Henry Cuellar

Mr. CUELLAR

Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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.

Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

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. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition.

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.

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.

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.''

Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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.

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.

Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

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.

Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

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.

Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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.

Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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.

Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

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.

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.

Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition.