Henry Cuellar

Mr. CUELLAR

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

Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment, 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 to the amendment.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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

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.

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

Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I stand in opposition, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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.

Mr. CUELLAR

Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, due to a family obligation, I was unable to vote today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 364. personal explanation

Mr. CUELLAR

Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Texas delegation from San Antonio--Mr. Joaquin Castro, Mr. Chip Roy, Mr. Greg Casar, and Mr. Tony Gonzales--for all working together, along with the Senators. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment to add seven slots to the Ronald Reagan National Airport. Right now, cities like San Antonio cannot get direct flights. The slots added in this amendment will allow more cities like San Antonio to have a direct flight. With a population of 1.4 million, San Antonio is the seventh largest city in the U.S. San Antonio is known as Military Town USA and has over 80,000 Active-Duty members and 159,000 veterans. Joint Base San Antonio trains more soldiers than any other place in the country, and it is home to the Department of Defense's largest military hospital. We have to do this for the veterans. We have to do this for the soldiers. Mr. Chair, for Military Town USA, along with the San Antonio delegation, I ask that we pass this amendment.