Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with basically a commonsense amendment on H.R. 2578. I appreciate the hard work that Chairman Culberson, Ranking Member Fattah, and other members of the Appropriations Committee have put into this bill.

This bill contains many important provisions to protect law-abiding Americans and public safety while spending responsibly; however, I want to make it absolutely clear that no funds appropriated under this bill are used to assist States and localities whose laws and policies are in direct contradiction to Federal immigration law and enforcement efforts. My amendment does just that. It ensures that we do not reward State and local governments with Federal funds when they ignore the rule of law.

State and local jurisdictions are implementing policies that directly contradict U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's statutorily mandated mission to identify and remove illegal aliens who are currently incarcerated. At this point, we even have seen some local sheriffs who choose to follow Federal law and honor ICE detainers slapped with lawsuits for cooperating, for following the law.

I know we are late. I know there is some discussion about this, but really this is simple.

Hard-working taxpayers should not have to sit idly by and watch their tax dollars go to localities that choose to encourage illegal immigration through their nonenforcement policies. My amendment sends a clear message that, if localities implement policies in contradiction to Federal immigration law, they will not be eligible to receive funds under this act, specifically Federal reimbursement grants under the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that was offered and accepted last year. We are offering it again and would ask favorable consideration.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I will at least respond to the point of order.

This amendment is not in contradiction of current law. In fact, it simply states that the amendment would not allow funds to be used in support of holding up law as it is currently written. This is not a law that is written to circumvent current law. In fact, all it says is that States and localities who receive the money will actually support current law. So I am not sure what the point of order is actually trying to say.

This was put in last year. It was approved. I understand. I appreciate the gentleman's concern. But, basically, we are saying if you enforce the law as it is written, which is all we are asking, then the grant is there. If you choose not to enforce Federal law, then that is money that will be withheld.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source