Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2024
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Again, I understand where the gentleman is coming from, but, if we look at it, even the prior administration also understood that the way to address this issue is to put those gates there because of the flooding.
Congress has been looking at this issue with CBP for the last 15 years, and, while it is not perfect, I do understand the prior two administrations have come to the same conclusion, and that is: Deal with the monsoons, the flooding, and they put those doors to make sure that things are not washed off.
Keep in mind that we are spending about $36 million a mile for every fence that we put up. That is $36 million a mile. With about $3 to $5 million, we can get the best technology that can include drones, that could include sensors, that can include so much of the technology to address that.
Again, if you spent $36 million a mile for a fence, all you need is a $100 ladder that would take care of the problem that you have. Again, I will show that, even in Texas, Mr. Chairman, people are concerned about the flooding over there, and that is why the fence is put a quarter mile or a half a mile away, so all the landowners that are over here, they lose their property because you are putting the fence on this side, so the renters, the property, the private right is gone because of the fence.
All you have is the river over here. People just walk over here to the fence and claim asylum. We have to have repercussions at the border. Whoever is supposed to stay, stay. Whoever is supposed to be deported should be deported.
Again, we cannot play defense on the 1-yard line, called the U.S. border. We need to extend the perimeter out there. Again, I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the wall might be damaged because of the water or the flooding, but, again, the past administration--the Trump administration, the Biden administration, and the Bush administration-- all came up with the same conclusion when they got asked to look at this issue, and they said: You have to put doors or gates so the rain or the floods don't wash away the fence.
Mr. Chair, I understand where my colleague is coming from, but I will ask the floor to vote ``no.''
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment.
I trust the work of Border Patrol agents. I trust the work of OFO, which are the men and women in blue at ports of entry. I trust the Air and Marine agents. I trust the work of ICE agents. I trust the work of HSI, Homeland Security agents. I trust the work that they do.
What we are looking at, what wants to be changed, is section 221 that says that none--this is what the law is right now--none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this act may be made available to transport aliens unlawfully present, paroled, or inadmissible to the United States into the interior of the United States for purposes other than the enforcement of immigration law.
It is already here. Again, I don't think we ought to be legislating on the House floor. I think we need to get input from the agents that I mentioned that I support: Border Patrol, OFO, Air and Marine, ICE, HSI. I think we need to ask for it, but the law is already there. It says: cannot go into the interior of the U.S. itself.
Mr. Chair, I stand in opposition, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I rise respectfully in opposition against this amendment, but I will say this: My good friend and I share the border. We will continue working.
I do believe in detention beds. I do believe there is a place for them. I do believe that we should best utilize the detention beds for the high-risk detainees, and I believe also that we should give ICE flexibility.
I will commit to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Tony Gonzales) and to my other good friend from Ohio (Mr. Joyce) that I will work with them when we get in conference committee because this is not the final bill. I will work with them on this particular language.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TONY GONZALES of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I urge this body to please grant the people in my district, the people in Eagle Pass, the people in El Paso some relief. We are beyond a breaking point, and we are completely overwhelmed.
I am here to urge this body to do something today, not a week, not a month, not a year, not 10 years from now--today. Ending catch and release is exactly what our communities need to get some relief.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Any Secretary of Homeland Security plays a very critical role in national security. Secretary Mayorkas has served our country as U.S. Attorney, director of USCIS, Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security and now Secretary.
I know that we hear a lot from the other side of the aisle where they say that the Secretary has not achieved operational control of the border. Operational control of the border was first defined in the Secure Fence Act of 2006, and neither the Border Patrol chief nor the Secretary has yet declared operational control since then.
If you look at it, two Republican Presidents, Bush and Trump, neither of them obtained operational control. Two Democrats, Obama and Biden, also have not obtained operational control.
I know how important the Constitution is to my colleagues, and I would ask you to say that by targeting salaries it is simply unconstitutional, as pointed out in the United States v. Lovett, a Supreme Court case from 1946.
If we are going to uphold the Constitution, the Court has said that targeting salaries is not the right way. We all want to secure the border, but targeting somebody's salary does not get us to the end that we want to get to.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce), my chairman, in strong opposition to this amendment.
CISA Director Easterly leads an organization of over 3,000 dedicated public servants who play a critical role in our national security.
First, Director Easterly is the operational lead for Federal cybersecurity charged with protecting and defending the Federal civilian executive branch networks, the dot-gov we all rely on.
Second, CISA serves as the national coordinator for critical infrastructure security and resilience, working with partners across government and industry to make sure that we protect and defend our Nation's critical infrastructure from bad actors.
Again, when you target somebody by name and you want to reduce their salary, it is unconstitutional. Targeting salaries is unconstitutional, as pointed out by United States v. Lovett, a Supreme Court case from 1946.
I join the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce), my good friend, in asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce), my good friend, for yielding. Again, I stand in opposition to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) on this amendment.
What we are looking at here is CISA Director of Election Security plays a critical role in our national security. Director Hale has served his role in many administrations as a career civil servant under Republican and Democratic administrations.
Again, I say that targeting salaries is unconstitutional, as pointed out in United States v. Lovett, a Supreme Court case from 1946. I join my chairman, Mr. Joyce, in urging our colleagues to vote ``no.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment of my friend from Arizona.
The DHS Under Secretary for the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans plays a critical role in our national security. The Senate confirmed this position to do certain things. At his confirmation, Mr. Silvers said that the Department must secure the borders. It must be relentless in disrupting the human and drug trafficking organizations that inflict such devastation. It must administer our immigration system securely and humanely and must also facilitate the lawful flows of trade and travel that power this economy.
Again, we might have some differences on how we secure the border. We did have an opportunity the last 2 years in the Homeland appropriations that we added $2.4 billion, a 15 percent increase, to Homeland the last couple of years. I remind my colleagues that except for two members of the Republican Party that are still serving, everybody else voted no on securing the borders--hiring more Border Patrol, hiring more ICE agents, hiring more RFO, Air and Marine, technology. Except for two Members that are still serving on the Republican side, everybody voted no.
If we want to secure the border, let's look at how we do that. Again, I say this just because we might have differences on how we do it, but to target an individual, I would assume it would violate the Bill of Attainder Clause of the Constitution. In fact, targeting an individual by name is unconstitutional, as pointed out in United States v. Lovett, a Supreme Court case in 1946.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this unconstitutional amendment. If we want to have a debate on border policy, we certainly can do that.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Respectfully, to my colleague, again, if we are concerned about the security of the country, national security, border security, again, I will remind that the last couple of years, we have added over $2.4 billion to the Homeland Security bill, and there were only two of my Republican colleagues that are still in Congress that voted for the increase.
If we are concerned about security and the work that we are doing-- terrorism, counterterrorism, and threat--we all should have voted for the appropriation bill.
Mr. Chair, let me bring up some figures again. We know as of July 2023, just a couple months ago, 92.9 percent of the fentanyl, 93 percent of the heroin, 94.1 percent of the meth were seized at the ports of entry and interior checkpoints.
If you look at the U.S. Sentencing Commission, 86 to 87 percent of the people that were caught with drugs were U.S. citizens. I want to go after anybody that brings drugs in but, again, we, as Members of Congress, have the constitutional duty to provide oversight over the budget. The way we provide oversight is not by targeting somebody by name and going after their salary.
Again, this will violate the Bill of Attainder Clause in the U.S. Constitution, and it would also be in violation of the Supreme Court case of 1946 that we have mentioned before.
If we want to provide oversight, there is a way of doing it and it is not targeting somebody without their due process and basically firing that individual.
Again, if we want to go ahead and debate how much money we put in, we can do that, but not by targeting somebody against the Constitution.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, again, this amendment violates the Bill of Attainder Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This amendment, again, by targeting someone by name is unconstitutional as pointed out by U.S. v. Lovett, a Supreme Court case from 1946.
Again, I would go back. If we are so interested in border security and national security, we had a chance to add $2.4 billion to CBP's budget authority, an increase of 15 percent. It doesn't matter what the vehicle was. The bottom line is some people who voted, except for two of my Republican colleagues, voted against pay raises for Border Patrol, the mental health services that we provided, college help also, clothing allowance, technology, canines, everything that is so important to border security, except for two of my colleagues who are still in Congress.
Again, you can say that I didn't like the vehicle and this pay raise for Border Patrol and the other help that we provided. The bottom line is some folks voted against border security, and now we are trying to come back to try to change the narrative.
Again, I would say that it violates the Bill of Attainder Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Lovett case of 1946. If we want to provide oversight, there are ways, and I will be happy to sit down with my colleague from Arizona and go over that.
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, first of all, let me just say, as a point of privilege, it is so good to see my good friend from Louisiana. Again, I am with him all the way. I appreciate it.
We disagree on this amendment. We might agree on defunding other things, but not this particular one.
I will say, again, in the last 2 years, we added $2.4 billion to the CBP operation moneys. From there, we added moneys for more Border Patrol agents, more CBP officers, new intel specialists, trade enforcement staff, and other personnel. We added additional technology at the ports of entry. We added initiatives that support CBP workforce, such as suicide prevention, wellness efforts, uniform allowances, tuition allowance, to make sure that we support our men and women in green, in blue, and Homeland Security in general.
Again, I will say that, if we support them, except for two Members that are still on my Republican side, all voted against supporting Border Patrol in all this. If we are so interested, why did we vote on $2.4 billion of moneys for Border Patrol?
Again, this is something that I would ask you to look at. Again, what we should be focusing right now is: How do we keep our government open? Folks said, If you pass H.R. 2, and we are going to go ahead and get the job done. It is right in the Senate. If this bill passes the floor, it is going to be in the Senate.
What we ought to be focusing on is: How do we keep the government open? Again, I would remind my colleagues that, if you look at the last five shutdowns, the House Republicans controlled the House. On November 13, 1995, the Republicans controlled the House; December 15, 1995, it was the Republicans who controlled the House; September 30, 2013, the Republicans controlled the House; January 19, 2018, the Republicans controlled the House; December 21, 2018, again, the Republicans controlled. We had shutdowns, and, again, if we are not careful, the Republican-controlled House will have another shutdown at 12:01 this coming Sunday.
Again, we want to work with you. We want to sit down. You know my position. I have always said that I don't like open borders, and we have to make sure that we secure the border. Again, people talk about crime. I can pick any city. I will say New Orleans. If I pick New Orleans, you will see that crime is lower per 100,000 than in my hometown of Laredo. Rape, murder, assaults, those crimes are lower. Our border is safe.
Now, that is on the crime part. If you want to talk about migration, I agree we need to do more on that, but cutting somebody's salary doesn't get us to what we need. We need to make sure that we stop playing defense on the one-yard line, called the U.S. border.
What we need to do is to do what happened in 2015 and 2019. President Barack Obama sat down with the Mexicans and said, Hey, you have to stop people from coming to the border, and guess what? The numbers went down.
In 2019, President Trump did the same thing, and asked the Mexicans, Hey, stop the people from coming in. Guess what? The numbers came down.
We need to make sure that we put authorities--and I emphasize-- authorities for Homeland, where they can do more outside the U.S. border, because otherwise, we are not going to see the same thing we saw in 2015 and 2019.
We keep playing defense on the one-yard line. I want to secure the border, but, again, if you want to stop drugs, I will say it again, most of the drugs will be coming in--again, the latest numbers from July of 2023, 92.9 percent of the fentanyl, 93 percent of the heroin, 94.1 of the meth were seized at the ports of entry and interior checkpoints.
Again, I will say that, if you look at the U.S. Sentencing Commission, 86 to 87 percent of the people that were caught with drugs were U.S. citizens. I don't care who brings in drugs. I want to make sure that they are put in jail.
Again, I will say this: I know that a lot of you believe in the border wall, but if you look, this is fencing all here, and this is where the heat map shows. Why? Because the border fence is a quarter mile to a mile away from the river where the international border is.
Keep in mind--I agree with you--89 to 90 percent of the people asking for asylum don't get granted asylum officers. What we ought to be doing is sending judges and asylum officers down here to make sure that we do our job over here.
If we need to deport somebody, I will be the first one to say, Deport that individual, but, again, putting a wall, $36 million a mile, when you can get $3 to $5 million for the drones.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, since 1999, the policy has been, under the Clinton administration, under the Bush administration, and the Obama administration, that immigration officials still consider whether a noncitizen will become dependent on cash benefits. I agree. That has been the policy since 1999, and I think we ought to stick with that policy where a noncitizen should not be dependent on cash benefits. Follow the law, and that is what we want to do under the current policy.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, these policies, in my opinion, should be debated in a different bill. DHS' role here is guided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the CDC. The DHS doesn't come up with policies. They don't develop their independent policies on these issues. Rather, they implement policies that originate with the CDC.
We can get into a debate about wearing masks or having vaccines, but, again, I think we need to concentrate this on another bill and not on Homeland.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, we support border security. We also support the U.S. Citizen Immigration Service where they have asylum officers.
One of the things we ought to be doing is adding more money to support the asylum officers so they can be at the border, and they can make a decision whether somebody stays or has a credible fear.
We know the numbers; 89, 90 percent of the people who ask for asylum will be denied because the law is very specific on what asylum is.
It has to be persecution by the state based on religion or based on political beliefs. If you are coming in because you want a job, or you are coming in for a better life, or you are coming in because of a drought or you are hungry or because your country is falling apart, it is not allowed under the law.
What we ought to do is make sure that Homeland has the money to support border security. Again, I remind my friends that the last 2 years, we added $2.4 billion to the CBP budget authority, a 15 percent increase. Except for two Members from the Republican side, everybody voted ``no'' on it.
Again, we want to support border security. If you want to look at fentanyl, the fentanyl will come in through two ports in Mexico, the legal precursors.
Then they come up here, and we have to make sure that we add money for technology to make sure that we stop the drugs coming in.
Again, I am for border security, and I want to work with you to get to border security. Congressman Holman in 1976, the Holman Rule--keep in mind that the Bill of Attainder Clause says no punishment without a trial.
I believe this is in violation of Lovett in The Supreme Court in 1946; it says this type of action is unconstitutional.
Again, if we want to have a debate, let's go ahead and have a debate, but to target somebody's salary is unconstitutional.
I agree. We need to do more to secure the border, and I certainly want to work with my colleagues from Colorado, Ohio, and wherever you might be from. I certainly want to work with you.
I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, the last 2 years we had an opportunity to add $2.4 billion to the CBP budget authority. That is a 15 percent increase.
Except for two Members, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted ``no''. Money for Border Patrol, money for intelligence, money for securing the border, and they voted ``no'' on it. We had an opportunity to vote ``yes'', and it was voted against.
Again, I would say that if we have differences, how do we address this, by cutting somebody's salary, which is unconstitutional?
In United States v. Lovett, the Supreme Court says you can't do this. It is due process without a trial, punishment without a trial, which is the Bill of Attainder Clause again.
I want to secure the border, but I want to make sure that we put funding on this. We are about to have a shutdown this Saturday.
Again, we have been asking our Republican friends to sit down, and I am ready to sit down and work it out. If we don't do this, we are going to be affecting so many people.
It is going to affect 43,000 U.S. Coast Guard employees, including 38,000 Active-Duty Coast Guard military personnel.
It is going to affect 59,000 CBP personnel, including Border Patrol agents, Customs and Border Protection officers, 16,800 ICE personnel, including HSI agents, 58,000 TSA personnel, 19,300 FEMA employees, and 6,300 Secret Service personnel. We are not focusing on what we ought to focus on, and that is making sure that we don't have a shutdown.
Again, Members, I would remind you that the last five shutdowns, you were in charge, and again, five--we are going to make it number six.
We want to sit down and work with you, but again, as the minority Members, we want to sit down and be at the table.
I ask that we oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition. This particular individual has served in senior roles throughout DHS, including as a career official under Republican and Democratic administrations.
As a career official, she led the initial implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act standards for ICE during the Trump administration--and she was not fired under the Trump administration. During the Trump administration she also led the development of a 2019 National Detention Standards, which is interesting because my colleagues included it as a provision in this bill that would require those standards to be applied to all detention facilities.
If we have a problem with policy, let's debate policy. I can tell you we ought to be focusing on making sure that we keep the government open. We can pass these four bills, but I can tell you there is no Senate conference over there. They are not going to take these bills up in the next couple of days.
Instead of focusing on what we ought to do, that is, preventing the sixth Republican-led shutdown since 1995, we ought to be working together instead of doing this.
This amendment violates the Bill of Attainder Clause of the U.S. Constitution. As the U.S. Supreme Court has said in United States v. Lovett, 1946, it is unconstitutional to target an individual.
Mr. Chair, I ask Members to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. This bill on Homeland Security passed June 21, 2023. We are in September and we are just taking the bill right now. This bill, Homeland Security, got passed out of appropriations on June 21, 2023, and here we are late at night trying to pass a bill where there is no Senate conference. They are not even considering this bill, and we are not addressing the issue before us.
The issue before us is that the last government shutdowns were under Republican House majorities. In fact, the longest shutdown in history was a Republican House and Senate with Trump in the White House in 2018. Again, on November 13, 1995, December 15, 1995, September 30, 2013, June 19, 2018, and December 21, 2018, Republican-controlled Houses had a shutdown, five of them that we are looking at, and I think we are going to have the sixth one. Again, this bill passed on June 21 of 2023, and here we are in the middle of the night trying to decide.
Instead of focusing on what we ought to do to make sure we don't have a government shutdown, we are focusing on a bill that might pass over to the Senate, but there is no conference committee. What are we going to do at 12:01?
Again, if we have a problem or a difference--I should say, a difference in policy--I am ready to sit down. I don't want to see open borders. I want to make sure we support Border Patrol. I don't just go visit the border; I live there. I go with Border Patrol to church, I see them at the stores, our kids go to school together. I want to make sure that we support our men and women in green.
This amendment is unconstitutional. When you target salaries, the Supreme Court has already said in United States v. Lovett in 1946, it said, the Bill of Attainder Clause to the Constitution says that you cannot provide punishment without due process.
If we have a difference, let's debate it. You know what? We should have been doing this on June 22, the day after we passed it. Here we are in the middle of the night, 9:10 p.m. Eastern time, and we are talking about passing a bill that the Senate is not even considering right now.
Mr. Chair, I want to sit down with my good friend from Colorado and the chairman, Mr. Joyce, but this is not the time to be talking about taking people's salaries away.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time, and I ask Members to vote ``no.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment because I think this is a policy that should be debated in a different context in a different bill.
DHS' role here is guided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the CDC. DHS does not develop independent policies on these issues but rather implements policies that originate within the CDC.
Again, we can have this debate, but I think we are in the wrong jurisdiction of the bill. This is the Department of Homeland Security bill, not the Labor-HHS bill. If we are talking about things that are important, I would respectfully ask that we look at the date that this Homeland bill was on--June 21, 2023.
We should have taken this bill on June 22, 2023, but here we are, at 9:30 on September 27, looking at trying to pass one of four bills to a Senate that has not taken H.R. 2. Certainly, they are not in conference ready to take up any of our bills.
What we ought to be focusing on is the shutdown. That is what we ought to be focusing on. Again, I will remind my friend that the last five government shutdowns were under a Republican House majority. We are, again, under a House Republican majority, whether it was on November 13, 1995, a Republican-controlled House, 5 days of a shutdown; December 15, 1995, a Republican-controlled House, 21 days of a shutdown; September 30, 2023, a Republican-controlled House, 16 days of a shutdown; January 19, 2018, 2 days; and, of course, December 21, 2018, a Republican-controlled House, 34 days.
Again, we are under a Republican-controlled House. On Sunday, 12:01, I hope we are not talking about a shutdown because, Members, we could pass this bill. Over there, there is no Senate waiting for this. They are working on a continuing resolution. If we have a shutdown, it is border security that is going to be hurt because, in October, starting next week, we are supposed to hire 150 new Border Patrol agents.
All of that will stop. Any vetting, any hiring, anything that we are supposed to do will be shut down. Members should have done this on June 22, 2023, but here we are, at 9:33 p.m. Eastern time, where we are debating a bill and an amendment that has nothing to do with this. It is the wrong jurisdiction.
I say, respectfully, that we ought to be focusing on trying to keep the government open.
Mr. Chair, I respectfully ask Members to vote ``no'' on this, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to an amendment that prohibits funding for the Uniting for Ukraine program.
In life, we have to make a decision: Either we are for good or for evil. Either we are for democracy or for dictatorships. This Uniting for Ukraine program allows Ukrainians who are displaced by the Russian invasion of Ukraine to apply to come to the U.S. through humanitarian parole.
This amendment seeks to stop a program and block thousands of Ukrainians from entering the country. Here, again, is an attempt to cut any support for Ukraine as they fight to defend the country from an illegal Russian invasion.
Putin is attempting to rewrite the map of Europe through the use of force. He is doing so in violation of international law and is deliberately killing civilians, destroying the economic livelihood of Ukraine, and taking kids from Ukraine, stealing the kids, taking them to Russia.
War crimes are being committed on a mass scale, and the United States and the democratic nations of the world must continue to strongly oppose him.
Again, I remind Members that this bill passed on June 21, 2023. Here we are, at 9:40 p.m., and we are going to be here till about 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. I don't mind working. My parents were migrant workers who worked hard, so we can work and stay here till whatever time, but the point I am trying to make is that instead of looking at this bill on June 22, 2023, here we are a few days before the shutdown and, again, I remind everyone that the last five shutdowns have been by Republican-controlled Houses.
This Sunday, at 12:01, we will probably see the sixth Republican- controlled shutdown. Again, I want to work with the majority. I want to work with my good friend, who is always in a good mood, Mr. Joyce. I want to work with him on this, but you can't say: We are in the majority. You are in the minority. You are not going to have a say.
Some of us don't just go visit the border. We actually live there. I work with the Border Patrol. I want to support them.
I want to remind Members that we had an opportunity to put $2.4 billion, which we did add, to support Border Patrol and control the border. Guess what? All except for two Republicans that are still in the House of Representatives voted against border security.
Again, we have a choice. It is either good or evil. It is either a dictatorship or a democracy. I stand for good, and I stand for democracy, and I ask Members to vote against this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, haven't we done this amendment two or three times already?
I mean, we know that the majority doesn't want to pay the salary. We already passed--
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I guess the question I have is, we have done this amendment three times.
Lower it down to $1. Lower it down to $1. Lower it down to $1. I guess his salary would now be $3 dollars since we have done this three times.
Nevertheless, I would remind Members again that the last two fiscal years we added $2.4 billion to CBP authority. That is a 15-percent increase. Money that would have been used to hire more Border Patrol agents, more CBP officers, intel specialists, threat enforcement officers, and other personnel, adding technology at the ports of entry where 90 or 94 percent of the drugs come in.
Again, initiatives to support the morale of the CBP workforce, like suicide prevention, wellness efforts, uniform allowances, and tuition.
Guess what? Every single Republican, except two that are still serving, voted no to pay the Border Patrol and give them the money so they can do the work. They voted no.
Again, here we are, at 9:50. What are we doing? Taking a bill that passed on June 21, 2023. We are not talking about the continuing resolution--because again, on Sunday at 12:01, we are going to have the sixth Republican shutdown since 1995.
Again, I thank all the staff, both on the Republicans' and Democrats' side, for working late; Capitol Police are working late. We can stay here as long as you want to, and maybe increase it to $4 instead of $3 on the pay for the Secretary.
Mr. Chair, I would say this: We are going to have a shutdown because we can pass this bill, or we can say we are going to strip out the H2B visa and get some Members who are going to vote ``no.'' Whatever you want to do, but there is no Senate waiting to handle this bill.
Mr. Chair, I say to my colleagues again, we can stay as long as we want to. I can stay, and some of us will be here at 2:00, 3:00 in the morning, but again, we ought to be working on a CR because we are going to have the sixth Republican shutdown. Five in a row; you can make it six if you don't work with us.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment respectfully, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, with all due respect, but I would remind folks that we can't play defense on the one-yard line and call it the U.S. border. We have to make sure we move the perimeter. The Secretary has to look at threats inside and outside the United States.
Mr. Chair, I ask the gentlewoman to look at 2015.
What happened in 2015? The numbers went down under President Obama. Why? Because we were able to go, visit, talk to other countries so they can stop the migrants before they came to the U.S. The numbers went down.
In 2019, under President Trump, the same thing happened. Again, we were able to work with those countries, traveled over there, talked to them to make sure that they are able to stop folks before they come over here. The numbers went down.
Again, we need to do the same thing, because it is not only the Secretary, but if you have a shutdown--and again, I remind Members at 10:00 at night, we should have been doing this debate back on June 22, a day after the appropriations of Homeland Security passed.
But here we are, addressing something when we know there is no Senate waiting for this bill. There is no Senate ready that has handled H.R. 2. So again, the best thing to do to avoid the sixth Republican shutdown since 1995 is to sit down with Democrats, do it in a bipartisan way, and address this particular issue.
Mr. Chair, a shutdown would not be helpful for anybody. I ask my colleagues to please look at this amendment, and I urge them to reject it.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It ensures that all employees across the Department have a sufficient up- to-date understanding for climate change.
If we keep in mind, one of the agencies under DHS is FEMA. What does FEMA deal with? Climate, hurricanes. All this strategy does is it blocks the Department from studying or even understanding one of the most pressing issues.
Again, just understand, we can't put our heads in the sand and say there is nothing happening on that, yet in times of crisis during a natural disaster we expect the Department to deliver on its mission and make decisions during evolving circumstances.
All it does is understand the evolving environment. That is all.
I will vote ``no'' and encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Again, this amendment would strike a section within a proposed rule. Proposed rules have no force of law.
If enacted, the administration would just simply rename the section and continue to execute the fee rules as currently as they are trying to do that.
Let's keep in mind USCIS is a fee-funded agency. Except for a small portion, they don't get appropriations. They work on fees. We have to find the right balance on the fees and where we add those fees.
Again, I understand what you're trying to do, but I think this amendment will strike a proposed rule, and I don't think this is the right way to address this. I do understand what you are saying, but based on that, I would ask that we vote ``no,'' and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
I would say this as the ranking member, if Chairman Joyce would want to sit down with me, I would be happy to sit down and have this conversation.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, with all due respect to my colleague, the former sheriff, as my brother is a former sheriff on the border.
I ask that if we have differences in opinion, instead of just eliminating this office of civil rights, I would remind our colleagues that this Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties covers the 260,000 personnel who work for DHS. That is, it covers the 43,000 U.S. Coast Guard employees and the 59,000 CBP personnel. That includes Border Patrol and OFO, who are the men and women in blue. It covers 16,800 ICE personnel, including HSI agents and immigration enforcement officers; 58,000 TSA personnel; 19,300 FEMA employees; and 6,300 Secret Service personnel. All of those employees are under Homeland.
Again, I do understand we might have some differences, and I will be the first one to say let's sit down and have a bipartisan conversation to address those concerns. To eliminate the office, I would say that would not be the right policy.
Again, I remind folks, at 10:23, that we passed the Homeland appropriations on June 21. We should have been doing this at 10:23 on June 22 instead of doing this tonight.
I don't think there is a conference committee on the Senate side. We ought to be focusing on how to keep the government open.
With all due respect to my good friend from Texas, the former sheriff, we might have some differences, but I will be the first one to sit down with him and figure out how we can address these issues.
Mr. Chair, for those reasons, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Again, getting information from Homeland can be frustrating. I have been frustrated, also. I agree that they should be providing information.
Sometimes we disagree with the policy on how to secure the border. Sometimes I disagree with my Republican friends. Sometimes I disagree with my Democratic friends. Again, it is a difference in policy that we can work out.
To go after a specific person by name is against the Constitution, the Bill of Attainder Clause, where you should have due process before this step is taken. Targeting salaries is unconstitutional, as pointed out by the United States v. Lovett, a Supreme Court case from 1946.
There is another way to address this. I will be happy to sit down with my good friend from Texas to address this.
Mr. Chair, at this time, I respectfully oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I urge Members to vote ``no.''
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I urge Members to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
This order on voting access will ensure that all Americans can exercise their right to vote, including voters in underserved communities; voters who are younger or older, in rural and urban areas; servicemembers and veterans; and other folks like voters with disabilities or language access concerns.
Madam Chair, I ask that we oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
This amendment would undermine a recent effort by the Secretary--in fact, I believe it was only announced a few days ago--to convene private-sector experts in homeland and national security, some widely recognized, including former senior intelligence officials, who will provide the DHS with a wide range of views and perspectives on the Federal Government's intelligence enterprise to DHS' I&A and the Office of the Counterterrorism Coordinator. All we are trying to do is get information from experts.
Madam Chair, I say that we vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition, with all due respect to my good friend from Texas.
First of all, this program is not in existence, so why are we going to try to prohibit funds for something that doesn't even exist?
One of the things that we ought to be looking at is trying to find an expedited way of removing folks who are not supposed to be here. As I said before, if you get 100 people before an immigration judge, you will see that 89 to 90 percent, generally speaking, are going to be rejected because, again, the law is very specific as to what persecution is.
What I am hoping the administration is trying to do is to make sure that we expedite removals. If you expedite removals, that is the repercussion that we all have been talking about. That is the consequence that we all have been talking about.
To say no funds will be used--for what? That program is not in. We need to fund expedited ways to remove people who, after they have their day in court, should be removed.
With all respect to my good friend from Texas, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I stand against this amendment. I am in opposition. I support ICE. I support enforcing the law.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment, respectfully, to my friend from Texas.
I am looking at the language, and I assume that the first executive order that is referenced is 13678. That one deals with authority for criminal investigators of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives issued by President Obama, so I assume that is not the correct one. You are probably looking at 13768, which deals with ICE.
Nevertheless, even though he is referring to the wrong one here, this amendment is not doing what I think he intends to do. All I am saying is I trust ICE to prioritize and limit their resources where they can focus on the greatest threat.
Again, if we are worried about the border, I would emphasize that for the last 2 fiscal years, we have added $2.4 billion to CBP budget authority, over a 15 percent increase.
I would say that except for two Members, who are not present here today, on the Republican side, everybody voted ``no.''
Again, I ask you to focus on what we have. I assume that the executive order that he is referring to--I would ask you if you want to withdraw the amendment and bring it back, we will consider it tomorrow.
Otherwise, I would oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time, with all due respect to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Roy).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I do not believe in catch and release, and I certainly want to give our men and women everything they need to have, and that is why it is important that we address this issue.
Your amendment deals with a program called remain in Mexico. The only problem is, we can't stop the funds in that program because it got terminated in February 2021. We had an opportunity to vote on this on May 22, but we did not bring this up at that time. Except for two Members, everybody voted ``no'' on this on the Republican side, and it is a little bit too late for this.
Madam Chair, I would say to my good friend from Texas, I do support the MPP, I do support it, but this program is gone. I think we need to have a little bit of discussion if we are going to be looking at ways to stop folks from coming in.
I would remind folks what happened in 2015 and what happened in 2019 under President Trump and under President Obama, that is, we worked with Mexico, not to keep them there, but actually for them to secure their southern border with Guatemala. We need to do that again.
If we are able to do that, I think we should be able to address that issue. I do support MPP, but this amendment is trying to stop funding for something that doesn't exist. For that reason, I will ask my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, we had an opportunity for the last 2 fiscal years to put $2 billion to support CBP, including ICE, and that was a 15 percent increase. We had an opportunity to vote on it, and there were folks that did not support these particular moneys for Homeland.
I have full faith in the men and women that work for DHS, they are capable of carrying out their Federal law enforcement responsibilities and of carrying out their statutory authorities.
This amendment is not needed. I support ICE and they will carry out the work that needs to be done so they can enforce immigration law.
Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I stand in opposition, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I think I know what my friend from New York is trying to get to, but, again, I would ask that she please look at the language here. The language says section, and then there is a blank, followed by ``None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide assistance to the Department of Defense to house persons . . . '' Persons.
What do we mean by persons? Undocumented? Military folks? Or do we only house animals? But it says any person at military installations except if they are there because of the Stafford Act or U.S. Coast Guard personnel. Even that ``personnel,'' that means personnel, a Coast Guard officer can stay there, but their families or dependents cannot stay there.
Again, I know what they are trying to get at, but I think this language, the way it was drafted by the attorneys, will probably do more harm because, again, you cannot house any person except for Stafford or Coast Guard personnel, but not their families.
Again, I don't know if you want to withdraw that or if we could consider this, but the way this is drafted, I would ask her to please look at this carefully.
For those reasons, I would oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source