Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2025
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. AMODEI. 8752, and that I may include tabular material on the same.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. AMODEI. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Cole, for his leadership throughout the fiscal year 2025 process and his support as we continue to take conservative appropriations bills to the floor.
I also thank the ranking member of the full committee, Ms. DeLauro, and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. Underwood, who worked with us in good faith on the bill despite some disagreements on policy. I thank them for the opportunity to kick off this appropriations season, if you will, and I am looking forward to getting started here.
Lastly, I express my gratitude to the staff on both sides for their tireless efforts. As we all know, without them, this would be a pretty tough thing and a much different thing to do.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. AMODEI. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. AMODEI. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
It is the border. It is the border. It is the border. We have heard about messaging. We have heard about managing, all of that sort of stuff, and still here we are.
The bill under consideration this morning provides $64.8 billion for the Department of Homeland Security. When we hear about turning our backs, that is an increase of $2.9 billion above the fiscal year 2024 level.
The bill prioritizes investments that make the border--remember, it is about the border--more secure and makes appropriate cuts to policies and programs that, quite frankly, we don't think work.
When we talk about value judgments and stuff like that, if you think the record on the southern border has been a successful thing for immigration, we respectfully disagree.
We have heard from the professionals in the field, our Border Patrol agents and CBP officers who are being crushed dealing with, dare I say, an unprecedented flow of migrants day after day. This bill supports them through real policy change, not just words.
Our colleagues across the aisle are content to treat the border crisis as an issue that can be managed. They throw huge sums of money at a problem the failed policies created. It does not work.
What do I mean? You have the flow across the border, and now it has become a problem everywhere else in the country.
What do school districts do? What do housing people do? What do law enforcement people do? It is fair to focus on the border, but the impacts are not just this is just kind of that deal there.
Law enforcement professionals don't want to manage the border; they want to enforce the law. They want to enforce not the law that we are talking about recently, but they want to enforce the law that has been on the books for a long time.
Dare I say there are some executive orders that may put the interpretation of the law at issue. They want to enforce the law for us to change the course, to end the chaos. If you think what is happening there is a nice, calm thing and it just needs more resources for management, I respectfully disagree.
My colleagues want to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in grants to nonprofit organizations for transportation and other services that only further incentivizes the immigration rush we have got. If you can get across, we will take it from there, and what ``we will take it'' means is giving additional services for transportation.
Do nonprofits reduce encounters or deter anyone from crossing illegally? No, they don't. This enables all that, so we cut funding for that program.
You have heard about border management and shelter services. That is a couple of billion dollars. The numbers are right. Quite frankly, that is one of the funding sources that has been used to transport people all around the country, sometimes on airlines, sometimes in the middle of the night, but nonetheless to manage--we have got all these people here, and we have got to get them spread out as soon as possible.
Madam Chair, it is time for plain talk. We zero that account out. Oh, my God, you did what? Yep. Do any of us think the Senate will leave it at zero? No.
While we are talking about our colleagues in the Senate, this bill last year got zip in the way of--how about this policy or that policy. None. It is a big win for you, I guess, if you are on that side of the fence.
Guess what? We are going to create some things where if you want some money back for that and you want it restricted so it isn't a slush fund to implement policies that are not on the books in terms of statute or regulation, then guess what, that is zeroed out, as are all of the funds for nonprofits. The criticism there is spot on. It is all seen as a way to facilitate huge amounts of people coming over and processing them away from the border as soon as possible.
It is not border cities. They are hardened or whatever; not that they don't need help. It is cities and counties across the country. The answer, according to 3 years' worth of record-high illegal immigration, in our opinion, is a resounding no, so we cut that funding.
Last year, CBP recorded 3.2 million encounters. To put it in perspective, that is about 11 times the population of the largest city in my district. That is just at the southern border in 1 year.
Last year, we funded $1.7 billion for tents to process an unprecedented number of aliens that continue to cross between ports of entry under this administration's open-border policies.
Has spending billions of taxpayer dollars for processing tents along the southern border just to release aliens into the interior at a rapid pace reduced illegal immigration at all? Quite the contrary. In this bill, we eliminated that funding.
In the middle of an election year, the administration just announced a proclamation to shut down the border if encounters between the ports of entry reach a certain level. We have been beyond those levels for a while now. That is quite an announcement.
I heard somebody earlier speak about this is about messaging. I guess in some areas, it is absolutely about messaging.
Oh, by the way, all of those previous administration policies, such as shelter in place and stuff like that kind of kept things to a cooperative between two countries and at some sort of manageable level. No, those are all out the door at the beginning of this. That is why this bill invests in tried-and-true methods of securing the border that men and women in the field are asking for: more agents, more detention beds, more technology, and--I know this is bad--physical barriers.
This bill makes the following border security investment: sustains funding for 22,000 Border Patrol agents, $300 million for border security technology, which is a record in that area if somebody thinks anybody is turning their back on anybody. That includes autonomous surveillance towers, mobile surveillance platforms, counter-tunnel equipment, and a significant investment in counter-drone capability. There is $600 million for a border wall because we know physical barriers work. Finally, there is $305 million in nonintrusive inspection equipment and upgrades so that we can detect fentanyl at our ports of entry. That is right. This bill does that.
In addition to our efforts at the border, the bill includes funding for critical immigration enforcement efforts such as $3.1 billion to support 50,000 detention beds for ICE. This is 8,500 more beds than were funded last year and 16,000 more than this administration asked for.
Yes, we have a disagreement on how many is enough.
There is $822 million for flights and ground transportation for ICE to execute its statutory authority to remove more than 1.4 million migrants who are still in this country despite having final orders of removal. In case anybody didn't catch that, that is to transport people south, not north, east, and west.
There is $60 million to hire more than 250 new law enforcement officers to investigate transnational criminal activity and keep our communities safe from those who seek to do us harm. Translation: fentanyl. Those folks are here to work that issue which, last I heard, was evasive, pervasive, and needs more help.
The bill also makes critical investments outside the southern border. For TSA we provide $178 million to speed up computed tomography screening device efforts at the Nation's airports. This is new technology that is available that has been rolled out at some airports, but, frankly, the administration had it on a 15-year funding cycle. By the time all of our airports get that, I am sure there will be new and better technology that will make this obsolete.
What does the bill do, Madam Chairman?
It puts it on a 5-year cycle. It gets that out to the airports and makes the flying public safer. We doubled the requested amount to pursue those things.
Then we get to China. As we continue to grow in terms of having to meet the challenge of China's military, economic, and political influence in the Indo-Pacific, the U.S. must have a persistent presence in the region.
This bill expands Coast Guard operations in the Indo-Pacific with additional capacity and capability to include $335 million for four fast response cutters to increase deployments in the region, $60 million for service life extension to enable the Coast Guard to deploy another medium endurance cutter, and $4.2 million for increased operations funds for the Coast Guard to interact and conduct exercises with our allies in the Indo-Pacific so that we are ready to go if we need to because we practiced with our friends.
The bill funds the core responsibilities of the department and protects the homeland. What it doesn't do is fund the failed policies that further contribute to chaos at our southern border.
Madam Chairman, that is how you really support the hardworking men and women of DHS protecting the Nation.
We need to change course on the border. We sincerely believe that. Interestingly enough, so do many mayors of large cities across the Nation regardless of their political affiliation.
We need to change that course not through gimmicks but through real policy and funding changes. This bill is a step in the right direction.
Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. AMODEI. Madam Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 1316, I offer amendments en bloc.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. AMODEI. Madam Chair, the bipartisan en bloc amendment before you is comprised of 28 amendments offered by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
This en bloc amendment contains proposals that will strengthen the underlying bill. I want to highlight just a few.
It would provide additional funding to bolster investigations for exploited children within Secret Service and Homeland Security Investigations.
It highlights the Coast Guard's ongoing need for assets, infrastructure, and maintenance funding. It emphasizes the importance of nonintrusive inspection equipment for CBP ports of entry to improve detection of fentanyl and other opioids that plague communities across our country.
It increases funds for FEMA grant programs for firefighters and other first responders and highlights the importance of grants that fund physical security improvements for nonprofit organizations at risk of terrorist attack.
Again, I thank my colleagues for their participation in this process, I urge Members to support this bipartisan en bloc, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. AMODEI. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. AMODEI. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood), my colleague.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chair, here is a little history, and you can use it however you like.
In the 2024 appropriations bill, we cut CISA $15 million, and it was because of this switchboarding issue. I agree that sometimes you want to get somebody's attention. Appropriations is money. That was done this last time.
As we look at what this agency has been doing since then--and I appreciate the history. The history is strong and warrants attention, and I think we dealt with that the last time. Oversight is an ongoing and continuing thing. When I sit here and look at this and say: We are going to flat fund them. That is the proposal. I say: Well, how are you going to do that? Where is that funding going to come from?
Just the standard, there you go, you are flat funded, at a time when their mission domestically in terms of infrastructure, whether that is utilities, communications or any number of things--I mean, in the media, it is like if you are going to buy a car, somebody hacked the outfit that does all that cyber stuff to make it easier to do. If you are going to go to a casino, those folks have been hacked.
The mission is growing. You say: Well, who is the mission? What is that about? That is not about our friends, Mr. Chair. That is about folks who do not wish us well, so Russians, Chinese, all that other sort of stuff.
I would be more comfortable with this if there was a trigger saying, if we fund that and you do this, we are going to come and get some money. I would be more comfortable with this if it were like: Here is where you are going to take it from. It is a funny time to be telling the folks who are in charge of cybersecurity in the non-DOD sectors: We are going to flat fund you. I do not believe that money is the answer to every problem that we come across. This mission has never been more challenging.
I think the oversight has been good under this Director, and quite frankly, from recent history they are headed the right way. It doesn't mean you take your eyes off of them. To go back and say you are flat funded, quite frankly, I think it is a curious time.
Mr. Chair, reluctantly, I don't support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chair, the Shelter and Services Program is a failed program. It does nothing but facilitate the administration's self- created policy crisis on our border.
It is interesting to hear the discussions in terms of now that they are here, we should do something and skip over the whole issue of what has happened in the last 36 months?
It is undeniable that the numbers are significantly larger. Once you are here, we have to focus on what we do.
When you look at shelter services, we are renting tents. By the way, it is a single vendor. It is not even put out for bid. We spend over a billion something a year just for tents.
While it is nice to talk about how we should be good stewards of whoever happens to show up, to ignore how they came to be here in such massive numbers in the last 36 months, to me, it is a bit--and you can fill in the blank.
What began as a $30 million effort has ballooned to a $650 million grab bag for nongovernmental organizations to swiftly resettle migrants across the border illegally into our country.
Even large city Democrat mayors are screaming: We can't sustain this. We should not be spending money on programs that incentivize illegal immigration.
This amendment would directly undercut border security by reducing funds for border wall construction by $600 million.
The men and women in the field have told us walls work, and it is time for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to accept that fact.
This amendment would also cut immigration enforcement efforts by $100 million. Somebody earlier said: Hey, we are turning our backs on Border Patrol. Really? A hundred million bucks is a pretty good look at somebody's back.
That significantly reduces our ability to remove these migrants that no longer have a legal basis to remain in the country.
Remember the backlog that requires over a million dollars to get folks who have failed the test for claiming asylum.
By the way, there are those who pose a risk. I won't repeat what other people have and will talk about. Instead of allowing this administration to continue to positively manage the unmitigated flow of migrants entering our country without consequence, this bill proposes funding and policies that address the crisis by empowering Federal agents and officers to do their jobs and not spend money on folks that enable a political agenda of this administration. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROBERT GARCIA of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, clearly, this is one of the differences between the two sides of the aisle.
This amendment is a double whammy. It weakens the border through lack of physical investment, physical improvement, and capital improvement.
I agree with what my colleague from Illinois said. They can't handle it with the present levels of funding with what is coming across the border. The last thing we need to do is try to put more money into dealing with self-imposed impacts that are avoidable.
I urge opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of Congresswoman Stefanik to offer and support amendment No. 56.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and thank the gentlewoman from New York for offering it.
Our Conference has been quite clear about standing with Israel in their fight against a brutal and inhumane terrorist organization that not only committed the deadliest attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust but continues to hold innocent men, women, and children as hostages.
I also recognize the Jewish community has been the target of increasing anti-Semitism, which was one of the reasons for the amendment that we did earlier regarding supplementing FEMA's program for protection against bigotry.
Bigotry has no place in America. It certainly has no place in the Department of Homeland Security.
Nejwa Ali is a DHS immigration adjudication officer. She was exposed celebrating the October 7 terrorist attack online. It was later revealed that she previously worked for the Palestine Liberation Organization, also known as the PLO, which some people would say has a troublesome reputation, to put it kindly. Their reputation is in the tank when it comes to anti-Semitic policies and things like that.
During the budget hearing this last April, Secretary Mayorkas confirmed for us that she was still employed and on paid administrative leave in April, and the Department confirmed to my staff within the last 2 weeks that this continues to be the case. This is unacceptable. The Department has had more than 8 months to investigate and terminate this employee with cause pursuant to the applicable civil service regulations.
While the Secretary and Biden administration refuse to do the right thing, I invite the Members of the House of Representatives to terminate this employee. We must do the right thing and act with urgency to force their hand.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chair, I will just put on the Record that I associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Tiffany, and I support the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Tiffany) having assumed the chair, Mr. DesJarlais, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 8752), making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source