David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which would negate the recent rule that would grant certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens to apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver while still in the U.S. Applications for the unlawful presence waiver can take months or even years to adjudicate. This change in processing, this new rule, would permit U.S. citizens to remain united with their loved ones and ensure that the U.S. citizen is not subjected to the very harm--that is, prolonged separation--that the waiver, if granted, was meant to prevent. To be clear, a pending or approved provisional waiver will not provide the interim benefits, such as employment authorization, it will not provide lawful status, it will not stop the accrual of unlawful presence, it will not provide protection from removal. What it would do is eliminate the catch-22 faced by many American families who want to do the right thing by having family members already eligible for the waiver come forward to adjust to legal status. Under the current process, they're penalized if they come forward, penalized by long-term separation from U.S. citizens who are immediate relatives and who depend on them for emotional and financial support. By allowing the processing of waiver applications in the United States, the proposed rule would improve the efficiency of the process and would save taxpayer money. It's a much needed change. It's a good rule. This change in processing is vitally needed. I see no reason to approve an amendment here tonight that would cancel out this beneficial change, and I urge the amendment's defeat. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It would prohibit any funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement's new Public Advocate, a crucial position formed just this past February. The public advocate works directly with ICE's Executive Assistant Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations to respond to acute and pressing concerns from those going through the immigration process, as well as family members and advocates. For example, the public advocate assists individuals and community members in resolving complaints and concerns with agency policies and operations, particularly those that are related to the use of ICE enforcement involving U.S. citizens. It proposes changes and recommendations to fix community-identified immigration problems and concerns. Without the public advocate, individuals proceeding through the immigration process would not have the same level of access to neutral, unbiased internal oversight, fulfilling the role of ombudsman for the public. Since its inception on February 7, the public advocate has provided effective resolution of serious complaints, assisted in increasing public engagement at all levels, and acted as a good steward of the public dollar. By adopting this amendment, we'd be saving ICE less than $200,000 per year, while severely impeding community participation and commonsense enforcement strategies. I can't imagine why we would want to cancel a position that is so effective in helping citizens, helping those who have a stake in all this, helping them penetrate the bureaucracy, helping them get a resolution of serious complaints, making this agency, in effect, more user friendly, more responsive. Why would we want to damage that or destroy it? But that's exactly what this amendment would do, and I urge its rejection. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. This is an amendment that it seems very clear would actually hamper DHS operations and make us less safe. Every component of DHS has to communicate effectively in their daily operations in order to accomplish the mission of the Department. How can ICE enforce our immigration laws without being able to communicate meaningfully with foreign-born persons with limited English proficiency? This is a critical executive order. It was a top priority in the Bush administration. There was a memorandum issued during the Bush administration to the heads of all Federal agencies that helped facilitate the development of limited English-language proficiency plans. To elaborate on that further, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu), a leading member on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I think it's fair to say, if we are talking about common sense, that the balance of common sense lies against this amendment and with section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act. It's quite a straightforward provision intended simply to ensure that the environmental costs from the use of alternative fuels, whatever they may be, are at least no worse than the fuels in use today. Why shouldn't that burden of proof be placed on the use of alternative fuels? It requires that the Federal Government do no more harm when it comes to global climate change than it is already doing through the use of unconventional fuels. So this is a commonsense provision. It escapes me as to why we would want to violate this or bypass it in this Homeland Security bill, so I urge the rejection of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the use of funds to enforce memos, internal ICE memos, on civil immigration enforcement priorities and on prosecutorial discretion. Now, our friend from Texas rightly talks about the importance of law enforcement, and I would just ask colleagues, is there any law enforcement agency in the land that does not set priorities? Every law enforcement agency set priorities. They have to make the most effective use of limited resources. No law enforcement agency can go after every violation indiscriminately. Every law enforcement agency has to prioritize its resources to decide what's most important, what's most protective of the public safety and go after the perpetrators that would do us the most harm. That's about as basic as it gets. In a world with limited resources, it's dangerous and irresponsible not to prioritize the detention and deportation of people who pose a threat to public safety and national security. Why would we want ICE to spend as much time and energy going after innocent kids in college who were brought to this country by their parents as it spends going after known, dangerous criminals? Why would we want ICE to focus on the detention and deportation of the spouses of U.S. citizens serving in our military, rather than on people who pose a threat to national security? The answer is, we would not want them to do such reckless and indiscriminate things. We want them to set priorities, and that's exactly what the Morton memos are about. I yield to the ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the ranking member for his comments. I agree with them. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have read this amendment carefully, and we dealt with it, as colleagues may remember, on the floor last year. The gentleman offering the amendment says it does nothing but restate existing law, but, at a minimum, it sends a strong anti-immigrant message. The gentleman says the amendment prohibits the use of funds by ICE to process the release of illegal immigrants to administer alternative forms of detention to immigrants who have committed crimes which supposedly mandated incarceration. If we're following the existing law, I don't understand the need for this language, the need for this amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentlewoman for clarifying that. There is a lot of confusion about this amendment. The VIPR teams aside, let me just say that to put in this bill a blanket prohibition against TSA officers operating outside of an airport is overly broad and really would be damaging with respect to the things our screeners often are asked to do. Some screeners do assist in passenger screening at transit facilities, for example, and sometimes they are asked to help in screening at national security events. I am told there may be a role at the national conventions or events of that sort where a surge capacity is called for. Now, some discretion, some good judgment is called for in the use of these personnel, but it escapes me why, in an appropriations bill, we would want to write in a blanket prohibition of this sort when there are demonstrable uses for these personnel outside the airport that are very valuable and contribute to our security. So I urge defeat of the amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit any funds from being used to terminate 287(g) agreements. The 287(g) program, as many people know, is a well-intentioned effort to allow State and local law enforcement entities to enter into a partnership with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It is well intentioned, but it has turned out seriously flawed in the practice. Nine years after the 287(g) program was first initiated, there has been a thorough documentation of abuses and of the poor management of the program. There have been three audits by the DHS Inspector General that have raised serious concerns about the program. As a result, ICE has had to reform the 287(g) program to ensure consistency in immigration enforcement actions across the country. The agencies have also had to terminate some 287(g) task forces, notably in Maricopa County, Arizona, after the Justice Department clearly documented racial profiling and other program abuses. Two other counties were also terminated for cause. There are also questions about cost-effectiveness, in fact, very serious questions about cost- effectiveness. Under the 287(g) task force model, it costs $13,322 to apprehend one alien and $19,941 to remove that alien. Because of these costs, as well as other concerns I've already mentioned, Assistant Secretary Morton began notifying communities this spring that ICE would no longer be considering any 287(g) task force model request from State and local jurisdictions. It, instead, will devote resources to the expansion of other ICE programs and to the continued deployment of Secure Communities. For comparison purposes, under Secure Communities, it costs ICE $649 to apprehend one alien, and $1,321 to remove the alien. That's 10 times less than the 287(g) task force model. Many communities across the country are agreeing with the transitioning away from the 287(g) program to Secure Communities. For example, the sheriff of Davidson County, Tennessee, questioned whether the 287(g) program was necessary given its low level of apprehensions and the fact that only 68 communities participated across the country. With Secure Communities being fully implemented nationwide in over 3,000 communities by the spring of 2013, I, frankly, see little need to continue the 287(g) program. Now, if this amendment is adopted, it's going to force ICE to fund this cost-prohibitive and questionable immigration enforcement activity in order to keep on doing what we know isn't working and wasting Federal taxpayer funds. This is a time of fiscal restraint. This is a time when we should be applying cost-benefit standards, effectiveness standards. So Members need to oppose this amendment and allow the Assistant Secretary to prioritize funding decisions based on the most pressing immigration needs of this country and on reasonable standards of cost- effectiveness. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to second the chairman's willingness here to accept this amendment. We think it's a good amendment, straightforward, intended to achieve goals about which we all ought to be able to agree. It simply seeks to ensure that Federal funding for the Department of Homeland Security is not used by law enforcement to discriminate or to deprive individuals of their constitutional rights. I commend the gentleman for offering this amendment and urge its acceptance. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against H.R. 436, not because I believe that the current tax on the device industry is perfect, but because I object to the politicization of the issue and the use of a fundamentally-flawed offset. As one of their first acts upon taking the majority, House Republicans voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Since then, they have voted to dismantle the law piece by piece. Today, they are at it again, and instead of addressing industry concerns in a concise and targeted manner, the majority has crammed together a politically- motivated bill designed to stick it to the President. Don't just take my word for it. Compare the bill we have before us today with the 1099 repeal law. Both deal with problematic revenue raisers included in the health reform law, but the 1099 repeal bill took a targeted approach that represented practical policymaking at its best. This effort is purely political, and the result is a legislative goody bag. Moreover, while the 1099 bill's offset, a modification of the health insurance subsidy recapture cap, was a difficult pill to swallow, H.R. 436's offset is a poison pill. H.R. 436 would fully lift the cap, leading an estimated 350,000 people to forgo health insurance, according to the bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. These are working Americans earning between 133 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level. Why would the Majority ask working and middle income people to bear this burden alone? It is unacceptable. As the representative from a part of our country known for its research and innovation, I fully understand the importance of the device industry. Medical devices have the potential to save and enrich the lives of Americans, and the companies that produce them are helping our economy recover by investing in new technology and providing high- paying, high-skilled jobs. Those companies also tried to be good actors in the health insurance reform debate. Like other industries, device companies understand that the skyrocketing cost of health care represents one of the greatest threats to families, small business owners, state and federal budgets, and the overall economy. Attempting to reverse this trend is one of the reasons Congress enacted the Affordable Care Act, and AdvaMed, the trade association representing medical device manufacturers, participated in the effort to ensure that the legislation would be deficit-neutral. The final law brought the original $40 billion levy on device manufacturers down to a $20 billion contribution through a 2.3% excise tax on medical devices. However, as the ten-year budget window has shifted, industry reports that they expect to paying closer to $29 billion. We need to monitor this carefully and find a fair solution that accounts for the additional business the device industry may acquire as a result of the Affordable Care Act, while underscoring the need to keep the industry vibrant and innovative. That is not the discussion we are having today, but I hope it is one House Republicans will be willing to have in the near future, and I stand ready to work with them to do just that.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I hope we've established in the course of this discussion tonight that I and our side of the aisle are strongly in favor of the FEMA grants, and that most certainly includes the port grants. And so I commend our colleague for calling our attention to the importance of these port security grants and the need for more funding. Although in this bill we have begun the way back in terms of restoring funding for the State and local grants and the port grants and the rail and transit grants and the UASI high risk area grants, we're not there yet. And so our colleague has made a constructive suggestion as to how we might augment this funding. I do feel obligated, though, to make a comment about the proposed offset. Our colleague has made some very cogent points about the NBAF project. I believe that with the funding that's already in the pipeline and the National Academy of Sciences reviews that are underway, that we do not need to include money in this year's bill for NBAF construction. But this is part of the science and technology account, and we're going to have later this evening an amendment from our colleague from New York that will suggest taking the NBAF- designated funding and restoring it to the science and technology account. And I have to say that that science and technology account is very much in need of that funding. Science and technology research activities have been drastically and unwisely cut in recent years. They were cut by 60 percent over the past 2 years. There's a $158 million increase in this bill that restores some of these cuts, but that's taking place against a baseline that was simply too low to meet the needs of the different homeland security components and the needs of our Nation. So in weighing the equities here, as we said earlier, we have one compelling need and we also have an offset that raises some serious issues. We will have an occasion later this evening to talk about the science and technology account and the place of NBAF within that account. I yield back the balance of my time.