On the recordSeptember 27, 2023
Again, this amendment violates the Bill of Attainder Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This amendment, again, by targeting someone by name is unconstitutional as pointed out by U.S. v. Lovett, a Supreme Court case from 1946. Again, I would go back. If we are so interested in border security and national security, we had a chance to add $2.4 billion to CBP's budget authority, an increase of 15 percent. It doesn't matter what the vehicle was. The bottom line is some people who voted, except for two of my Republican colleagues, voted against pay raises for Border Patrol, the mental health services that we provided, college help also, clothing allowance, technology, canines, everything that is so important to border security, except for two of my colleagues who are still in Congress. Again, you can say that I didn't like the vehicle and this pay raise for Border Patrol and the other help that we provided. The bottom line is some folks voted against border security, and now we are trying to come back to try to change the narrative. Again, I would say that it violates the Bill of Attainder Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Lovett case of 1946. If we want to provide oversight, there are ways, and I will be happy to sit down with my colleague from Arizona and go over that. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
Source
govinfo.gov




