Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-40), the Ranking Democrat on the House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, today delivered the following statement at the full Appropriations Committee markup of the Fiscal Year 2016 Homeland Security Appropriations bill.
"Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking you and your staff for working closely with me and my staff on the drafting of the bill we are considering today. When I took over the role of Ranking Member earlier this year, I soon realized how much I would benefit from the history of good work and bipartisanship on this Subcommittee, including the productive partnership between you and my predecessor as Ranking Member, David Price.
"Before I begin addressing the bill itself, I, too, want to express my concern about the recent tragedy in San Francisco and the killing of Kathryn Steinle. As you have noted, many localities throughout the country have refused or limited their cooperation with ICE. That includes 326 counties, 32 cities, and four states. Among them are San Francisco, New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago, Minneapolis, Miami, and DeKalb County, Georgia.
"There are many valid reasons for this. First, federal courts have ruled that ICE requests to have local law enforcement hold an individual beyond their release date violate the Constitution. Second, local law enforcement felt that the type of cooperation that was being asked by ICE was eroding the trust of their respective communities. Third, given local law enforcement's limited resources, they could not absorb the cost of detentions without negatively impacting their primary goal of public safety.
"The PEP program is intended to address these concerns, and we are hearing reports that local jurisdictions are beginning to respond to working with ICE to find ways to work together and prevent tragedies like the one in San Francisco. Therefore, I was pleased that the report directs the Director of ICE to implement an in-depth outreach program to engage communities on the new Priority Enforcement Program to find mutually agreeable avenues of cooperation.
"Moving on to the bill before us, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you on your continued efforts in the bill and report to push the Department to develop and institutionalize more rigorous, consistent, and comprehensive processes for planning, budgeting, acquisition, evaluation, joint requirements, hiring, and operational coordination. While this kind of oversight and support seldom gets the biggest headlines, it is critically important, and is the foundation of the role this Committee plays.
"The bill reported out of Subcommittee is mostly bipartisan, and reflects the serious approach you take to supporting the Department while also holding it accountable. However, while relatively few, there are areas of significant disagreement.
"Perhaps the biggest challenge we face is the lack of progress in reaching a larger budget agreement, without which we will face a very predictable crisis in September. The Homeland Security allocation, like that of every other bill this year, is well below what it should be. It is $2 billion below the President's request, and $337 million below the current year funding level. This means certain high-priority activities are not adequately funded.
"For instance, with a higher allocation, the bill could provide the full request for Pre-Disaster Mitigation grants, which help reduce the impacts of future disasters, and we could provide the full request for flood mapping, which is critical for helping communities plan development in ways that minimize flood risks.
"Another example of the impact of an inadequate allocation is that the bill fails to provide the requested funding level for the DHS headquarters, already under construction on the St. Elizabeth's campus in Southeast DC. Earlier this year, the Department revised its plan for St. Elizabeth's to consolidate the footprint and reduce costs. It makes no sense to build half the headquarters. Further delays will only cost us more in the long run.
"There are a few other problems with the bill. Immigration detention is civil detention. It is not intended to be a punishment. It should only be used when required by law, or for those determined to be a significant flight risk or a danger to public safety. It is therefore unfortunate that our bill continues a provision setting an arbitrary minimum of 34,000 available ICE detention beds, which limits ICE's flexibility to use cheaper, alternative forms of supervision when appropriate.
"Perhaps the most significant area of disagreement in the bill is the funding for the continued use of family detention. As I mentioned during our Subcommittee markup, I recently visited ICE's two largest family detention facilities to see for myself the conditions under which families were being detained and to personally talk to the women and children incarcerated there. These visits left no doubt that facilities like Karnes and Dilley are not appropriate places for families. These women and children are not flight risks or dangers to our communities. Most have come here intentionally to submit an application for asylum in accordance with our immigration laws. Instead of detention, we should be using less costly, non-detention forms of supervision, such as the ATD program or release on bond or parole.
"The bill also includes new general provisions that I believe to be unnecessary. One would prohibit Citizenship and Immigration Services from implementing the DAPA and expanded DACA programs while the federal court injunction remains in place. Since CIS has no intention of violating the injunction, the need for this provision is unclear.
"Another provision would reverse the President's modest loosening of the trade embargo with Cuba, which has allowed travelers returning to the United States from Cuba to bring back up to $400 worth of merchandise. This is an issue for the authorizing committee, not the Appropriations Committee.
"These areas of disagreement are very important, but notably, they are relatively few. On most aspects of the current bill and report, there is bipartisan agreement. The mark before us maintains the current funding levels for FEMA first responder and anti-terrorism grants. It increases funding for critical Coast Guard acquisitions; maintains funding for the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties; fully funds the proposed increase for the Secret Service to begin addressing Protective Mission Panel recommendations; provides additional funding for ICE investigations into child exploitation, human trafficking, financial crimes, and drug smuggling; and restores funding for Centers of Excellence.
"These are some of the positive aspects of the bill. For those areas where differences remain, I hope we can continue to work toward a bipartisan agreement that extends to the whole bill based on an allocation sufficient to address all the Department's requirements, and that the President will sign. That will, of course, be made more difficult if this Committee succumbs to the temptation of adding poison-pill immigration amendments that have no chance of ever being enacted. I urge my friends on the majority side to resist that temptation.
"Again, I want to underscore my appreciation for the efforts of the Chairman and his excellent staff to work with the minority throughout the bill drafting process."