Junior senator from Connecticut vs. Cosplay Kristi
“Your department is out of control,” began Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) as he tore into Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during his Senate Appropriations Committee opening statement on Thursday. Murphy is the committee vice chair.
Transcript of his opening statement (video above) from Murphy’s website:
MURPHY: “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Secretary, thank you for being here. I’m sorry that I missed your call yesterday, and I look forward to working closely with you.
“I say this with seriousness and respect, but your department is out of control. You are spending like you don’t have a budget. You are on the verge of running out of money for the fiscal year. You are illegally refusing to spend funds that have been authorized by this Congress and appropriated by this committee. You are ignoring the immigration laws of this nation, implementing a brand-new immigration system that you have invented that has little relation to the statutes that you are required – that you are commanded – to follow as spelled out in your oath of office. You are routinely violating the rights of immigrants who may not be citizens, but whether you like it or not, have constitutional and statutory rights when they reside in the United States. Your agency acts as if laws don’t matter, as if the election gave you some mandate to violate the Constitution and the laws passed by this Congress. It did not give you that mandate. You act as if your disagreement with the law – or even the public’s disagreement with the law – is relevant and gives you the ability to create your own law. It does not give you that ability.
“Let’s start with your spending. You’re on track to trigger the Anti-Deficiency Act. That means you are going to spend more money than you have been allocated by Congress. This is a rare occurrence, and it is wildly illegal. Your agency will be broke by July, over two months before the end of the fiscal year. You may not think that Congress has provided enough money to ICE, but the Constitution and the federal law doesn’t allow you to spend more money than you’ve been given, or to invent money.
“And this obsession with spending at the border, as the Chairwoman mentioned, has left the country unprotected elsewhere. The security threats to the United States are higher, not lower, than before Trump came to office. To fund the border, you have illegally gutted spending for cybersecurity. As we speak, Russian and Chinese hackers are having a field day attacking our nation. You have withdrawn funds for disaster prevention. Storms are going to kill more people in this country because of your illegal withholding of these funds. Your myopia about the border, fueled by President Trump’s prejudice against people who speak a different language, has shattered many of this country’s most important defenses.
“Now let’s talk about the impoundments. When Congress appropriates funds for a specific purpose, the administration has no discretion as to whether to spend or not spend that money, unless you go through a very specific process with this committee. Let me give you two of many instances of this illegal impoundment. The first is a shelter and services program. Senator Britt may want to zero that account out, but that account is funded, and it was funded in a bipartisan way. You don’t like the program. Your policy is to treat migrants badly. I think that that’s abhorrent, but it doesn’t matter that you don’t like the program. You cannot cancel spending in this program, and you cannot use the funds, as you have, to fund other things, like ICE. You have also canceled citizenship and integration grants, which help lawful, permanent residents become citizens, helping them take the citizenship test. I know your goal is to try to make life as hard as possible for immigrants, but that goal is not broadly shared by the American public. That’s why Congress, in a bipartisan way, for decades, has funded this program to help immigrants in this country become citizens.
“Now let’s talk about why encounters at the southern border are down so much. This is clearly going to be your primary talking point today. You will tell us that it represents a success. But the primary reason why encounters are down is because you are brazenly violating the law every hour of every day. You are refusing to allow people showing up at the southern border to apply for asylum. I acknowledge that you don’t believe that people should be able to apply for asylum, but you don’t get to choose that. The White House does not get to choose that. The law requires you to process people who are showing up at the border and who claim asylum. Why? Because our asylum law is a bipartisan commitment, an effort to correct for our nation’s unconscionable decision to deny entry to Jews to this country who were being hunted and killed by the Nazis. Our nation, Republicans and Democrats, decided – wrote it into law – that we would not repeat that horror ever again, and thus we would allow for people who were fleeing terror and torture to come here, arrive at the border, and make a case for asylum.
“Finally, let’s talk about these disappearances. In an autocratic society, people who the regime does not like, or people who are protesting the regime, they are just often picked up off the street, spirited away, sometimes to open-ended detention, sometimes they are never seen again. What you are doing, both to individuals who have legal rights to stay here, like Kilmar Abrego Garcia, or students, who are just protesting Trump’s policies, is immoral. And to follow the theme, it is illegal. You have no right to deport a student visa holder with no due process simply because they have spoken in a way that offends the President. You cannot remove migrants who a court has given humanitarian protection from removal. Now, reports suggest that you’re planning to remove immigrants with no due process and send them to prisons in Libya. Libya is in the middle of a civil war. It is subject to a level four travel advisory, meaning we tell American citizens never to travel to Libya. We don’t have an embassy there, because it is not safe for our diplomats. Sending migrants with pending asylum claims into a war zone just because it’s cruel is so deeply disturbing.
“Listen, I understand that my Republican colleagues on this committee don’t view the policy the way that I do. My Republican colleagues do not share my level of concern for the way that this administration treats immigrants. That’s fine. But what I don’t understand is why we do not have consensus, in the Senate and on this committee, on the decision by this administration to impound the spending that we have decided together to allocate in defense of this nation. We as an appropriations committee, we work interminable hours to write and pass a budget. This budget is really hard to write and pass. And so we make ourselves irrelevant when we allow the administration to ignore what we have decided. And then, when we look the other way when the administration rounds up immigrants who are here illegally and have committed no offenses worthy of detainment, we also do potential, irreversible damage to the Constitution. These should not be partisan concerns. Destroying the power of Congress, eroding individuals’ constitutional rights–this should matter to both parties. Madam Secretary, thank you for being here and I look forward to your testimony.”
Here is an excerpt from Murphy’s questioning, again from his website. He asked Noem if she believes she has the authority to detain or deport U.S. citizens for exercising their First Amendment rights. Noem answered with a single word: “No.”
Murphy asked if she believes her department has the authority to detain or deport legal permanent residents of the U.S. over their exercising those same free speech rights to express political opinions the administration dislikes. Noem hedged and hedged again, deploying word salad about what constitutes political speech and what the administration determines is “affiliation with a foreign terrorist [organization].”
MURPHY: “I assume that you have read the Supreme Court decision in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia?”
NOEM: “Yes.”
MURPHY: “That court decision requires the administration to facilitate Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s release from El Salvador. Can you describe the steps that you’ve taken to facilitate this release, and specifically can you answer as to whether you’ve reached out to your counterpart in El Salvador to facilitate Mr. Abrego Garcia’s release?”
NOEM: “Abrego Garcia is a citizen of El Salvador and should never have been in this country and will not be coming back to this country. There is no scenario where Abrego Garcia will be in the United States again. If he were to come back we would immediately deport him again because he is a terrorist, he’s a human smuggler, and he is a wife beater.”
MURPHY: “You have read the Supreme Court decision. Does the Supreme Court decision not require you to facilitate the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia?”
NOEM: “The Trump Administration is complying with all court orders and judges’ orders.”
MURPHY: “Does the Supreme Court order require you to facilitate the return of Mr. Kilmar Abrego Garcia? Yes or no?”
NOEM: “Abrego Garcia is a citizen of El Salvador. It is up to the president of El Salvador to make the decision.”
MURPHY: “You’re a defendant in the case.”
NOEM: “It has been a big topic of conversation between all of us, between the countries. When the president visited the United States of America, it was discussed and talked about there. The president has been very clear on this issue, as the Secretary of State and I have as well. Abrego Garcia is not a citizen of this country and is a dangerous individual who doesn’t belong here. “
MURPHY: “The discussion ends when the Supreme Court rules 9-0 that you have to facilitate his release. And the fact that you can’t even acknowledge the wording of the order which commands you to facilitate his release and you advertise to this committee that you are going to willfully ignore the ruling–that is incredibly chilling for the balance of powers in a democracy that relies on the executive branch to honor decisions made by the highest court of the land.”
I’ve always seen Murphy as pretty low-key, but looking back a decade, he’s expressed himself in ways that remind me he’s my kind of Democrat. Lately, he’s bringing heat more Democrats need to display to a jaded base.
* * * * *
Have you fought dictatorship today?
The Resistance Lab
Choose Democracy
Indivisible: A Guide to Democracy on the Brink
You Have Power
Chop Wood, Carry Water
Thirty lonely but beautiful actions
Attending a Protest Surveillance Self-Defense