Democrats Find Plenty to Dislike in Final House DHS Appropriations Bill for FY 2013

By: Mickey McCarter
06/11/2012 (12:30am)

The House passed a fiscal year (FY) 2013 budget for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) late Thursday, sharply dividing Republicans and Democrats despite earlier bipartisan agreement on the bill.

The DHS FY 2013 budget bill (HR 5855) passed along party lines, 234-182, and it would fund the department with $39.1 billion next year, $484 million below FY 2012 and $393 million below what the White House requested.

Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, praised the bill late Thursday despite the loss of bipartisan support for it.

"This legislation is proof that we can do more with less -- it represents a reduction in spending coupled with reforms to encourage efficiency and sustainability that will help get us on a stronger fiscal path," Rogers said in a statement. "But we must remember that our freedom isn't free, and we cannot skimp on our national security if we want to stay vigilant and -- most importantly -- safe. This bill keeps these priorities in mind, and puts security first, encourages strong fiscal discipline, mandates robust oversight, and boosts programs that support American jobs, innovation and preparedness."

Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), chief architect of the bill, agreed that it met homeland security priorities while also cutting costs.

"This bill passed today addresses our nation's two most urgent needs -- security and fiscal discipline," Aderholt said in a statement. "HR 5855 strengthens our nation's homeland security efforts by fully supporting frontline operations, immigration enforcement and disaster relief, and by providing key investments in cybersecurity, preparedness grants, and research programs that promote job growth and innovation."

Aderholt called on the Senate to quickly pass their DHS spending bill as well.

Rep. David Price (D-NC), ranking member of the House Homeland Security appropriations subcommittee, expressed his disappointment with the budget bill, which enjoyed bipartisan support when it passed the appropriations committee on May 16.

But Price lamented several provisions that "far right" Republicans placed in the final bill before its passage Thursday. Those provisions drew condemnation from Democrats.

In a statement Friday, Price explained, "Two days ago, as the fiscal year 2013 Department of Homeland Security bill came to the floor for consideration, I applauded our chairman for shepherding the bill before this body in a timely fashion and under an open rule. Collaboration and collegiality characterized our subcommittee and full committee deliberations on this bill, but sadly that cooperative spirit was overwhelmed in the closing hours of floor debate by the far right. The House adopted extreme and reckless amendments in a process that Republican leaders could not or would not control. Although I came into the debate planning to support the bill, these amendments tipped the scales. I could not support the bill on final passage, nor could the ranking member of the full committee and the vast majority of the Democratic Caucus."

Price blasted two amendments to the DHS budget bill sponsored by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). The first amendment would prohibit the use of federal money to provide translation and interpretation services to individuals who cannot speak English well in order to communicate with them. The amendment "breaks faith with all immigrant constituencies," harming the ability of law enforcement officers at US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to communicate to non-English speakers and their families, Price said.

The second King amendment would prohibit ICE from prioritizing criminal aliens for removal from the United States under a directive promulgated by ICE Director John Morton last summer, Price claimed. "Aliens who have committed violent crimes have already shown they will do harm in our communities. Why would we not want ICE to prioritize them for removal first?" he asked.

Price characterized both amendments as jeopardizing American communities.

Steve King, no relation to Rep. Peter King (R-NY), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, had a slightly different view of his amendment. In a statement Friday, King said his goal was to prohibit "administrative amnesty," whereby the Obama administration has been effectively closing cases against illegal aliens who have committed no major crimes or pose no other threats.

King said, "It is irresponsible for ICE to prioritize the deportation and prosecution of illegal aliens based on the Morton memo criteria. It is not the government's job to pick and choose which illegal aliens are most fit for deportation. Collectively, these memos are a picture-perfect example of how the president has been using administrative amnesty to get around Congress on immigration issues. The administration and ICE are continually eroding the rule of law when it comes to immigration. The administration has directed law enforcement officials to provide amnesty to illegal aliens unless they pose a threat to the president's reelection. This amendment will begin to reverse the damage already done while setting our nation back on the right path."

On behalf of Democrats, Price also expressed disdain for an amendment to the DHS budget bill sponsored by Rep. John Sullivan (R-Okla.), who sought to prevent ICE from closing 287(g) agreements that it did not consider cost-effective.

Under 287(g) agreements, ICE deputizes state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce federal immigration law. But DHS has come to consider some of the agreements, which require ICE resources to operate, as ineffective because they have resulted in the capture of few, if any, illegal aliens. By contrast, ICE officials endorse Secure Communities, which runs fingerprints of arrestees against immigration databases and thereby "captures" illegal aliens at a much lower cost.

Price protested 287(g) on its merits, however, accusing the program of encouraging and supporting racial profiling in targeting Hispanics for deportation.

"As numerous inspector general reports have indicated, the program is seriously flawed. To be clear: the Sullivan amendment would prevent DHS from terminating partnerships with police departments that are shown to engage in racial profiling. Unbelievably, it also would also bar communities that wish to terminate their 287(g) programs from doing so. Rather than facilitating oversight, this amendment significantly impairs the department's ability to mete out consequences to entities shown to be abusing the public trust or breaking the law. It has no place in this bill," Price stated.

Sullivan defended his amendment in a statement Friday, calling 287(g) partnerships successful.

"The 287(g) program is one of the most successful programs we have to keep our communities safe from dangerous criminal illegal immigrants -- yet President Obama wants to do away with it," Sullivan said, mischaracterizing the stated position of the administration as vocalized by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano.

"Since I partnered with Tulsa County Sheriff Stanley Glanz to bring the 287(g) program to Tulsa in 2007, TCSO [Tulsa County Sheriff's Office] has identified, processed and opened immigration proceedings on over 14,000 aliens, many of whom had dangerous criminal backgrounds including human trafficking, gang activity and money laundering. In February of this year, 287(g) trained deputies busted up a sex slave ring in Tulsa, rescuing female victims from having up to 22 men forced on them per day - and that is just one example. I applaud my colleagues in the House for supporting my amendment and sending a strong message to President Obama that until the federal government steps up and starts doing its job, we will support local law enforcements' efforts to pick up the slack to enforce our interior immigration laws," Sullivan said.

Price repeated some praise that he had for the original bill, as passed by the House Appropriations Committee, which would fund DHS frontline employees, aviation and port security measures, and appropriate disaster response. He further praised increases to state and local grant programs, which would receive $423 million more than they did in FY 2012.

Even resolving Price's objections may not have fully earned Democratic support. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, objected to underfunded efforts in the bill, some of which were raised by the White House Wednesday in a statement that threatened a presidential veto of the House DHS spending measure.

Democrats said the House bill would not provide enough money to infrastructure protection and fails to make the most of the US-VISIT program by aligning it with other biometric identification programs and funding a proposed exit portion of the program to track visa overstays.

The White House objected to the refusal of the House to provide more money to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) by increasing the passenger security fee paid by airline travelers from $2.50 to $5. The Senate bill so far has endorsed that request, which has been sought by TSA as a means to increase its funding in both the Obama and Bush administrations. The House bill would cut the DHS request for the Federal Air Marshal Service by $50 million, which the White House said would hurt aviation security.

The House also did not adopt the administration's proposal to combine 16 state and local grant programs into one National Preparedness Grant Program, which the Senate also has rejected in its bill.

In addition to other directives for ICE spending contained in the House bill, the White House protested funding for detention beds for illegal aliens at a level 1,200 above that sought by DHS.

The Senate Appropriations Committee passed its DHS spending bill for FY 2013 (S. 3216) in a bipartisan vote on May 22. The full Senate has not yet taken the bill up for debate.

Homeland Security Today: Democrats Find Plenty to Dislike in Final House DHS Appropriations Bill for FY 2013