CQ (Article by David Harrison): Republicans used a series of amendments adopted to the House fiscal 2013 Homeland Security appropriations bill to rebuke the Obama administration over its immigration policy. Now the spending bill heads to the Senate freighted with social policy riders that can only complicate final negotiations.
Although few, if any, of the immigration-related amendments are likely to become law, the late-night votes on June 7 allowed House GOP conservatives to give notice to the administration and to members of their own party that they intend to thrust immigration onto legislative and campaign agendas between now and November.
Acting under an open rule, House members approved roughly a dozen amendments to the Homeland Security spending bill (HR 5855) that would boost immigration enforcement and border security. That’s more amendments on the topic than in previous years, according to Eric Sigmon, director of advocacy for the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.
Even Rep. Robert B. Aderholt, R-Ala., chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, said he did not have advance warning about all the immigration-related amendments. “I think there’s a feeling out there, an uneasiness about the administration not enforcing” immigration laws, he said.
Aderholt had worked closely with the panel’s ranking Democrat, Rep. David E. Price of North Carolina, to write a bill that could garner bipartisan support. While Price, a veteran appropriator, had some lingering concerns with the legislation, he said he had been prepared to vote for it on the floor. But that was before the late-night changes.
“These amendments tipped the scales,” Price said. “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.”
“Months of bipartisan effort and work were swamped in just a few hours, as Republicans accommodated and embraced amendments that I believe they would have had the courage and discipline to reject in previous Congresses,” he added. “The line was crossed. We must now attempt to repair the damage as the appropriations process continues.”
To Aderholt, Price’s change of heart is a “good example” that negotiating with Democrats on the bill will not be easy going forward.
“I would be fooling myself if I told you that I don’t think this would have any impact on the support,” Aderholt said, adding that he is still hopeful for an agreement with Mary L. Landrieu, D-La., chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee.
Duplicated Provisions
Many of the House-approved amendments duplicate provisions that are already in the underlying bill. For instance, both the bill language and an amendment by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, would end the implementation of a new administration policy designed to target for deportation illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes, while giving others a reprieve.
The policy, outlined in a series of memos by Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton, has been criticized by Republicans and immigration hawks. Although the spending bill did not specifically refer to the Morton memos, it subtly undercut them by directing $84 million more to immigration enforcement than the administration requested and by mandating that ICE maintain more beds in detention facilities to hold illegal immigrants.
King’s amendment was far more direct. It simply prohibited using any funds to implement the Morton memos.
While King acknowledged that his amendment was redundant, he said he wanted to send a message.
“Nobody’s paying attention to the language in the bill but they’re paying attention to the vote, and we got a recorded vote on this and we know where people stand,” he said. “You’re not held specifically accountable to every word in the bill, but on an amendment that stands alone and is clear, that recorded vote says on this specific topic, ‘This is where we stand.’ ”
Another amendment, offered by Rep. John Sullivan, R-Okla., would bar the administration from dismantling a program known as “287(g),” which allows local law enforcement to join federal agents in enforcing immigration law. The bill, however, already directs $68.3 million to the 287(g) program, more than the administration requested. The administration has said it wants to scale back the program, to the consternation of Republicans.
The administration has threatened to veto the legislation, in part because it abides by a lower overall spending level than was agreed upon in last summer’s debt limit deal (PL 112-25) and in part because of its immigration provisions.
King said the amendments were also intended to warn GOP leaders that conservatives will not stop talking about the touchy subject of immigration during the campaign, despite the party’s efforts to appeal to Hispanic voters.
“It seems as though the agenda here in this Congress is anything about jobs, jobs, jobs,” he said. “I think the Speaker would like to keep that all within that constellation of issues, and they’re important.” But, he added, “there are other issues that matter to the American people.”
“I’m ramping up the discussion on this,” King said. “Let’s have this discussion on immigration throughout the summer. We can come to our consensus hopefully going into the election season in September and October.”
Other immigration-related amendments that the House adopted would end a Clinton-era administrative order supporting translating government communications into languages other than English, cut funding to localities that refuse to enforce immigration law and boost funding for border security.
Landrieu has not weighed in on the House’s amendments. Her spokeswoman, Erin Donar, said the senator would review the House bill “at the appropriate time.” The Senate’s Homeland Security spending bill (S 3216) has been marked up in committee but has not yet made it to the floor.
While most of the controversial House amendments are likely to be stripped in conference, advocates like Sigmon worry that some may survive.
“Like any negotiation, both sides are going to want something,” he said. “We’re concerned because the large number of misguided amendments that were adopted could significantly impact how the conference process plays out.”
No comments:
Post a Comment