[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 7]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 9384-9385]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 H.R. 5855, THE DHS APPROPRIATIONS ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 19, 2012

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5855, the 
FY13 Homeland Security Appropriations bill. I regret that this bill, 
especially during the amendment process on the floor of the House, 
became a political football. I hope that when the final bill emerges 
from negotiations with the Senate and the White House, it will reflect 
the will and priorities of the American people.
  Funding appropriated by H.R. 5855 is intended to support and address 
the vital needs of our men and women working to ensure the country's 
homeland security. The bill appropriates a total of $46 billion for the 
Department in FY 2013--including $39.1 billion in discretionary 
spending, $1.4 billion in mandatory spending, and $5.5 billion for 
emergency disaster relief. The measure significantly increases funding 
for FEMA state and local grants and for Homeland cyber-security 
activities.
  Despite these benefits, I have concerns about how the bill disregards 
the mandates of the Budget Control Act, how it treats civilian 
employees at DHS and how the bill delves into unprecedented territory 
regarding the reproductive rights of women.
  The spending caps set by the bi-partisan Budget Control Act ensured 
that prioritized programs could be funded adequately even as 
discretionary reductions were achieved. The harmful discretionary top-
line set by the House Republican budget, and facilitated by this bill,

[[Page 9385]]

threatens funding for other equally vital programs, threatens American 
jobs, and threatens the services relied upon by our seniors and our 
veterans.
  Further, I am concerned that the bill does not fund the .5 percent 
cost of living adjustment provided as part of the president's FY13 
budget request. Federal employees have already sacrificed $60 billion 
of salary over ten years as part of the two-year pay freeze. Starting 
in January 2013, new federal employees will contribute more to their 
pensions to offset the $15 billion cost of Unemployment Insurance 
Extension legislation. And with this bill, federal employees are asked 
to give up what was already a small .5% partial COLA. This provision 
essentially extends for another year the 2-year pay freeze currently 
covering DHS employees.
  Finally, I am disappointed by the passage and inclusion in the bill 
of an amendment offered by Steve King of Iowa, which I opposed and 
which prohibits the use of the funds in the bill from being used to 
implement the so called ``Morton Memos.'' The memos, written by ICE 
Director Morton, provide a plan to deploy ICE resources in the most 
cost effective manner. Specifically, they provide guidance to ensure 
that limited enforcement resources are focused primarily on criminals 
or other individuals who pose a threat to national security or public 
safety. The King amendment will prohibit the department from exercising 
this common sense prosecutorial discretion. It would force the 
Department to treat young people who were brought to the United States 
as kids and who have graduated from American schools the same as 
individuals who knowingly broke immigration laws and who have committed 
crimes in the United States. That makes no sense.
  Bringing a bill to the floor that cuts the resources available to the 
men and women responsible for protecting the homeland security of the 
Nation and then tying their hands with unnecessary and ill-informed 
amendments is counterproductive and undercuts the bill's intended 
purpose.

                          ____________________