Providing for Further Consideration of H.R. 1735, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Mo Brooks. The Brooks amendment is simple. It keeps the immigration debate out of the national security debate. That is it.

My colleague, Mr. Gallego, inserted language during the markup to require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review under section 504 of title 10, United States Code, relating to whether or not those who have received amnesty under President Obama's DACA initiative should be able to enlist in the services, but that very statute already provides the Secretary of Defense the authority he or she needs to make such a determination if there is a readiness crisis. It is already there.

Specifically, paragraph (b)(2) entitles him to ``authorize the enlistment of a person ..... if the Secretary determines that such enlistment is vital to the national interest.''

Now, while the Gallego language may appear to be simple, a sense of Congress to some, in function it will be cited by the lawyers arguing on behalf of the President's executive overreach. Those lawyers will say, you see, even the House of Representatives has passed language that recognizes DACA.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

The Center for Immigration Studies agrees the Gallego language is unnecessary and is simply meant to undercut the ongoing litigation about the legality and unconstitutionality of DACA.

If the Brooks amendment is not accepted and this language is left in the NDAA, it potentially jeopardizes passage of critical legislation. My colleagues, I have fought the President on his executive actions and will fight here again. It is our purview. Once again, I said, the House has moved three times to demonstrate that DACA is illegitimate. This should be the fourth time. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Brooks amendment, stripping the Gallego language.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source