HR-7395-119
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Homeland Security, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Wesley Bell (D-MO)
What it does
This bill would prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from using any funds to produce, purchase, distribute, or broadcast television advertisements that promote U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), recruit personnel for ICE, or improve ICE's public image or branding. The prohibition would apply to any ICE program or office and would cover all stages of ad production and distribution.
Who benefits
Taxpayers who oppose federal spending on government agency promotional advertising. Advocacy organizations and communities that object to ICE's enforcement activities and would prefer those funds not be used for public outreach. Members of Congress who seek greater legislative control over executive branch communications spending. Competing media or public information priorities that could receive redirected funds.
Who is hurt
ICE, which would lose a tool for public outreach and personnel recruitment at a time when the agency may be expanding operations. Prospective ICE employees who might have learned about job opportunities through television advertising. Television broadcasters and advertising firms that currently receive or could receive contracts for such ads. DHS, which would face a statutory restriction on its communications strategy. Communities where ICE recruitment advertising may have economic or informational value.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that federal funds should not be used to run promotional campaigns for a law enforcement agency that is the subject of significant public controversy and ongoing litigation over its practices. They contend that recruitment and image advertising for ICE diverts taxpayer money from direct enforcement or humanitarian operations, and that Congress has both the authority and the responsibility to place conditions on how appropriated funds are spent by executive agencies.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that restricting an executive agency's ability to communicate with the public and recruit personnel infringes on the President's constitutional authority to manage the executive branch and carry out congressionally mandated immigration enforcement. They contend that ICE, like other federal agencies, has a legitimate need to recruit qualified personnel and inform the public about its mission, and that singling out one agency for a communications ban sets a troubling precedent for congressional micromanagement of agency operations.