Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2025
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to cut the budget of the Office of the Secretary of Homeland Security by $10 million.
If we want our government to function, there must be consequences for poor performance. We have a record number of illegal aliens flooding across our borders. Under Secretary Mayorkas' so-called leadership, the U.S. Border Patrol's migrant encounters have reached five times the rate they were even under the Obama administration.
Nearly 371,000 illegal aliens were apprehended in the United States in December alone, with over 5.4 million illegal alien apprehensions occurring between fiscal year 2023 and the present day. We know this failure comes from the top.
That is why this body voted to impeach Secretary Mayorkas for his willful and systematic refusal to comply with the law. It is a breach of the public trust.
My amendment imposes a measured cut to the Office of the Secretary to make it clear that we find his work unacceptable.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, serious? I think this is serious. Actions have consequences. Inaction should also have consequences.
A 12-year-old girl, intending to connect with her 13-year-old boyfriend, instead was intercepted by two drunk illegals. They took her. They raped her. They strangled her. Two hours later, they tried to get money to leave the country.
I pause because this is serious. We have a Secretary who is not doing his job.
Mr. Chairman, this is a modest cut. It is not going to turn out the lights, but it sends a clear message that the Secretary's job is to protect American citizens. It is not diversity. It is not political points. It is to protect America.
There were 400 individuals just designated as having potential ties to terrorists, but they weren't apprehended because they weren't on the terror watch list.
Inaction has consequences. This is serious. This cut is meant to send a message: Enough is enough.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, Executive Order No. 14019, allegedly promoting access to voting, is an effort to divert Federal resources to partisan politics.
This dangerous executive order instructs a wide range of agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Small Business Administration, to engage in voter turnout operations. Worse, it instructs agencies to partner with approved third-party organizations to assist them in their voter registration and other election-focused efforts.
Who will approve these organizations? What criteria will be used? The executive order doesn't say.
Congress has never granted the administration any authority to approve such groups or specified any criteria for doing so. This executive order is illegal.
We all know how this will play out. The Biden administration will partner with groups focused on mobilizing Democratic voters. The executive order instructs agencies to let these groups use Federal property to conduct their voter registration initiatives with the assistance of Federal employees. The use of Federal resources may free up their other resources for more nakedly political operations elsewhere.
Attorneys general in 13 States wrote to President Biden in opposition to this executive order.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, we all understand the importance of maintaining the American people's faith in our elections. We understand that voting and access to the ballot box is important.
My colleague spoke to the idea of outside influence, and that is exactly what this order does. It brings outside influence onto Federal property. The 13 attorneys general raised objections because, with individuals and outside groups being hosted on Federal property, if there is a violation, those AGs may have problems or troubles prosecuting the State law because it is on Federal property.
This creates a conflict between the Federal Government and the States, as pointed out by attorneys general. It seems impossible that this executive order can be carried out without violations of the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits the use of funds for purposes not authorized by Congress; the Administrative Procedures Act; and the Hatch Act.
Congress must clear this up. This amendment is clean. It is clear. It blocks some of this undue outside influence.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits the Secretary from requiring individuals to wear masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
Mr. Chair, this may seem like an old argument, but when we see the testimony of Fauci talking about how much of the recommendations were made up and fictitious, I think it is important that we keep this conversation in the forefront.
I think we remind individuals that our government overreached its authority and infringed on liberty. I think it is important we draw a line in the sand and tell the Secretary that he can't offer a mandate that forces someone to wear a mask.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague for her sentiment, but I would argue that this bill needlessly allows for the Secretary to infringe on the medical relationship between an individual and their doctor. It needlessly forces someone to wear a mask when there is no science to back it up.
There was a New York Times article by leading epidemiologist Tom Jefferson, not to be confused with Thomas Jefferson, that said even the N-95, the gold standard in masks, wasn't effective at blocking the COVID-19 virus.
It is important that anything that is infringing on someone's liberties be based on fact and science and not on conjecture and panic.
Mr. Chairman, I ask adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, following Hamas' brutal attack on October 7, this administration said all the right things. Joe Biden said he was ready to offer all appropriate means to support the government and the people of Israel.
The Acting U.S. Ambassador to Israel said he was sickened by the images coming out of southern Israel of dead and wounded civilians at the hands of terrorists from Gaza. The White House said it unequivocally condemned the unprovoked attacks by Hamas terrorists against Israeli civilians.
Of course, the Office of Palestinian Affairs, defunded by this act, called on Israel not to respond militarily to the crimes of rape and murder. Aside from that, the U.S. response couldn't have been stronger.
Fast-forward to June 2024, the Biden administration is withholding precision-guided munitions as Israel is facing down an existential threat from Hezbollah. The administration and its sycophants in the House and the Senate are attempting to undermine Israel's democracy by telling the Israeli Government not to defend the Israeli people and Israel's security interest.
Meanwhile, American citizens taken hostage by Hamas on October 7 have died in captivity, and this administration's response continues to be insufficient, by proposing a cease-fire that is essentially on Hamas' terms. Most importantly, it preserves Hamas.
We have done little to apply pressure on the negotiations, particularly Qatar, to use their extensive leverage against Hamas on getting Americans back. We have seen the Biden administration cave to the demands of student protesters who chant ``kill the Jews'' in Arabic.
There is an old expression in the ``History of the Peloponnesian War'' in which it is said that: What men did once in private, they now do in public. He spoke of this in the context of the dying Athenian morality. I do fear that Hamas' goal of promoting international terrorism has emboldened far more public demonstrations of anti- Semitism.
We have seen pro-terror activists wielding bear spray while preventing Jews from using the entrance to their synagogues in L.A., seizing a building and holding custodial staff hostage at Columbia University, and other outrages. It is one sign among many of our growing societal rot.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, if this administration supported Israel as much as it has worked to preserve Hamas, this war would be over.
Of course, it doesn't. Rather than signal its support for Hamas' extermination and Israel's right to defend itself, Joe Biden now wants to keep thousands of Hamas sympathizers in the United States.
On February 14, 2024, perhaps chosen to demonstrate the administration's relative affinity for the so-called Palestinian cause, Joe Biden announced he was extending Deferred Enforced Departure for Palestinians, allowing up to 6,000 Palestinians to stay in our country through August 13, 2025.
Think about that: Hamas has just been organized, and they attacked, and they raped, and they killed, and what does this administration do? It defends Hamas. It allows Palestinian sympathizers to stay in our country.
Again, Mr. Chairman, enough is enough. This is the United States of America. It is time to secure our border. We get to decide who comes in and, by George, we get to decide who has to leave.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, environmental justice is a concept closely intertwined with DEI principles.
Rather than seeking to use Federal resources to mitigate environmental harms as effectively and efficiently as possible, advocates of environmental justice want resources allocated based on their misguided notion of equity for marginalized communities.
DHS owes all Americans fair treatment regardless of race, ethnicity, or any other factor. It also owes it to taxpayers to dedicate its resources to where they can provide the most benefit.
Whatever some critical theory professor might claim, we all know that the weather is not racist. A tornado will not check the race of a homeowner before damaging a house. If the temperature reaches 100 degrees in your town, it will be 100 degrees for everyone.
The existing environmental justice strategy for 2021 through 2025 sets such goals as: expand department-wide awareness of environmental justice considerations that might result from its programs, policies, and activities; further the integration of environmental justice principles into DHS lines of business, prominently including mitigation, adaptation, and resilience; strengthen outreach to communities and stakeholders. It goes on and on and on. It doesn't say anything about providing resources in the case of a catastrophic event.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's perspective.
Prior to being in Congress, I was a county executive. One of my departments was emergency services, emergency management, county fire. We also had a county hospital and a county health department. What I can say is, during my tenure, I witnessed tragedies, tornadoes, fires, and in each case, those first responders, those in charge of deploying resources did so without concern for race, color, creed. They responded to a disaster.
The idea that resources would be diverted for justice, I can speak for the men and women on the front lines, they don't see by way of color; they see people, their friends, their neighbors in need, and I trust they will do the right thing.
There are procedures and mechanisms in place if there is truly an injustice that can be resolved.
Mr. Chair, this is a good amendment. At a time of burdening debt, we have got to start cutting. This is wasteful. I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source