skip to main content

H.Res. 990: Supporting the officers and personnel who carry out the important mission of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Jul 18, 2018 at 3:29 p.m. ET. On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended in the House.

This was a vote to agree to H.Res. 990 (115th) in the House. This vote was taken under a House procedure called “suspension of the rules” which is typically used to pass non-controversial bills. Votes under suspension require a 2/3rds majority. A failed vote under suspension can be taken again.

While the ongoing debate about the separation and detention of families entering the country illegally has focused on Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Office of Refugee Resettlement, at least 12 Democrats have called for "abolishing" a third agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE is the Department of Homeland Security's law enforcement agency that operates in the country's so-called interior, not at the border where families have been separated, and has a budget of approximately $6 billion.

ICE arrests, detains, and deports aliens accused of committing a wide range of crimes, including human trafficking and other serious crimes, but many criticize the agency for inhuman treatment of immigrants who have not committed serious crimes.

The call to "abolish ICE" began in June 2018 as an ambiguous call for change without a specific legislative proposal, with senators Warren (MA), Gillibrand (NY), and Sanders (VT) and representatives Pocan (WI), Serrano (NY), Jayapal (WA), Blumenauer (OR), McGovern (MA), Grijalva (AZ), Capuano (MA), Espaillat (NY), andVelazquez (NY) calling for abolishing ICE.

On July 12, Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI2) introduced legislation. Here's what it would do.

Does "Abolish ICE" mean ending immigration enforcement?

No legislator has proposed that.

Mijente, a national Latinx organization, has proposed not just getting rid of ICE, but also defunding CBP, ending privately-run detention centers, prohibiting use of the military in enforcing immigration policies, and more. But this sweeping reform hasn't been endorsed by any Member of Congress.

Even if a legislator were to call for the elimination of ICE with no replacement ----which no legislator has ----immigration enforcement would nevertheless continue. Although CBP patrols the so-called border, the law defines the U.S. border to contain two-thirds of the country's population. CBP might pick up the slack if ICE were eliminated, and could be tasked to enforce the laws left on the books that ICE currently enforces.

Eliminating a federal agency sounds extreme. But calls to abolish federal agencies are common. Since the start of 2017, there has been legislation introduced to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency (H.R. 861), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (S. 370; H.R. 1031), the Export-Import Bank (H.R. 3114), the Department of Education (H.R. 899), and several smaller agencies (H.R. 6100, H.R. 6023, H.R. 5123).

Repeal and replace for immigration enforcement

H.R. 6361: Establishing a Humane Immigration Enforcement System Act, Pocan's bill, would establish a commission to report to Congress a plan to transition the essential functions of ICE to other agencies, with a focus on human rights and transparency, and it would terminate ICE one year after the bill becomes law.

Although ICE would end, the "Commission to Study and Establish a Fair and Humane System of Immigration and Customs Enforcement" would be directed to propose a plan that does not reduce the total federal employment, but instead ICE agents would be replaced with personnel responsible for the legal, health, and social-service needs of detained individuals and asylum-seekers. It would also provide recommendations to ensure federal agencies administer asylum requests in a prompt and timely manner.

The bill outlines the sponsors' rationale for abolishing ICE in eighteen easy-to-read bullet points and directs the commission to comply with international standards, including the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1967, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention Against Torture.

Pocan issued a joint press release with Reps. Pramila Jayapal (WA-07) and Adriano Espaillat (NY-13) upon introducing the bill:

"Sadly, President Trump has so misused ICE that the agency can no longer accomplish its goals effectively. As a result, the best path forward is this legislation, which would end ICE and transfer its critical functions to other executive agencies."

Before introducing the legislation, Pocan hadproposed in a tweet that ICE's work to combat human trafficking "would be transferred to other agencies that already fight human trafficking." Rep. Espaillat proposed abolishing ICE and then creating a commission to propose a new immigration enforcement system. Espaillat, 62, is the first formerly undocumented immigrant to be elected to Congress. He is Dominican-American.

What opponents say

Rather than hold a vote on the bill, House Republicans voted Wednesday on a resolution in support of ICE, authored by Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA3). It passed 244--35, with 133 Democrats voting "present."

The resolution tells a different story about ICE than the Pocan bill. It provides a competing argument outlining ICE's recent accomplishments, such as criminal convictions on drug and violent crimes, and highlights the dangers of abolishing the organization. It is also written in plain-language and is also worth reading. Higgins said in a press release:

"ICE plays a crucial role for our nation's security and their service should be respected. Hopefully, this resolution will remind some of my colleagues across the aisle that we have been elected to serve American citizens, not foreign citizens, and certainly not illegal immigrants."

Repeating history

If any "abolish ICE" proposal were to be enacted, it is likely to be one that re-assigns ICE's responsibilities to other federal agencies ---if history is to be repeated. ICE's primary predecessor agency, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), was a part of the Department of Labor from 1891--1933. It moved to the Department of Justice in 1940 during the lead up to World War II, during which INS ran (some) Internment Camps detaining Japanese Americans. And only in 2003 did it become "ICE" in the Department of Homeland Security, when the department was formed in the aftermath of the events of September 11, 2001.

Abolishing ICE could mean returning its violent crime enforcement operations to the Department of Justice and its labor law enforcement to the Department of Labor, while leaving its national security operations in the Department of Homeland Security.

Other calls for government reorganization

Major reorganizations of government agencies aren't uncommon either. Last month the Trump Administration proposed merging the Departments of Education and Labor and transferring some programs between three departments like musical chairs. And legislation introduced in Congress to abolish the Internal Revenue Service (H.R. 25 by Rep. Woodall; S. 18 by Sen. Moran) wouldn't end taxation, but it would transfer the responsibility. H.R. 31 by Rep. Hudson would create a commission to propose abolishing other agencies.

Reforming ICE where it is

The last major proposal regarding ICE is to keep the agency but reform its operations. Sen. Kamala Harris, who hasn't called for abolishing ICE, has proposed reducing ICE's funding and last year introduced legislation to clarify the rights of immigrants detained by ICE and CBP. Keeping ICE but reforming its operations could be a less disruptive change to immigration enforcement.

However, none of these three tactics to reform ICE are likely to be enacted any time soon --- not only because they are opposed by most Republicans, but because both parties are facing stark internal division on virtually all of the wide range of immigration issues being debated today.

Totals

All Votes R D
Yea 87%
 
 
244
226
 
18
 
Nay 13%
 
 
35
1
 
34
 
Present
 
 
133
0
 
133
 
Not Voting
 
 
16
8
 
8
 

Passed. 2/3 Required. Source: house.gov.

Ideology Vote Chart

Key:
Republican - Yea Democrat - Yea Republican - Nay Democrat - Nay
Seat position based on our ideology score.

Cartogram Map

Each hexagon represents one congressional district. Solid hexes are Yea votes.

What you can do

Vote Details

Notes: The Speaker’s Vote? “Aye” or “Yea”?
Download as CSV

Statistically Notable Votes

Statistically notable votes are the votes that are most surprising, or least predictable, given how other members of each voter’s party voted and other factors.

All Votes

Study Guide

How well do you understand this vote? Use this study guide to find out.

You can find answers to most of the questions below here on the vote page. For a guide to understanding the resolution this vote was about, see here.

What was the procedure for this vote?

  1. What was this vote on?
  2. Not all votes are meant to pass legislation. In the Senate some votes are not about legislation at all, since the Senate must vote to confirm presidential nominations to certain federal positions.

    This vote is related to a resolution. However, that doesn’t necessarily tell you what it is about. Congress makes many decisions in the process of passing legislation, such as on the procedures for debating the resolution, whether to change the resolution before voting on passage, and even whether to vote on passage at all.

    You can learn more about the various motions used in Congress at EveryCRSReport.com. If you aren’t sure what the House was voting on, try seeing if it’s on this list.

  3. What is the next step after this vote?
  4. Take a look at where this resolution is in the legislative process. What might come next? Keep in mind what this specific vote was on, and the context of the resolution. Will there be amendments? Will the other chamber of Congress vote on it, or let it die?

    For this question it may help to briefly examine the resolution itself.

What is your analysis of this vote?

  1. What trends do you see in this vote?
  2. Members of Congress side together for many reasons beside being in the same political party, especially so for less prominent legislation or legislation specific to a certain region. What might have determined how the roll call came out in this case? Does it look like Members of Congress voted based on party, geography, or some other reason?

    One tool that will be helpful in answering this question is the cartogram at the top of the page. A cartogram is a stylized map of the United States that shows each district as an identical hexagon. This view allows you to see the how the representatives from each district voted arranged by their geography and colored by their political party. What trends can you see in the cartogram for this vote?

  3. How did your representative vote?
  4. There is one vote here that should be more important to you than all the others. These are the votes cast by your representative, which is meant to represent you and your community. Do you agree with how your representative voted? Why do you think they voted the way they did?

    If you don’t already know who your Members of Congress are you can find them by entering your address here.

Each vote’s study guide is a little different — we automatically choose which questions to include based on the information we have available about the vote. Study guides are a new feature to GovTrack. You can help us improve them by filling out this survey or by sending your feedback to hello@govtrack.us.