CQ Homeland Security | DHS Spending Bill Heads to Floor, But Democrats Still Have Abortion, Immigration Objections

Ongoing qualms about abortion language and statutory requirements forimmigration detention programs are likely to headline next week¹s Housefloor debate on fiscal 2013 spending legislation for the Department ofHomeland Security.Although Democrats are mostly satisfied with the funding levels the HouseAppropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security approved earlier thismonth, members of the minority party said Wednesday that they plan toraise a few key issues when the $39.1 billion measure (HR 5855) reachesthe floor.The subcommittee¹s ranking Democrat, David E. Price of North Carolina,said during a House Rules Committee hearing that he would like to do awaywith the ³numerous unnecessary and wasteful statutory floors² the billwould set, including the requirement that Immigration and CustomsEnforcement maintain at least 34,000 illegal immigrant detainee bedsuntil the end of next summer.Price has also taken issue with provisions that would require at least$134 million be used for immigration enforcement worksite activities and$68 million for facilitating agreements under the so-called 287(g)program, which provides certain local law enforcement agencies withlimited immigration enforcement authority. The administration is lookingto shrink the latter program in favor of other methods of finding illegalimmigrants, but it has Republican support.³Including these types of spending floors and mandates in bill languagelimits the department¹s flexibility to respond decisively to immigrationchallenges and is likely to waste taxpayer dollars for no good reason,²Price said, echoing statements he made during the Appropriations markupprocess.The predominant point of contention throughout the drafting of the billhas been the inclusion of language that would prevent ICE from fundingabortions for detainees, except in certain cases.The Homeland Security Subcommittee¹s chairman, Robert B. Aderholt,R-Ala., said the abortion provisions would simply codify a policy theagency already follows. But Democrats argue the language is redundant andintended to inflame partisan feuds.³This is just political gamesmanship by Republicans who want to introducecontroversial social issues into a bill that¹s supposed to be aboutnational security,² Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said during the RulesCommittee markup.On the floor, Democrats are likely to come after the portions of the billpertaining to abortion by waging procedural challenges, saying thelanguage constitutes authorization legislating in a spending bill, aviolation of the House rules. But any such attempts to strike theprovisions are expected to be defeated, just as they were duringWednesday¹s meeting to approve rules for debate.The bill, which is expected to be taken up next week, has been granted anopen floor process, allowing for consideration of any amendments thatlawmakers submit in advance of debate.Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier, R-Calif., acknowledged Wednesdaythat going through debate without limiting amendments will be achallenge. But, he said, ³having this open process is the right thing todo.