[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 27 (Friday, February 18, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E319]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             FULL-YEAR CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2011

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, February 18, 2011

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1) making 
     appropriations for the Department of Defense and the other 
     departments and agencies of the Government for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes:

  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
Amendment, Amendment No. 199, to H.R. 1 ``Full-Year Continuing 
Appropriations Act, 2011'', offered by Mr. Poe of Texas and provides 
that none of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the 
Department of Justice, or any other Agency to litigate the continuation 
of the case United States of America v. The State of Arizona and Janice 
K. Brewer regarding Arizona law S.B. 1070.
  As a Senior Member of the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees, 
I have vast experience in dealing with the issues of immigration and 
border security. And as a member of these committees, I can 
unequivocally say that this amendment and talk of supporting state 
immigration laws is absolutely inappropriate. It is a clear violation 
of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution and the long established tenets 
of federalism, which grant the United States government the exclusive, 
preemptive power to establish laws on Immigration and Naturalization.
  It is necessary to oppose this amendment offered on the floor today. 
The Department of Justice has a federal mandate to pursue litigation in 
matters that constitute violations of federal law. This authority 
includes actions against states such as Arizona. The Arizona 
immigration statute appears to violate federal law and we must not 
strip the Department of Justice of the funding it needs to carry out 
its mission.
  The laws of the United States do not allow state-by-state legislation 
of immigration policy. If we allow states to enact immigration statutes 
and regulate and enforce immigration policy, we would be granting 
permission for the separate states of our country to set up a severely 
disconnected patchwork of immigration laws and policies that will be 
extremely difficult to enforce, invite discrimination and make our 
country dangerously unstable and unsafe.
  Our forefathers had the wisdom and insight to realize the importance 
of handling certain issues exclusively on a national level and saw fit 
to enshrine them in the Constitution. In this instance, we must not 
depart from the long established doctrine of exclusive federal control 
of immigration and naturalization. If we tread on the dangerous path of 
deconstruction of appropriate federal exclusivity in the area of 
immigration law, we will certainly force the federal courts to take 
corrective action and restore the exclusive role of the federal 
government in this area. Moreover, it would take a constitutional 
amendment and not the mere passage of federal or state statutes to 
overturn this long established legal principle.
  The Department of Justice must be provided with the necessary funds 
to continue litigation of its case against the state of Arizona. To do 
otherwise would erode the constitutional protections of our Civil 
Rights and Civil Liberties. Therefore I urge my colleagues to join me 
in opposition to this amendment. Thank you Madam Chair; I yield back 
the balance of my time.

                          ____________________