[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 13, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H331-H341]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Chairwoman, I want to make it clear that I support the original
bipartisan Homeland Security bill and oppose the majority's radical
anti-immigrant amendments. These amendments pollute the bipartisan bill
both Republicans and Democrats have carefully crafted to protect the
American people.
Our clean Homeland Security bill provides the funds needed to protect
our country. It invests in border security and prioritizes the
detention and deportation of dangerous criminals.
The clean, bipartisan Homeland Security bill provides funds for new
grants to State and local first responders, who are our first line of
defense against homegrown terrorism. It invests in the Coast Guard's
eighth National Security Cutter and additional Fast Response Cutters to
help protect our ports. The bill also provides critical funds to hire
new Secret Service agents to make essential security improvements at
the White House.
These are just a few examples of why this bill is so important.
Unfortunately, instead of bringing the clean, bipartisan bill for a
vote, the majority is proposing several poison pill amendments that
will jeopardize the bill's ability to become law. It is unconscionable
to put our Nation's security at risk simply for the purpose of
appeasing those who want to undermine President Obama's reasonable and
lawful executive action to fix our broken immigration system in light
of the fact that this House has not acted.
Current funding for DHS is set to run out at the end of February. The
recent horrors in Paris are the latest reminder of why America needs
Congress to pass the negotiated bipartisan Homeland Security bill that
can become law and defeat the anti-immigrant poison pill amendments
being proposed by the majority.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendments and to vote
``yes'' on the original bill to protect the homeland, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann), a member of our
subcommittee.
Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the 2015
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. Our subcommittee
has worked diligently on this legislation, and I want to thank Chairman
Carter and the entire staff for countless hours they have put in
crafting the bill before us today. This legislation prioritizes our
national security and strengthens border security, while addressing
numerous issues that have arisen in the past year.
Last year, tens of thousands of unaccompanied alien children entered
the United States illegally while the administration sat on its hands.
Rather than deal with the crisis, the President further exacerbated the
problem and encouraged more people to try to bypass the legal
immigration process when he granted executive amnesty to millions of
illegal immigrants.
Today, the House has the opportunity to correct these mistakes by
passing this legislation. In addition to the responsible and deliberate
funding levels laid out in the bill, House Republicans are offering key
amendments to completely defund the President's executive actions and
restore order to the legal administration process by ensuring that
those who came here illegally will not be allowed to bypass those who
sought to come here through the right and legal way.
I urge my colleagues to vote for these provisions and the underlying
bill.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chairwoman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Madam Chairwoman, I rise to thank my colleagues on the Appropriations
Committee. I am a ranking member also. I know what type of work it
takes to put together a $39.7 billion expenditure to protect all of the
entities of domestic homeland security. It is a good bill. It was
worked out last year. For all the new Members coming, I am shocked that
they have to go through this learning process about how we take a good
thing and screw it up.
This bill has bipartisan support. I think if we voted on it tonight,
the underlying bill would pass overwhelmingly. I don't even know if
there would be a negative vote. But tomorrow morning on this floor
amendments are going to be made to this bill. I understand the other
side already has them, and I wish the people who are thinking about
voting for those amendments and those that are proposing them had
listened to the people that we are funding in Homeland Security,
because the last thing they would tell you is that America is going to
be less secure with those amendments.
There isn't going to be a college campus or university that isn't
going to be in revolt when you try to deport the students who are
there. Your wives, your families are going to be upset when you try to
deport your gardener or somebody taking care of your house. Our faith-
based communities are going to be hiding these people from deportation.
You are coming in and creating this ugly government that is going to
go around and round up people who have not committed a crime and deport
them.
{time} 1915
That doesn't make America more secure. In fact, it makes us ugly all
over the world. So, I can't, for the life of me--when we go to such
hard work to get such a great, balanced bill, to spend $39.7 billion on
the Department of Homeland Security, then want to make sure that it
doesn't work.
The President has said he is going to veto it. He is going to veto it
because you are mad at him for providing leadership.
Thank you, Mr. President, for providing that leadership. The House
should have joined with the Senate and adopted a comprehensive
immigration bill, but we didn't. We sat on that for 2 years, did
absolutely nothing, and now we are attacking you.
Shame, shame on the House. Defeat those amendments.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a member of our committee.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
fiscal year 2015 Homeland Security Appropriations Act, as well as the
amendments that will be offered to put the brakes on President Obama's
executive overreach on illegal immigration.
My constituents are depending on the House and the Senate to send a
strong message to the White House that their attempt to grant amnesty
through executive action is an affront to the democratic process that
has served our Nation well for more than 200 years.
The reason people are fleeing from south to north is that this side
of the border, we have the rule of law, not men.
I want to thank Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairman John Carter,
Chairman Hal Rogers, and the rest of my colleagues on the
Appropriations Committee for putting together a responsible bill that
provides the funds for our Homeland Security personnel and the need to
carry out their mission.
Specifically, the bill provides significant funding for our Border
Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement to ensure both agencies
have the ability to stem large flows of illegal immigration like we
witnessed last summer in Texas.
Another important tool in tackling illegal immigration is the
increased use of E-Verify, which remains the only and best way for
employers to confirm that the employees that they hire are in this
country legally. The underlying bill contains full funding
[[Page H332]]
for the E-Verify funding and will allow employers to continue to use
this program in a free and efficient manner.
When it comes to patrolling our land, air, and sea, Homeland Security
officials consistently rely on the awareness and insights that are
provided by assets operated by the Air and Marine Operations Center, or
AMOC. In fact, AMOC, which is located in Riverside County, California,
is the Nation's only Federal law enforcement center tasked to
coordinate interdiction operations in the Western Hemisphere.
The FY15 bill fully funds the operations of AMOC and ensures that our
law enforcement agencies will continue to benefit from their
contributions.
Again, I want to thank Judge Carter for his leadership, and I
encourage all of my colleagues to vote for the FY15 Homeland Security
Appropriations bill.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to
the FY 2015 Homeland Security Appropriations Act because House
Republicans are littering the bill with provisions that have nothing to
do with homeland security but have everything to do with harming
families and keeping our immigration system dysfunctional, risking our
national security in the process.
I too serve as a ranking member on the Appropriations Committee and
craft a bill and work in a bipartisan spirit, and I had an opportunity
to work in a bipartisan spirit on this bill as well. So it is truly
unfortunate that this bill is being poisoned by amendments that are
really going to jeopardize our national security.
I reluctantly stand in opposition because the overall bill is ``must-
pass'' legislation, and it includes very important measures to bolster
our national security, including additional funding that I fought for
and secured to protect children from online predators.
Many of my colleagues are in a similar situation; too many poison
pills are set to be slipped in that make this legislation's passage
unacceptable.
House Republicans are willfully driving us toward a partial
government shutdown that jeopardizes our security at home, all just for
the chance to further destabilize our immigration system, make it
harder to secure the border, punish young people who have known no
other country other than this one, and separate families in the
process.
Now, how did we get here?
Because the extreme elements of the GOP became apoplectic when the
President announced that he would move ahead with his legal executive
actions to fix our broken immigration system. And everyone will recall,
of course, that he did so due to this body's repeated unwillingness to
pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation.
Now, as we debated the so-called CR/Omnibus legislation last year,
House Republicans put their cards on the table with temporary DHS
funding. And with this bill being debated today, they are ready to
gamble on our Nation's security and America's safety to satisfy their
rightwing base.
This is not governing in good faith at the outset of a new Congress,
with the opportunity we have to set aside differences and work together
for the betterment of the country.
And this isn't just politics as usual from the other side of the
aisle. Some of it is alarmingly personal and targeted.
Part of the President's executive action is intended to keep families
together and support the educational and employment aspirations of
millions of undocumented individuals.
Some of the amendments attached to this bill would, in fact, tear
families apart, deporting thousands of so-called DREAMers and even
revictimizing women already subjected to domestic violence by targeting
them for removal.
The point of these games is to satisfy the anti-immigrant, extremist
elements within the Republican party. But to what end?
Where is the sense of reality?
Though he has flip-flopped several times on the issue, even former
Governor Jeb Bush, from my home State of Florida, has said as far back
as 10 years ago that a policy that ignores that they are here is a
policy of denial.
So where is the thoughtful policymaking our constituents sent us to
Washington to engage in?
And quite frankly, where is the compassion?
I have held numerous meetings and events in south Florida recently,
and to say that we are past due for comprehensive immigration reform is
a gross understatement.
I have met so many workers and students who have made meaningful
contributions to our community but who live in a constant state of
uncertainty about their future, ranging from questions about their
schooling and jobs to fearing deportation and separation from their
loved ones.
Leoni, a high school valedictorian; Maria, a mother of DREAMers who
has formed a support group for people in similar situations; and
Cosmin, a father only seeking a permanent work permit to be able to
better provide for his young daughter who is a citizen--these are real
people with real stories, and our actions and inactions in Washington
have real consequences for them.
Madam Chair, it is not too late to engage in bipartisan and
comprehensive immigration reform. We can reintroduce and debate the
legislation that was passed by a strong bipartisan majority in the
Senate in 2013 and supported by diverse business, faith, legal, and
community groups across the Nation.
That is the most effective way to legally and morally respond to the
needs of immigration reform. It is practical. It is wide-ranging, and
it speaks to our values as a Nation.
Or we could even sit down together and come up with a new
comprehensive bill. But this is immoral and wrong, and we should reject
it so that we can come together and do something that is reflective of
the values of this country.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Chairman, at this time I am pleased to
yield 3 minutes to my good friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Poe), a
colleague not only of this House but of the judiciary prior to that
time.
Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chair, ``America is a Nation of laws, which means, I, as the
President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about
that. That is part of my job.
``With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations
through executive order, that is just not the case, because there are
laws on the books that Congress has passed.
``There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear
in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me
to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional
mandates, would not conform with my appropriate role as President.''
Those are the words of the former constitutional law professor, and
now President, on March 28, 2011. Those very words condemn executive
amnesty.
The United States is ruled by law, not by one person. The United
States is not a monarchy. If it were, we would have kept King George
III.
The executive amnesty is not only unconstitutional, Madam Chair, it
is at cross-purposes to security. The Department of Homeland Security
cannot secure the U.S. border, no matter how many programs and how much
money we spend on homeland security, as long as the Executive
undermines law and security by unilaterally ignoring those very
security laws.
We can give all the money we want to the Department of Homeland
Security, but that doesn't do any good if we do not make sure the law
is enforced.
Madam Chairman, we will use this example that has already been used
by my friend, Mr. Culberson. We have tax laws in this country. God
knows we have too many tax laws in this country.
But if the Executive makes a decision, I am just going to ignore
these tax laws for a certain group of people, none of us would like
that. The Executive doesn't have that authority to just ignore law for
whatever reason, even if it is a good reason, because that does not
establish the constitutional power of who the Executive is.
Madam Chair, those of us in Texas have a vested interest in homeland
security. The United States border with
[[Page H333]]
Mexico is almost 2,000 miles. Sixty percent of the border is in Texas.
Forty-five percent of the entire border is in one Member's district,
Mr. Will Hurd.
The Texas border with Mexico is the distance from New Orleans to
Washington, D.C. We have got a vested interest in border security and
the rule of law, because failure to enforce the rule of law affects
people on the border. It affects American citizens. It affects legal
immigrants.
Now, there is a lot that has been said about immigration. I am for
immigration. We do need some changes in immigration. The United States
allows a million people to legally come into the United States. But
when laws are enforced, there is order. When law is not enforced, there
is chaos.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. I yield the gentleman another minute.
Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
When laws are not enforced, there is chaos, especially if the
security laws are not enforced.
So Madam Chair, as the President said, I am obligated to enforce the
law because, Madam Chairman, the Constitution is not a mere suggestion,
whether the other side likes it or not.
And that is just the way it is.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Serrano).
(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentlewoman.
Madam Chair, this is one of those moments where the best thing you
can do is kind of scratch your head and say, What the heck are they
thinking?
We have a bipartisan bill, a Homeland Security bill that, as was said
before by Mr. Farr, if it was put up for a vote, would pass almost
unanimously, if not unanimously.
But no, they couldn't help themselves. They had to take one more shot
at the President and a bigger shot at immigrants. And so the bill is
weighted down with attacks on immigrants. Mostly Latino immigrants, I
would say, would be affected, and that is personal to me.
So what this bill now would say if it gets all these amendments on
it--and, by the way, I want to say that I am opposed to the bill with
the amendments and not opposed to the bill in its clean fashion, and I
think that is the way most Members think.
What this bill now says is that, for instance, if you are in the
military, serving our country, your spouse can be deported while you
are away. That is really sad and insulting.
We are going to have now new bumper stickers on the other side on
their cars that will say, ``Support our troops and deport the
spouses.'' It will be sad, and it will be horrible what we are doing.
Now, our opportunity here is to defeat these amendments. Our
opportunity here is to understand that if we have a gripe with the
President using his constitutional power, deal with that. But don't
take it out on every immigrant in the Nation.
Incidentally, nothing that the President did is outside the law. We
have a Constitution, and what he did is constitutional. It is within
his powers as our Chief Executive in this Nation.
This President waited and waited and waited for the majority party to
do something about immigration. It refused to do something. You are
upset that he took action on immigration. His action was due to your
inaction on immigration. That is why we have this situation.
So these 2 days will probably go down in history as two of the
saddest days in this House, and I have been here 25 years, starting
this January, because we will go after a group of people, and we will
say to the DREAMers, you can't dream anymore, and we will say to the
spouses, you are in danger of being deported.
We will say to those who serve our country, we don't respect you
anymore. And we will say to the whole world, we are not the Nation of
immigrants; we are the Nation that doesn't want any more immigrants.
This is sad. This is it not the way to go, and we should really
rethink this before we take a final vote.
{time} 1930
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Smith of Nebraska). Members are reminded to
address their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chair, before I proceed, may I ask how much
time is left on both sides, please?
The Acting CHAIR. There are 21 minutes remaining for the gentleman
from Texas, and there are 25 minutes remaining for the gentlewoman from
California.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Babin), one of our new Members of the 114th Congress.
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, the United States is a nation of immigrants.
It is also a nation of laws, and our Nation's leaders have a sworn duty
to abide by those laws. On countless occasions, President Obama said
that he lacked the authority to grant broad amnesty; however, in
November, he reversed his course and unilaterally declared amnesty.
I rise in strong opposition to his executive amnesty and in strong
support of legislation to defund his unlawful and unconstitutional
actions.
Changes in immigration law--or in any law for that matter--rest with
the legislative branch of the government, the United States Congress.
Granting amnesty through unilateral executive action makes a mockery of
our laws, and Congress must rein it in.
I am a cosponsor of H.R. 191, the Repeal Executive Amnesty Act. Key
provisions of this bill will be offered as amendments to this
appropriations bill. We will deny the administration funding to
implement his amnesty.
As a past mayor, a hospital staff member for many years, and a local
school board member, I know firsthand how this administration's plan is
taxing the budgets of our local governments, including our schools, our
hospitals, and our jails. This massive unfunded mandate must be
repealed.
Amnesty also undermines our national security by perpetuating open
borders, making Americans less safe. Finally, it leaves behind millions
of American citizens who are unemployed at this time, making it even
harder for them to find good-paying jobs.
To make the United States stronger, we must rein in this President.
We must repeal unilateral amnesty, and we must return to the rule of
law. I call on my colleagues to support H.R. 240 and the Aderholt
amendment and to pass the underlying legislation.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of a clean Homeland Security
Appropriations bill.
We are just a week into the new Congress, and the Republicans are
already back to their old games, but this time, they are playing
politics with the security and safety of the Nation.
We get it. They are frustrated with the President's executive order
which attempts to reunite families and bring a rational, priority-based
approach to our immigration system. Given the Constitution, the laws,
and the legal precedents, the President's actions are clearly well
within his executive powers.
If they don't like it, they can pass an immigration bill, which would
clearly supercede the actions of the President, but they wouldn't even
try. That is what this is all about. It is about making false
statements about the President, demonizing immigrants and their
families, and trying to score political points back home. That is a
disgrace, but it gets even worse.
Not only are the Republicans stalling on immigration reform and
leaving millions of families in limbo, but they are holding up funding
for the entire Homeland Security Department. They are threatening the
safety of Americans at our airports. They are making our borders less
secure and are potentially leaving us more vulnerable to attack. This
is particularly shocking, given the tragic events in Paris last week.
Holding the security of the American people hostage to the demands of
the anti-immigration fringe of their party is totally irresponsible.
This is not the time for political games. We live in a dangerous world,
and the security of the Nation is serious business. Reject this
political stunt.
[[Page H334]]
Pass a clean Homeland Security bill that we all agree on. Then, if
you want to, pass an immigration bill that would supersede what the
President has done; but don't give us all of this nonsense about
blackmailing the country by threatening our safety and saying, ``Unless
we get the immigration provisions we want,'' which we know the
President won't sign, ``there will be no Homeland Security bill,
potentially no Homeland Security Department funding, and no guards at
our borders.'' That is absurd.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hurd), another Member of the 114th Congress, a man who
probably has more of the southern border of the United States than any
other Member of Congress.
Mr. HURD of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have taken an oath of office to
uphold our Constitution twice: the first time as an undercover officer
in the CIA and, just last week, I took that oath again as I was sworn
in as a Member of this body.
This bill is about upholding our Constitution and protecting it from
executive overreach, but we can't forget that immigration and legal
immigrants are an asset to our Nation, not a liability.
Everyone knows that our immigration system is broken and that
executive action that incentivizes illegal immigration just makes it
worse. We need a long-term solution that protects American workers and
fosters economic growth.
Our Nation has, for many decades, benefited from the ``brain drain''
from other countries, and we need to make sure that continues. I also
want our Nation to benefit from a ``hardworking drain,'' too. If you
are going to be a productive member of our society, let's keep you here
or get you here, but we must do it legally.
There is a long-term solution to our immigration problems. I am ready
to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and with the
President to find it.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlewoman.
Mr. Chairman, I believe it is important for us to focus on what we
are discussing here today: Paris, 17 dead; Canada; Australia; Boko
Haram, 2,000 dead, a 10-year-old suicide bomber; and, of course, 9/11.
This is the Homeland Security Appropriations. I have had the
privilege of serving on the authorizing committee since its creation,
and every day we go to that committee, we know that the commitment is
to secure the American people.
This is not a forum to battle one's agreements or disagreements with
the Constitution and with the President's executive authority or to
battle your disagreements with the idea of deporting felons over
families--that debate can be had--but, tonight, we are wrongly
jeopardizing the national security of the American people.
We do it on the basis, our Republican friends, of failing to even
read the Constitution, for it is clear, as it is stated in the
Constitution under article II, section 3, that the President can have
the authority, ``shall take care that the laws be faithfully
executed.''
In essence, he has the right to make sure that we are treating
persons fairly and that prosecutorial discretion is exercised in a fair
manner.
Nothing that is in the executive actions of the President violates
any law; but what it does do, as we are debating today with the poison
pill amendments, is to take the inhumanity of some viewpoints and to
throw it against people who have come to this country by no fault of
their own, who have come to this country to do us not harm but good,
who have come to this country to work hard and to help build this great
Nation.
I am saddened by the fact that, because of this debate, the Coast
Guard will suffer, that the Secret Service will suffer, that the
airport and aviation security will suffer. Why? Because we will not
have a bill.
I believe that this challenge for all of us is to raise the question
of whether our Republican friends have come here to govern. The only
thing I see is that they are using this Homeland Security bill for
extreme positions that they want to foster over security.
Why would they want to defund DACA? Why would they want to capture
the basic infrastructure of the funding of Homeland Security? It has
worked over the years, the fees that have supported the Border Patrol
agents, Customs and Border Protection, Transportation and Security; yet
they want to capture these dollars and cripple Homeland Security. They
want to make sure we don't have enough Secret Service agents as we move
forward into the election year.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, the Homeland Security Department has been entrusted by
the United States Congress and the American people to give guidance to
the security and the protection of their families. It is not families
who, by chance, are considered undocumented; it is all families.
What the President did in his executive action is to define for
America who is here in this country; not only that, he gave an economic
engine by providing for fines and fees in order to get in regular
order.
By the way, Mr. Chairman, these individuals are not getting in front
of those who have been standing in line through the legal immigration
process. They have a separate process that simply gives them status,
not immigration status. He is not bestowing upon them immigration
status.
As I close, I ask: Is there any heart and warmth to those who are
debating these questions? First, do we understand family, and do we
understand we are a nation of immigrants?
What has been established is an infrastructure of law to help them be
established in regular order. What we are doing is undermining the
national security of this Nation to cast against those who are
innocent. I ask my colleagues to defeat these amendments and to vote
for a clean Homeland Security bill. Let's support the national security
of Americans.
Mr. Chair, while it is not perfect, I would support H.R. 240, the
Fiscal Year 2015 Homeland Security Appropriations Act, as originally
introduced because it provides adequate funding of the Department of
Homeland Security, including support for important federal
cybersecurity initiatives, disaster relief and recovery programs, and
essential law enforcement activities that are critical for ensuring the
Department can help keep our Nation safe from harm.
But I cannot support the bill on final passage if it contains any of
the ``poison pill'' amendments made in order by the Rules Committee.
Those amendments are simply the latest attempt by House Republicans
to prohibit the executive branch from exempting or deferring from
deportation any immigrants considered to be unlawfully present in the
United States under U.S. immigration law, and to prohibit the
administration from treating those immigrants as if they were lawfully
present or had lawful immigration status.
I oppose all of the amendments made in order by the Rules Committee
because their inclusion will spell certain doom for the bill and
needlessly put the security of the homeland at risk at a time when
things are so perilous in the world.
The recent terrorist attacks in Paris and by Boko Haram in Nigeria
given heightened urgency to the words of Appropriations Committee
Chairman Rogers that we need to get a clean Homeland Security spending
bill ``to the president's desk so we can get a signature funding
Homeland Security at a very tedious time in the world.''
Sending this bill to the president with the Republican poison pill
amendments will result in a presidential veto rather the signature
needed for the bill to become law.
In addition, were the bill to become law with the poison pill
amendments intact, it would inflict tremendous damage to the nation's
economy and the economy of my home state of Texas.
According to an analysis conducted by the Council of Economic
Advisors, the executive actions taken by the President to mitigate the
damage caused by our broken immigration system would grow the U.S.
economy by $90 billion to $210 billion over the next ten years.
And they would grow the GDP of my home state of Texas by $8.2 billion
to $19.2 billion over that same period and increase Texas state
revenues by $770 million to $1.8 billion.
I cannot and will not support a bill that would do such harm to our
efforts to protect the homeland and expand the economy so that it
creates jobs for all who seek employment at wages that will enable
workers to provide for their families and their retirement, buy
[[Page H335]]
and keep their homes, and send their children to college.
I urge my colleagues to reject all of the amendments made in order by
the Rules Committee and pass the bill as originally introduced by
Chairman Rogers.
There are many good things in that bill that are worthy of support,
including the following:
1. $39.7 billion in regular discretionary appropriations for
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in fiscal year 2015;
2. $12.6 billion for Customs and Border Protection (CBP); DHS would
be required to accelerate the hiring of CBP officers;
3. $5.96 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) plus
an additional $345 million from the agency's fee funded accounts,
bringing the total to $6.3 billion;
4. $553.6 million in funding to manage the influx of unaccompanied
alien children, or ``UAC,'' entering the U.S.; the funding would be
used to interdict migrants, care for and transport approximately 58,000
undocumented children to the custody of Health and Human Services
(HHS), and facilitate the movement of undocumented families through
removal proceedings after crossing the U.S. border;
5. $1.9 billion for both domestic and international investigations,
including increases to combat human trafficking, child exploitation,
cyber-crime, and drug smuggling, and to expand visa vetting
capabilities;
6. $4.8 billion for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA);
7. $10 billion for the U.S. Coast Guard;
8. $753.2 million for cybersecurity operations in the National
Programs and Protection Directorate to fund and sustain improvements to
the Federal Network Security and Network Security Deployment programs;
9. $1.7 billion for the U.S. Secret Service--an increase of $80.5
million above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level--to begin preparation
and training for candidate protection for the 2016 presidential
election and to address critical failures in communications and
training at the White House Complex;
10. $7 billion for disaster relief--fully funding FEMA's stated
requirement; and
11. $1.1 billion for Science and Technology, $32.1 million above the
President's request.
The White House has announced that the President will sign H.R. 240
as originally introduced but he will veto the bill if it contains any
of the irresponsible and reckless amendments made in order by the Rules
Committee.
I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting against all of the
amendments and sending a clean Homeland Security funding bill that will
receive the presidential signature needed to become and law provide the
resources needed to keep our homeland safe.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my
distinguished colleague from California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this is Placer County Sheriff's Deputy Michael Davis,
Jr. You may have heard of him. He was gunned down on October 24 of last
year in one of the most shocking murder rampages in the history of that
county. He was murdered on the 26th anniversary of the day that he lost
his father, a Riverside County sheriff's deputy, in the line of duty.
The suspect, who also killed a Sacramento sheriff's deputy and
wounded an innocent bystander, should never have been here. He was a
convicted felon who had entered our country illegally from Mexico. He
had been twice deported for his crimes, only to reenter time and again
over our unsecured border.
I met with Michael Davis' grieving family this weekend, including his
remarkable mother, Debbie, and his sole surviving brother, Jason, who
also serves as a Placer County sheriff's deputy. The message they asked
me to convey today is that this is not about immigration--in fact,
Jason spends his free time working with at-risk Latino children, many
from immigrant families--rather, this is about the rule of law,
including respect for our immigration laws for which this family has
sacrificed so much.
We pride ourselves on being a nation of laws and not of men. That
means the President is sworn to enforce the laws, not to make them. He
doesn't get to change or to repeal laws by decree or decide who must
obey the law and who gets to live above it; yet that is precisely what
he has done.
In so doing, he has placed the public safety and the Nation's
security at great risk. This measure begins to walk back these
unconstitutional orders, secure our borders, repair our Nation's
sovereignty, and recover the rule of law.
Michael Davis died for these principles. The least we can do is to
vote to restore them.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, some claim the President's actions are
unconstitutional. That is not true.
I submit for the Record a letter signed by 135 law professors and
confirmed by four former chief counsels for Immigration about why his
action was lawful.
25 November 2014.
We write as scholars and teachers of immigration law who
have reviewed the executive actions announced by the
President on November 20, 2014. It is our considered view
that the expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals (DACA) and establishment of the Deferred Action for
Parental Accountability (DAPA) programs are within the legal
authority of the executive branch of the government of the
United States. To explain, we cite federal statutes,
regulations, and historical precedents. We do not express any
views on the policy aspects of these two executive actions.
This letter updates a letter transmitted by 136 law
professors to the White House on September 3, 2014, on the
role of executive action in immigration law. We focus on the
legal basis for granting certain noncitizens in the United
States ``deferred action'' status as a temporary reprieve
from deportation. One of these programs, Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals (DACA), was established by executive
action in June 2012. On November 20, the President announced
the expansion of eligibility criteria for DACA and the
creation of a new program, Deferred Action for Parental
Accountability (DAPA).
prosecutorial discretion in immigration law enforcement
Both November 20 executive actions relating to deferred
action are exercises of prosecutorial discretion.
Prosecutorial discretion refers to the authority of the
Department of Homeland Security to decide how the immigration
laws should be applied. Prosecutorial discretion is a long-
accepted legal practice in practically every law enforcement
context, unavoidable whenever the appropriated resources do
not permit 100 percent enforcement. In immigration
enforcement, prosecutorial discretion covers both agency
decisions to refrain from acting on enforcement, like
cancelling or not serving or filing a charging document or
Notice to Appear with the immigration court, as well as
decisions to provide a discretionary remedy like granting a
stay of remova1, parole, or deferred action.
Prosecutorial discretion provides a temporary reprieve from
deportation. Some forms of prosecutorial discretion, like
deferred action, confer ``lawful presence'' and the ability
to apply for work authorization. However, the benefits of the
deferred action programs announced on November 20 are not
unlimited. The DACA and DAPA programs, like any other
exercise of prosecutorial discretion do not provide an
independent means to obtain permanent residence in the United
States, nor do they allow a noncitizen to acquire eligibility
to apply for naturalization as a U.S. citizen. As the
President has emphasized, only Congress can prescribe the
qualifications for permanent resident status or citizenship.
statutory authority and long-standing agency practice
Focusing first on statutes enacted by Congress, 103(a) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (``INA'' or the ``Act''),
clearly empowers the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to
make choices about immigration enforcement. That section
provides: ``The Secretary of Homeland Security shall be
charged with the administration and enforcement of this Act
and all other laws relating to the immigration and
naturalization of aliens. . . .'' INA Sec. 242(g) recognizes
the executive branch's legal authority to exercise
prosecutorial discretion, specifically by barring judicial
review of three particular types of prosecutorial discretion
decisions: to commence removal proceedings, to adjudicate
cases, and to execute removal orders. In other sections of
the Act, Congress has explicitly recognized deferred action
by name, as a tool that the executive branch may use, in the
exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, to protect certain
victims of abuse, crime or trafficking. Another statutory
provision, INA Sec. 274A(h)(3), recognizes executive branch
authority to authorize employment for noncitizens who do not
otherwise receive it automatically by virtue of their
particular immigration status. This provision (and the formal
regulations noted below) confer the work authorization
eligibility that is part of both the DACA and DAPA programs.
Based on this statutory foundation, the application of
prosecutorial discretion to individuals or groups has been
part of the immigration system for many years. Longstanding
provisions of the formal regulations promulgated under the
Act (which have the force of law) reflect the prominence of
prosecutorial discretion in immigration law. Deferred action
is expressly defined in one regulation as ``an act of
administrative convenience to the government which gives some
cases lower priority'' and goes on to authorize work permits
for those who receive deferred action. Agency memoranda
further reaffirm the role of prosecutorial discretion in
immigration law. In 1976, President Ford's
[[Page H336]]
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) General Counsel
Sam Bernsen stated in a legal opinion, ``The reasons for the
exercise of prosecutorial discretion are both practical and
humanitarian. There simply are not enough resources to
enforce all of the rules and regulations presently on the
books.'' In 2000, a memorandum on prosecutorial discretion in
immigration matters issued by INS Commissioner Doris Meissner
provided that ``[s]ervice officers are not only authorized by
law but expected to exercise discretion in a judicious manner
at all stages of the enforcement process,'' and spelled out
the factors that should guide those decisions. In 2011,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Department of
Homeland Security published guidance known as the ``Morton
Memo,'' outlining more than one dozen factors, including
humanitarian factors, for employees to consider in deciding
whether prosecutorial discretion should be exercised. These
factors --now updated by the November 20 executive actions--
include tender or elderly age, long-time lawful permanent
residence, and serious health conditions.
Judicial recognition of executive branch prosecutorial discretion in
immigration cases
Federal courts have also explicitly recognized
prosecutorial discretion in general and deferred action in
particulary. Notably, the U.S. Supreme Court noted in its
Arizona v. United States decision in 2012: ``A principal
feature of the removal system is the broad discretion
exercised by immigration officials. . . . Federal officials,
as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to
pursue removal at all. . . .'' In its 1999 decision in Reno
v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the Supreme
Court explicitly recognized deferred action by name. This
affirmation of the role of discretion is consistent with
congressional appropriations for immigration enforcement,
which are at an annual level that would allow for the arrest,
detention, and deportation of fewer than 4 percent of the
noncitizens in the United States who lack lawfill immigration
status.
Based on statutory authority, U.S. immigration agencies
have a long history of exercising prosecutorial discretion
for a range of reasons that include economic or humanitarian
considerations, especially--albeit not only--when the
noncitizens involved have strong family ties or long-term
residence in the United States. Prosecutorial discretion,
including deferred action, has been made available on both a
case-by-case basis and a group basis, as are true under DACA
and DAPA. But even when a program like deferred action has
been aimed at a particular group of people, individuals must
apply, and the agency must exercise its discretion based on
the facts of each individual case. Both DACA and DAPA
explicitly incorporate that requirement.
Historical precedents for deferred action and similar programs for
individuals and groups
As examples of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion,
numerous administrations have issued directives providing
deferred action or functionally similar forms of
prosecutorial discretion to groups of noncitizens, often to
large groups. The administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan
and George H.W. Bush deferred the deportations of a then-
predicted (though ultimately much lower) 1.5 million
noncitizen spouses and children of immigrants who qualified
for legalization under the Immigration Reform and Control Act
(IRCA) of 1986, authorizing work permits for the spouses.
Presidents Reagan and Bush took these actions, even though
Congress had decided to exclude them from IRCA. Among the
many other examples of significant deferred action or similar
programs are two during the George W. Bush administration: a
deferred action program in 2005 for foreign academic students
affected by Hurricane Katrina, and ``Deferred Enforcement
Departure'' for certain Liberians in 2007. Several decades
earlier, the Reagan administration issued a form of
prosecutorial discretion called ``Extended Voluntary
Departure'' in 1981 to thousands of Polish nationals. The
legal sources and historical examples of immigration
prosecutorial discretion described above are by no means
exhaustive, but they underscore the legal authority for an
administration to apply prosecutorial discretion to both
individuals and groups.
Some have suggested that the size of the group who may
``benefit'' from an act of prosecutorial discretion is
relevant to its legality. We are unaware of any legal
authority for such an assumption. Notably, the Reagan-Bush
programs of the late 1980s and early 1990s were based on an
initial estimated percentage of the unauthorized population
(about 40 percent) that is comparable to the initial
estimated percentage for the November 20 executive actions.
The President could conceivably decide to cap the number of
people who can receive prosecutorial discretion or make the
conditions restrictive enough to keep the numbers small, but
this would be a policy choice, not a legal issue. For all of
these reasons, the President is not ``re-writing'' the
immigration laws, as some of his critics have suggested. He
is doing precisely the opposite--exercising a discretion
conferred by the immigration laws and settled general
principles of enforcement discretion.
The Constitution and immigration enforcement discretion
Critics have also suggested that the deferred action
programs announced on November 20 violate the President's
constitutional duty to ``take Care that the Laws be
faithfully executed.'' A serious legal question would
therefore arise if the executive branch were to halt all
immigration enforcement, or even if the Administration were
to refuse to substantially spend the resources appropriated
by Congress. In either of those scenarios, the justification
based on resource limitations would not apply. But the Obama
administration has fully utilized all the enforcement
resources Congress has appropriated. It has enforced the
immigration law at record levels through apprehensions,
investigations, and detentions that have resulted in over two
million removals. At the same time that the President
announced the November 20 executive actions that we discuss
here, he also announced revised enforcement priorities to
focus on removing the most serious criminal offenders and
further shoring up the southern border. Nothing in the
President's actions will prevent him from continuing to
remove as many violators as the resources Congress has given
him permit.
Moreover, when prosecutorial discretion is exercised,
particularly when the numbers are large, there is no legal
barrier to formalizing that policy decision through sound
procedures that include a formal application and
dissemination of the relevant criteria to the officers
charged with implementing the program and to the public. As
DACA has shown, those kinds of procedures assure that
important policy decisions are made at the leadership level,
help officers to implement policy decisions fairly and
consistently, and offer the public the transparency that
government priority decisions require in a democracy.
Hiroshi Motomura & Susan Westerberg Prager, University of
California, Los Angeles, School of Law; Shoba Sivaprasad
Wadhia, Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of
Law; Stephen H. Legomsky, Washington University School of
Law; David Abraham, University of Miami School of Law; Raquel
Aldana, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law;
Farrin R. Anello, Seton Hall University School of Law;
Deborah Anker, Harvard Law School; Sabrineh Ardalan, Harvard
Law School; David C. Baluarte, Washington and Lee University
School of Law; Melynda Barnhart, New York Law School; Jon
Bauer, University of Connecticut School of Law; Lenni B.
Benson, New York Law School; Jacqueline Bhabha, Harvard Law
School; Linda Bosniak, Rutgers University School of Law-
Camden; Richard A. Boswell, U.C. Hastings College of the Law;
Jason A. Cade, University of Georgia Law School; Janet Calvo,
CUNY School of Law, New York; Kristina M. Campbell,
University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School
of Law; Stacy Caplow, Brooklyn Law School; Benjamin Casper,
University of Minnesota Law School; Linus Chan, University of
Minnesota; Howard F. Chang, University of Pennsylvania Law
School; Michael J. Churgin, University of Texas at Austin;
Marisa Cianciarulo, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School
of Law; Evelyn Cruz, Arizona State University; Ingrid Eagly,
UCLA School of Law; Philip Eichorn, Cleveland State--
Cleveland Marshall School of Law; Bram T. Elias, University
of Iowa College of Law; Stella Burch Elias, University of
Iowa College of Law; Jill E. Family, Widener University
School of Law; Niels Frenzen, University of Southern
California; Maryellen Fullerton, Brooklyn Law School; Cesar
Cuauhtimoc Garcia Hernandez, University of Denver Sturm
College of Law; Lauren Gilbert, St. Thomas University School
of Law; Denise L. Gilman, University of Texas School of Law;
John F. Gossart, Jr., University of Maryland School of Law;
P. Gulasekaram, Santa Clara University; Anju Gupta, Rutgers
School of Law--Newark; Susan R. Gzesh, University of Chicago;
Jonathan Hafetz, Seton Hall University; Dina Francesca
Haynes, New England Law, Boston; Susan Hazeldean, Cornell Law
School; Ernesto Hernandez-Lopez, Chapman University; Laura A.
Hernandez, Baylor Law School; Michael Heyman, John Marshall
Law School; Barbara Hines, University of Texas School of Law;
Laila L. Hlass, Boston University School of Law; Geoffrey
Hoffman, University of Houston Law Center; Mary Holper,
Boston College Law School; Alan Hyde, Rutgers University
School of Law--Newark; Kate Jastram, University of
California, Berkeley, School of Law; Kit Johnson, University
of Oklahoma College of Law; Anil Kalhan, Drexel University
Kline School of Law; Daniel Kanstroom, Boston College Law
School; Elizabeth Keyes, University of Baltimore School of
Law; Kathleen Kim, Loyola Law School Los Angeles; David C.
Koelsch, University of Detroit Mercy School of Law; Jennifer
Lee Koh, Western State College of Law; Kevin Lapp, Loyola Law
School, Los Angeles; Christopher Lasch, University of Denver
Sturm College of Law; Jennifer J. Lee, Temple University
Beasley School of Law; Stephen Lee, University of California,
Irvine; Christine Lin, University of California, Hastings
College of the Law; Beth Lyon, Villanova University School of
Law; Stephen Manning, Lewis & Clark College; Lynn Marcus,
University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law; Miriam
H. Marton, University of Tulsa College of Law; Elizabeth
McCormick, University of Tulsa College of Law; M. Isabel
Medina, Loyola University New Orleans College of Law; Stephen
Meili, University of Minnesota Law School; Vanessa Merton,
Pace University School of Law; Andrew Moore, University of
Detroit Mercy School of Law; Jennifer Moore, University of
New Mexico School of Law; Daniel
[[Page H337]]
I. Morales, DePaul University College of Law; Nancy Morawetz,
NYU School of Law; Karen Musalo, U.C. Hastings College of the
Law; Alizabeth Newman, CUNY School of Law; Noah Novogrodsky,
University of Wyoming College of Law; Fernando A. Nunez,
Charlotte School of Law; Mariela Olivares, Howard University
School of Law; Michael A. Olivas, University of Houston Law
Center; Patrick D. O'Neill, Esq., University of Puerto Rico
School of Law; Sarah Paoletti, University of Pennsylvania Law
School; Sunita Patel, American University, Washington College
of Law; Huyen Pham, Texas A&M University School of Law;
Michele R. Pistone, Villanova University School of Law; Luis
F.B. Plascencia, Arizona State University; Polly J. Price,
Emory University School of Law; Doris Marie Provine, Arizona
State University; Nina Rabin, James E. Rogers College of Law,
University of Arizona; Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Temple University,
Beasley School of Law; Renee C. Redman, University of
Connecticut School of Law; Ediberto Roman, Florida
International University; Victor C. Romero, Penn State Law;
Joseph H. Rosen, Atlanta's John Marshall Law School; Carrie
Rosenbaum, Golden Gate University School of Law; Rachel E.
Rosenbloom, Northeastern University School of Law; Ruben G.
Rumbaut, University of California, Irvine; Ted Ruthizer,
Columbia Law School; Leticia M. Saucedo, UC Davis School of
Law; Heather Scavone, Elon University School of Law; Andrew
I. Schoenholtz, Georgetown Law; Philip Schrag, Georgetown
University Law Center; Bijal Shah, NYU School of Law; Ragini
Shah, Suffolk University Law School; Careen Shannon, Yeshiva
University, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law; Anna Williams
Shavers, University of Nebraska College of Law; Bryn Siegel,
Pacific Coast University School of Law; Anita Sinha, American
University, Washington College of Law; Dan R. Smulian,
Brooklyn Law School; Gemma Solimene, Fordham University
School of Law; Jayashri Srikantiah, Stanford Law School;
Juliet Stumpf, Lewis & Clark Law School; Maureen A. Sweeney,
University of Maryland Carey School of Law; Barbara Szweda,
Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law; Margaret H.
Taylor, Wake Forest University School of Law; David Thronson,
Michigan State University College of Law; Allison Brownell
Tirres, DePaul University College of Law; Scott Titshaw,
Mercer University School of Law; Phil Torrey, Harvard Law
School; Enid Trucios-Haynes, Louis D. Brandeis School of Law,
University of Louisville; Diane Uchimiya, University of La
Verne College of Law; Gloria Valencia-Weber, University of
New Mexico School of Law; Sheila I. Velez Martinez,
University of Pittsburgh School of Law; Alex Vernon, Ave
Maria School of Law; Rose Cuison Villazor, University of
California at Davis School of Law; Leti Volpp, University of
California, Berkeley; Jonathan Weinberg, Wayne State
University; Deborah M. Weissman, University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill; Lisa Weissman-Ward, Stanford Law School; Anna
R. Welch, University of Maine School of Law; Virgil O. Wiebe,
University of St. Thomas School of Law, Minneapolis; Michael
J. Wishnie, Yale Law School; Stephen Yale-Loehr, Cornell
University Law School; Elizabeth Lee Young, University of
Arkansas School of Law.
* all institutional affiliations are for identification
purposes only
conclusion
Our conclusion is that the expansion of the DACA program
and the establishment of Deferred Action for Parental
Accountability are legal exercises of prosecutorial
discretion. Both executive actions are well within the legal
authority of the executive branch of the government of the
United States.
November 29, 2014.
Hon. Patrick Leahy,
Hon. Chuck Grassley,
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Hon. John Conyers, Jr.
We are writing as former General Counsels of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service or former Chief
Counsels of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. As you
know, the President on November 20 announced a package of
measures designed to deploy his limited immigration
enforcement resources in the most effective way. These
measures included an expansion of Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and the creation of Deferred Action
for Parental Accountability (DAPA). We take no positions on
the policy judgments that those actions reflect, but we have
all studied the relevant legal parameters and wish to express
our collective view that the President's actions are well
within his legal authority.
Some 135 law professors who currently teach or write in the
area of immigration law signed a November 25, 2014 letter to
the same effect. Rather than repeat the points made in that
letter, we simply attach it here and go on record as stating
that we agree wholeheartedly with its legal analysis and its
conclusions.
Respectfully,
Stephen Legomsky,
The John S. Lehmann University Professor, Washington
University School of Law, Former Chief Counsel, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Roxana Bacon,
Former Chief Counsel, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services.
Paul W. Virtue,
Partner, Mayer Brown LLP, Former General Counsel,
Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Bo Cooper,
Partner, Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loew, Former General
Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Ms. LOFGREN. I note also that a lawsuit is currently pending to
challenge the constitutionality.
Why don't Republicans just wait and see what the judicial branch has
to say, what they decide?
The amendments being offered are poison pills and should be defeated.
The first amendment is meant to block all but one of the President's
actions on immigration. This includes the temporary protection from
deportation for parents of U.S. citizens and the expansion of temporary
relief for people brought to the country as kids.
This would break apart families, hurt more communities, deport the
parents of U.S. citizens, and send thousands of American children into
foster care.
{time} 1945
But the amendment does more damage. In the interest of time, I will
touch on just a few examples. It prevents improving the provisional
waiver of the 3-year and 10-year unlawful presence bars created by
Congress in 1996 to prevent U.S. citizens from experiencing ``extreme
hardship.'' Ironically, the changes the administration intends would
actually make the waiver align more closely to what Congress enacted.
It would stop actions to help capitalize on the innovation of job-
creating entrepreneurs and increase job opportunities. It would block
initiatives designed to promote the integration of immigrants and to
promote citizenship. The only action not blocked is a pay raise for ICE
agents.
The second amendment would block further implementation of the 2012
DACA memo and any additional efforts to save DREAM Act kids from
deportation. In the past, there was confusion about what amendments
did. But this one is very clear. It is a straight up-or-down vote on
whether to deport hundreds of thousands of young people who came
forward, passed background checks, received DACA, and followed the
rule. It would deport the DREAMers.
The third amendment looks reasonable at first, as it requires that
those convicted of sex offenses and domestic violence be the highest
priority for enforcement. But the point is, the President's actions
already make those criminals a priority for deportation, and they are
prohibited from getting any deportation relief.
The amendment is not only unnecessary, but it also endangers victims
of domestic violence. How? It overturns the DHS policy of inquiry into
whether a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence was
actually the victim, not the perpetrators of the crime. This amendment
is opposed by the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic
Violence, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the American
Immigration Lawyers Association, and law enforcement.
I will now place into the Record a letter from 14 sheriffs and police
chiefs asking that we oppose the DeSantis amendment.
January 13, 2015.
Re H.R. 240, The Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, 2015.
Dear Representative: We, the undersigned law enforcement
officers, write to express our opposition to various
proposals under consideration in the House of Representatives
that seek to override aspects of the Obama Administration's
immigration policies.
While acknowledging that there is good-faith disagreement
over certain aspects of the administration's immigration
policies, several of the proposals under consideration by the
House of Representatives would represent a step backward,
lead to uncertainty in our immigration enforcement system,
and make it harder for state and local law enforcement to
police our communities.
The 114th Congress has a tremendous opportunity to fix our
broken immigration system, advancing reforms that will help
the economy and secure our borders. While we are encouraged
by proposals that would secure our borders and reform
outdated visa programs, we are concerned by reports of
[[Page H338]]
various proposals in the House that do not appear to have
bipartisan support and could unnecessarily threaten a partial
governmental shutdown affecting the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). As law enforcement officers, we regularly
work with DHS and its component agencies and fear that an
unfunded DHS will sow confusion and uncertainty.
We are also concerned about proposed substantive changes
that would undercut existing protections for victims of
domestic violence, undermine law enforcement's ability to
focus on catching and deporting dangerous criminals, compel
state and local law enforcement to hold low-level offenders
without probable cause, and threaten long-established and
necessary federal programs and funding that have long aided
state and local law enforcement. We oppose proposals that (1)
make law-abiding immigrants feel less safe in our
communities, (2) focus federal law enforcement away from
catching serious criminals and security threats, (3) increase
the state and local role in immigration enforcement, and (4)
threaten needed federal resources and funding used by state
and local law enforcement.
1. When immigrants feel safe in their communities, we are all safer
When immigrants feel safe in their communities, including
immigrant victims of domestic violence, we are all safer. We
oppose amendments that remove key protections from domestic
violence victims and undermine the executive branch's ability
to prioritize criminals over otherwise law abiding
immigrants.
One proposal under consideration by the House would scrap
DHS's entire existing enforcement framework, because it does
not treat ``any alien convicted of any offense involving
domestic, violence, sexual abuse, child molestation, or child
exploitation as within the categories of aliens subject to
the Department of Homeland Security's highest civil
immigration enforcement priorities.''
While the amendment is intuitively appealing and directed
toward protecting domestic violence victims, it actually has
the opposite effect in many cases. By guaranteeing
``highest'' priority treatment of all domestic violence
cases, the amendment raises the stakes for any report of
domestic violence--a single report of domestic violence could
lead to removal proceedings and deportation.
Immigrant victims are particularly vulnerable to being
arrested and prosecuted for domestic violence, even when they
are not the primary perpetrator of violence in the
relationship, due to language and cultural barriers. Once in
custody and/or facing trial, and desperate to be released and
reunited with their children, these same factors--combined
with poor legal counsel, may lead to deportation of wrongly
accused victims who may have pled to or been unfairly
convicted of domestic violence charges. Currently, federal
authorities have flexibility in separating victims from
perpetrators in dual arrest situations. The proposed
amendment would remove this flexibly, leading to the
deportation of victims of domestic violence.
2. Law enforcement should refocus its priorities toward catching
serious criminals and security threats
Federal immigration agencies, including Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE), do not have the capacity or
resources to remove all undocumented immigrants. Existing
federal policies prioritize the removal of immigrants with
criminal records over those who pose no threat to the
community. We believe that law enforcement agencies should
spend their limited time and resources focusing on pursuing
truly dangerous criminals, not otherwise law-abiding members
of the community.
Various amendments would seek to override these
longstanding priorities. We oppose such amendments.
3. Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility
We believe that immigration enforcement on the state and
local levels diverts limited resources away from public
safety and undermines trust within immigrant communities.
State and local law enforcement agencies face tight budgets
and often do not have the capacity or resources to duplicate
the federal government's work in enforcing federal
immigration laws. Rather than apprehending and removing
immigrants who have no criminal background or affiliation and
are merely seeking to work or reunite with family, it is more
important for state and local law enforcement to focus
limited resources and funding on true threats to public
safety and security.
Various amendments would seek to foist additional
enforcement responsibilities onto state and local law
enforcement, including amendments that would reinstitute and
codify the Secure Communities program. Some proposals also
would impose a federal mandate on state and local law
enforcement agencies to hold suspects even in the absence of
probable cause, an action that raises serious constitutional
and legal questions and would risk creating legal liability
for state and local law enforcement agencies. We oppose such
amendments.
4. State and local law enforcement need adequate resources
To the extent that state and local law enforcement play a
role in immigration enforcement, the federal government must
provide adequate funding in line with these responsibilities.
Some proposals under consideration by the House would place
needed federal funding to state and local law enforcement at
risk. These proposals, including proposed amendments that
would condition significant federal funding on holding
suspects in the absence of probable cause, raise serious
concerns. We oppose such amendments.
Additionally, as referenced above, we call on Congress to
fund DHS, including valuable DHS programs that provide needed
funding to state and local law enforcement. We support
legislation to fully fund this crucial agency for the entire
2015 fiscal year.
Conclusion
As law enforcement officers, we believe that the 114th
Congress has a tremendous opportunity to fix our broken
immigration system, advance reforms that will help the
economy and secure our borders. Any executive actions taken
by the executive branch are temporary and limited--by
themselves they will not fix a broken system, nor will their
repeal fix a broken system.
We continue to recognize that what our broken system truly
needs is a permanent legislative solution. It is our hope
that DHS funding legislation passes promptly and without any
of the shortcomings we flagged above. Passing such
legislation opens the door for this Congress to work
constructively towards necessary immigration reform
legislation.
Sincerely,
Chief Richard Biehl, Dayton Police Department, Dayton,
Ohio;
Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, Pima County Sheriff's Office,
Pima County, Arizona;
Sheriff Tony Estrada, Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office,
Santa Cruz County, Arizona;
Chief Randy Gaber, Madison Police Department, Madison,
Wisconsin;
Chief Ronald Haddad, Dearborn Police Department,
Dearborn, Michigan;
Chief James Hawkins, Garden City Police Department,
Garden City, Kansas;
Chief Mike Koval, City of Madison Police Department,
Madison, Wisconsin;
Chief Jose Lopez, Durham Police Department, Durham, North
Carolina;
Sheriff Leon Lott, Richland County Sheriff's, Department
Richland County, South Carolina;
Chief Thomas Manger, Montgomery County Police Department,
Montgomery County, Maryland;
Sheriff William McCarthy, Polk County Sheriff's Office,
Polk County, Iowa;
Lt. Andy Norris, Tuscaloosa County Sheriff's Office,
Tuscaloosa County, Alabama;
Chief Mike Tupper, Marshalltown Police Department,
Marshalltown, Iowa;
Sheriff Lupe Valdez, Dallas County Sheriff's Office,
Dallas County, Texas.
Ms. LOFGREN. The final amendment also creates problems. It says that
USCIS should adjudicate petitions of individuals in lawful status
before adjudicating petitions of individuals in unlawful status. But
that is too broad. There are many petitions filed by people in unlawful
status that we would not want to delay: green cards for the wives and
husbands of American citizens; requests for U visas and T visas from
crime victims or sex-trafficking victims; immigrant visa petitions
filed by domestic violence victims. These are all people who would be
harmed by the amendment.
I would note that the fourth amendment is based on the falsehood that
the President's immigration actions created an incentive for employers
to hire deferred action recipients instead of American workers. This is
simply not true.
Now, we need to have a serious conversation about immigration policy
in the House, but threatening to shut down the Department of Homeland
Security is not the way to do that. These amendments are foolish and a
step backwards, and not funding DHS is dumb and dangerous.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I will yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from the State of Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Chair, this important legislation fulfills our promise to the
American people to responsibly fund our Homeland Security Department
while also stopping President Obama's unconstitutional actions. This is
the clear will of the American people, which was expressed this past
November.
Sadly, the President is ignoring the results of that election, with
administration officials saying he will veto any bill we pass out of
Congress that would end his illegal amnesty order and hold him
accountable.
Consider that threat: a President would shut down the Department of
Homeland Security, whose mission is to protect the American people,
just to continue implementing a policy that he admitted on more than 20
occasions
[[Page H339]]
he did not have the legal authority to do.
I seriously hope he will not.
Continuing to defend his unauthorized and unconstitutional order by
vetoing this bill would be more than reckless. It would confirm beyond
any reasonable doubt that President Obama believes he is above the law.
I hope the Senate will join this House and not abdicate on the shared
responsibility we have to preserve Congress' prerogatives to defend the
Constitution and to stop the abuse of power happening under this
President.
Let's get this amended bill to the President's desk immediately and
see whether he is capable of putting the will of the American people
and the Constitution ahead of his own self-serving agenda.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair will remind Members to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Ruiz).
Mr. RUIZ. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, House Republican leadership has chosen to play
political games with the security and safety of our Nation by including
extreme partisan poison pill amendments to this Homeland Security
funding bill. Rather than putting country before party, House
Republican leaders have chosen to advance an extreme agenda instead of
doing what needs to be done to protect Americans.
This bill is a farce that puts scoring political points above
safeguarding our communities. This is precisely the type of political
gimmick people in the Coachella Valley and across the country are sick
of.
The terrorist attacks in Paris last week demonstrate how critical it
is that the men and women of our law enforcement agencies have the
funding necessary to do their jobs and keep us safe.
That is why I urge House Republican leadership to allow a vote on a
clean, bipartisan Homeland Security bill that ensures law enforcement,
the Coast Guard, and the Secret Service have the resources they need to
protect our communities.
It is time to end the political bickering and work toward sensible,
pragmatic solutions to keep our homeland secure.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).
Mr. PITTENGER. I thank the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Carter, for
his tremendous leadership, this important legislation, and for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Chairman, tonight I am reminded of Thomas Jefferson, who once
said: ``Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of
government, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow
operations, perverted it.''
Mr. Chairman, we have heard repeatedly from our leader, our
President, that he has said he is not king, he is not emperor, and that
his powers, as President, are restricted. But his actions speak louder
than words. Republicans are committed to holding the President
accountable for his overreaching executive actions.
We have achieved remarkable success in this country because we are a
Nation governed by the rule of law, not by the decrees of monarchs.
As recent events around the world have tragically reminded us, there
are those who are still committed to destroying our way of life.
The Homeland Security Appropriations bill we are debating tonight
supports the needs of the brave men and women who protect us each day
and meets the requirements to keep us safe.
The amendments accompanying this legislation ensure we continue to be
a Nation governed by laws and prevents any funds from being used to
implement the President's unconstitutional decrees of amnesty while it
prevents further implementation of DACA, which led to the crisis at the
border last summer.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation
to protect our great Nation and supporting the amendments to protect
the rule of law.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 240, the
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, and the amendments
that go with it.
Now let's get to the facts. My colleagues on the other side of the
aisle conveniently leave these facts out.
First of all, this has nothing to do with shutting down Homeland
Security. Second of all, the total budget for Homeland Security is
$39.7 billion. That is $1.3 billion over the President's request. That
is $400 million over last year.
Our amendments prevent the President from using any moneys--no matter
from where--on amnesty.
There is no reason to shut down Homeland Security. If Homeland
Security is shut down, it is due to the Democrats and President Barack
Obama because he has more money for Homeland Security than he asked
for.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 240 and the
amendments.
President Obama released amnesty plans in November that include
changes to border security, status of persons currently living in the
United States unlawfully, and future legal immigration policy changes--
all of which are directly under the purview of the legislative branch,
not the executive branch.
In addition this President's executive order included several other
changes that directly result in amnesty.
To be clear, democracy in this country was built on the foundation of
a three branch federal government.
Our founding fathers saw the importance of checks and balances to
prevent any branch from becoming all-powerful and exceeding its
constitutional authority.
Furthermore, our Constitution specifically grants all lawmaking
authority to Congress, and instead gives the executive branch the role
of executing the laws passed.
The President's overreach in granting amnesty has left Congress with
no choice but to exercise the power of the purse today to restore the
Federal Government to one of balance, within the confines of the
Constitution.
Last week I introduced the Defund Amnesty Act to ensure this type of
change, and I applaud the leadership for bringing legislation to the
floor to boldly put an end to the President's executive order on
amnesty.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Stewart).
Mr. STEWART. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I would like to be very clear: this debate is not about
immigration. This debate is about something much more, much more
important than that. This is a generational conflict over something
that is very clear. It is not about Presidential prerogative or
Presidential arrogance.
As a military officer for 14 years, I had the honor of serving my
country. Prior to doing that, I took a sacred oath of office, which is
very similar to the oath that all of us took last week, to defend the
Constitution of the United States. That is what this legislation is
about. That is why this piece of legislation is so important.
This legislation seeks to restore the balance of powers. It seeks to
conform that vision that our Founding Fathers had, that miracle that
was created in Philadelphia that summer. It seeks to conform and to
preserve the principles that so many people have died for.
The President is not a king. Congress is tasked to create the law.
That is what this legislation is about. That is why it is so important
that we support it.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
Mr. BARR. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, today I rise in support of H.R. 240, providing
appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the
remainder of this fiscal year. This legislation provides the funding
necessary to ensure that all of the Department's critical missions have
the resources necessary to be dutifully executed.
But I also rise in support of the amendments to this legislation. And
when considering the amendments that were made in order, I am reminded
of
[[Page H340]]
the feelings of pride and patriotism that I witness when I attend
naturalization ceremonies in my home district. When new citizens raise
their right hand and recite the Oath of Allegiance, the aura of
achievement and opportunity is palpable. These immigrants-turned-
citizens have come to the country the right way. They have followed the
rules, and they have earned that feeling of achievement.
But it is America that benefits. These immigrants embody and have
displayed the values we hold most dear: hard work, integrity,
perseverance, and a commitment to be a contributing member of the
American society.
I strongly support these amendments because we are expressing the
sense of Congress in these amendments that we respect naturalized
citizens; we honor their hard work and dedication to the legal
immigration and naturalization process. We should hold these new
citizens up as models for how to immigrate to this country the right
way. We should not punish them by using their very processing fees that
they paid to accommodate illegal immigrants hiding from the rule of
law. And that is why the President's unilateral executive action is so
destructive.
So I proudly join my colleagues not only in voting to defund the
President's unconstitutional executive action but also to call upon his
administration and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to
stop putting the interests of unlawful immigrants ahead of legal
immigrants. Let's reward those who come to this country the right way,
not those who have broken the law.
In conclusion, Mr. Chair, I again thank the Appropriations Committee
and the chairman for this important work vindicating legal immigration.
{time} 2000
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, the security of the United States
and the American people must be our top priority. I urge the majority
to defeat the poison pill amendments that will prevent this bill from
becoming law and to support a clean Homeland Security bill that will
provide the resources that are needed to provide our great Nation with
the protections that they need.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I believe we have no further
speakers, so at this time, I am prepared to close.
I would just like to clarify a few things. Nobody is going to lose a
paycheck, no agency is going to go broke, as we have this
constitutional discussion and this constitutional debate that has taken
place today and will probably take place tomorrow, when the amendments
will actually be before this august body for a determination of whether
they will be included or not included in this bill.
There has been some confusion, I think, that some may think these
things are already here, but we will follow the regular process
tomorrow on the amendments that have been made in order.
No one is trying to put the security of the United States at risk in
this bill, and we will have a normal debate, as we do here. What better
body to address constitutional issues than the Congress of the United
States?
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, today the Majority has chosen to hold the
Department of Homeland Security hostage with their extreme anti-
immigrant policies. Rather than pass a bipartisan bill that would fund
the agency tasked with securing our border and protecting our citizens
from terrorism and violence--the Majority will consider poison pill
amendments to appease an extreme faction of their party.
Playing politics with our national security is not responsible
governance.
First, the Republican party is playing politics with the lives,
safety and security of the American people. In the wake of the recent
Paris tragedy, it is all too apparent that we need smart enforcement
policies that protect the American people and root out any terror
threats. The Department of Homeland Security plays a central role in
our fight against terror, both in the United States and around the
world and we should fully fund their efforts as soon as possible. We
should not be debating ``poison pill'' amendments that have no chance
of becoming law and will only further delay the funding of DHS.
Second, the Republican party is showing the American people that they
only immigration policy they believe in is ``mass deportation.'' They
have attached several policy riders to this appropriations bill that
would further separate families, including the families of military
service members and U.S. citizens.
Third, the amendments that we will later consider will prevent DHS
from implementing smart enforcement policies, including ones that
prioritize deporting felons before families. These smart policies allow
DHS to focus valuable resources on individuals with criminal
convictions and not immigrants with U.S. citizen and legal permanent
resident family members.
I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop playing
politics with our national security and start governing.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, this legislation funds the Department of
Homeland Security for the remainder of the current fiscal year at $39.7
billion, an increase of $400 million compared to the FY2014 enacted
level.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 240, the Homeland
Security Appropriations Act.
This legislation is critically important to keeping our nation safe:
It provides vital funding for the Department of Homeland Security for
the remainder of the current fiscal year
It also prioritizes frontline security efforts, while reducing
unnecessary spending on overhead costs
While there are many important programs that will receive funding
through this legislation, I'd like to address just a few critically
important areas:
Last November, President Obama through executive fiat granted amnesty
to as many as five million illegal immigrants. His decision to
circumvent the proper legislative process was not the right way to
handle this important issue. The President himself even admitted that
he did not have the legal authority to issue an executive notice of
this nature. We made a promise to our constituents that one of the
first things we would do this Congress would be to prevent the
President's unconstitutional executive action from becoming our
nation's de facto immigration policy. This legislation does just that.
Next, this bill increases funding for Customs and Border Protection
in order to make our border more secure. This increase will support a
greater number of Border Patrol agents and officers, and provides them
with the technologies they need to ensure around-the-clock surveillance
of air, land and sea approaches to our nation.
And finally, this legislation includes important provisions that will
allow the Coast Guard to continue operations without the cuts proposed
by the President that would have greatly harmed the Coast Guard's
operational abilities.
This bill prioritizes spending in a way that will better protect our
country.
It is imperative that we pass this legislation to prevent the
President's unconstitutional actions and to support the men and women
who protect our borders.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chair, we need to be clear about what is happening
here today. The Republican Majority in the House is putting our
national security at risk by threatening to shut down the Department of
Homeland in order to advance their mean-spirited, anti-immigrant
agenda.
House Republicans don't like President Obama. We get it. The Majority
also disagrees with the actions the President has taken on immigration.
Look, if you disagree with the President on immigration, let's hear
your plan to fix our nation's broken immigration system. Bring your
bill to the Floor and let's debate it. But we shouldn't let down our
guard on national security by playing games with the bill that funds
border security, immigrations and customs enforcement, FEMA, and the
Coast Guard.
We have a bipartisan Homeland Security funding bill that could easily
pass the House and Senate. We could pass that bill today and the
President would sign it into law. Instead, the Republican Majority is
preparing to load up the bill with a number of divisive, poison pill
amendments that the President will never agree to. Unless House
Republicans change course, funding for the entire Department of
Homeland Security will cut off on February 27.
So the message to my Republican colleagues is clear. Stop playing
politics with our national security and send the President a clean
Homeland Security funding bill.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chair, I thank the Gentlewoman from
New York, Ms. Lowey, for yielding me time.
Mr. Chair, I rise to voice my opposition to the anti-immigration
amendments that will be considered later this afternoon.
These poison-pill amendments were not drafted with an eye toward
making our nation safer, but rather scoring political points against
the President.
As Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I am
disturbed that some of my colleagues are willing to play partisan
politics with national security.
[[Page H341]]
Over the past month, we have seen major cyber-attacks at American
companies and radicalized terrorists wreak havoc on the streets of
Sydney and Paris.
Yet the amendments the Majority insists on attaching to DHS' funding
bill have nothing to do with cybersecurity.
And they have nothing to do with keeping Americans safe from lone-
wolf terrorists or other radicalized individuals.
Rather, the amendments are being considered to satisfy the far-right
fringe contingency of the Republican Party who have amassed
disproportionate influence over the past few years.
The Amendments we are considering today could force DHS to use its
limited resources to remove law-abiding children brought to the country
through no fault of their own before deporting those who pose a threat
to our safety or security.
Similarly, the Blackburn Amendment would end the Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals program, setting in motion the deportation of those
who have already come forward, paid the relevant fees and submitted to
background checks, from America--the only home most of them have ever
known.
In light of global terrorist events that occurred in recent months,
the notion that we would remove individuals--who are known to, and have
been vetted by, DHS--before focusing on those who may do us harm runs
counter to common-sense and contradicts our risk-based approach to
homeland security.
I urge my colleagues to reject the anti-immigration amendments that
will be considered later this afternoon.
Instead, we should be voting on a clean DHS funding bill.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Barr) having assumed the chair, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, Acting Chair of
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 240)
making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes, had come
to no resolution thereon.
____________________