Henry Cuellar

Mr. CUELLAR

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

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

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.''

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.