risk deportation before seeking help and reporting abuse to 
authorities.
  The provision withholding federal funds from states that permit 
undocumented immigrants to obtain driver's licenses or other 
``comparable'' identification documents is similarly nonsensical and 
counterintuitive.
  I would think that those who rail against the presence of the 
undocumented in this country would welcome the opportunity to increase 
safety by allowing those who are undocumented to be identified by 
authorities. Allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain forms of 
identification would make the job of law enforcement easier, and allow 
immigrants access to necessary basic services such as opening a bank 
account. All other things being equal, it would be better to have more 
of the people who are in this country identified and to have as many 
drivers as possible obtain a proper license. Both of these conditions 
would contribute to increased public safety.
  This amendment is an attempt to blackmail local governments into 
following an agenda that would endanger their safety, by threatening to 
take away critical resources. The States that would suffer the most 
from passage of this amendment include my own state of Arizona as well 
as Alaska, California, Colorado, Washington, DC, Hawaii, Idaho, 
Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, 
New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, 
Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.
  I find it outrageous that a member of this body would suggest 
withholding critical funds, from programs such as the State Criminal 
Alien Assistance Program, Byrne grants, and many others, just to impose 
an extreme personal view about what local governments should be doing. 
This is not the time for zealots to push unfunded mandates through 
bills providing for the security of us all.

                          ____________________