Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2025

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to the majority's Homeland Security appropriations bill for 2025.

First, I want to start by acknowledging the hard work of those who are serving on the front lines at the Department of Homeland Security. They are making sacrifices every day to protect this country, and I am committed to recognizing that. Many of the policies I pushed to have included in the bill acknowledge both the challenges and obstacles these men and women face.

For example, today's bill includes key priorities that focus on expanding employee wellness and suicide prevention programs, including funding additional wellness centers that build upon the successes of the El Paso pilot, providing resources to increase accountability at the Coast Guard as we work to protect cadets from sexual harassment and assault, and improving access to contraceptives for Coast Guard servicemembers and their family members.

However, despite these silver linings, the fiscal year 2025 Homeland Security appropriations bill put forward by Republicans falls short of addressing our country's real and urgent needs.

The legislation not only increases funding for inhumane, costly, and ineffective responses to the humanitarian crisis at our border, but it also cuts $2.1 billion to border security operations, including the complete elimination of the shelter and services program and the critical resources our U.S. Border Patrol agents need to secure the border.

Let me be clear: Eliminating the shelter and services program will not stop migration. It will only prevent communities from managing surges humanely and safely, ensuring chaos and desperation across our country.

The bill also guts funding for refugee and asylum programs and even includes a provision that would cut over $300 million in fee funding for the asylum program. The proposed cuts to the asylum program would only further overwhelm our broken immigration system and ensure that more people are released from DHS custody without legal status. That outcome is not good for anyone.

The funding choices made by the majority in this bill will result in more people being released into the interior while they likely wait years for their case to be decided.

The disappointing truth is that this bill doubles down on outdated, ineffective border strategies that ignore reality and will waste billions in taxpayer dollars. These ineffective policies will leave our communities exposed to humanitarian crises without the resources necessary to respond.

With this bill, House Republicans are turning their back on U.S. Border Patrol agents and the critical funds they need to maintain safe and humane facilities.

The failures of this bill continue. This bill also underfunds critical cyber defense programs, leaving Americans vulnerable and unprepared to deal with cyber threats at a time when our schools, hospitals, and critical infrastructure are under constant attack.

In the face of threats of terrorism and violent extremism that have been highlighted by both the prior and current administrations, this bill eliminates funding for the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships, eliminates funding for the targeted violence and terrorism prevention grant program, cuts funding for the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office, and includes statutory restrictions that would prevent the Department from taking the important actions needed to reverse the alarming trends we see in violent extremism and terrorism.

If passed as written, this bill would leave our communities with nothing to address some of the most urgent threats we are facing across the United States. This legislation reflects a missed opportunity to work in a bipartisan manner to prioritize the needs of our Nation, respond to existing and emerging threats, and address the concerns Americans have expressed about our immigration system, national security, climate change, and more.

The challenges our country faces cannot be overstated. We are living in unprecedented times, and the American people are looking for Congress to set aside partisan politics and do the right thing. Unfortunately, this bill misses the mark and ignores our country's most pressing needs. That is why I cannot support it in its current form.

Earlier this week, President Biden issued a statement confirming that he would veto this bill if presented with it.

We must do better and work collaboratively on a bill that would meet the real and urgent needs of our Nation. In its current state, this bill does not do that.

Madam Chair, I urge my majority colleagues to abandon this partisan theater and work with Democrats to produce a bipartisan bill that puts people over politics and funds the priorities that will keep our country safe, healthy, and prepared to face the challenges with resolve.

Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Madam Chair, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the distinguished ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I thank the ranking member for yielding and congratulate her on presenting her first appropriations bill on the House floor. We are all behind her.

I rise in strong opposition to the Republicans' fiscal year 2025 Homeland Security bill, which neglects the real threats that we face from anti-Semitism, extremism, and domestic terror, and promises to throw our southern border into chaos.

After walking away from a robust, bipartisan border security deal all to pander to Donald Trump, the GOP has finally offered up its alternative.

Since this is nothing more than a messaging exercise, I want to make sure my constituents get the message. Republicans are slashing resources for border management and immigration processing. They are hanging border communities out to dry by defunding shelters and services. They neglect the founding mission of the Department of Homeland Security by eliminating terrorism prevention funds. You just can't make this stuff up.

This bill also rolls back successful Biden administration policies like family reunification and humanitarian parole. Worse, it doubles down on ultra-MAGA policies like separating children from parents and racial profiling, and it inflicts cruel bans on reproductive healthcare.

As a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, I led Democrats in committee, demanding full funding for critical programs like nonprofit security grants, which defend our communities against surging anti-Semitism and hate crimes. In the months following October 7, harassment, vandalism, and assaults against Jews increased by over 360 percent, with nearly 9,000 documented examples across all 50 States. Federal hate crime investigations shot up by 60 percent since then, and the majority of cases involve threats against Jews, who comprise just 2 percent of the U.S. population.

Every single Republican Member voted to waste that money on a useless border wall instead, which Mexico still isn't paying for, by the way, rather than protecting their Jewish constituents.

This bill is more concerned with protecting the reputations of extremists who spread anti-Semitic disinformation than it is with protecting the lives of Jewish Americans. That is shameful.

We know the result of failing to provide these spaces with the protection they need. Communities of all faiths have been devastated by hateful extremists.

We must direct our limited Homeland Security resources against real threats we face, not toward some fictional invasion or against women's reproductive healthcare or against rainbow flags or providing political cover for your convicted felon ringleader.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject these political games and get serious about funding our immigration system and securing our communities against extremist terror.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Madam Chair, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

This bill falls short of what Americans deserve. It cuts necessary funding to secure our border, it defunds critical counterterrorism and cybersecurity programs when we should be looking to invest more, and it abandons our core values as Americans.

I will be voting ``no'' on this bill. I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment.

I thank Chairman Amodei for working with us to include these bipartisan priorities in this amendment.

While I do have some concerns about the extent to which some of these accounts would be cut by these amendments, I trust that we will be able to address those problems before this bill becomes law.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, CBP conducts significant analysis when it comes to setting port of entry hours, which includes traffic trends, staffing availability, and the presence of other ports of entry within a reasonable distance. CBP also considers the economic ramifications of what a closure might have on local communities. Altering port of entry hours is not a decision made lightly.

Removing CBP's discretion to limit hours for these ports of entry sets a bad precedent that fails to allow for the consideration of other compelling national and local threats that CBP must consider.

Unfortunately, this is just another example of an overly restrictive policy that unnecessarily ties the administration's hands when working to protect the American people. I must respectfully oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

The Secretary of Homeland Security plays a critical role in our national security. Secretary Mayorkas has served in his role admirably and has been an honorable public servant for decades, including service as a U.S. attorney, the Director of USCIS, and the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security.

If my majority colleagues were sincere about addressing and ending the humanitarian crisis at the border, they would not have rejected the opportunity to even debate one of the toughest bipartisan border bills in history simply to appease the desires of those who wish to keep chaos at the border for political gain.

When the President and Secretary Mayorkas requested additional resources to secure the border, my colleagues across the aisle ignored that, too. They even demanded that we ``take care of our own border first'' before we consider providing any funding to Ukraine and our other allies.

My colleagues and I remain ready to address the challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security and to work toward building a modern immigration system that reflects the realities of the world we live in today and advances the best interests of American families, businesses, and communities.

In addition, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that this amendment raises serious constitutional issues. Punishing the Secretary is not the way to handle policy disputes. Unfortunately, this amendment prioritizes legislative theater over the American people.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, this is yet another cruel and inhumane attempt by the majority to penalize legal immigrants for accessing health benefits and other government services available to them.

The amendment attempts to revert to a Trump-era public charge rule in 2019 that temporarily disrupted a decades-long policy. The Trump-era rule faced several legal challenges, leading to injunctions and halts in its implementation and costing the taxpayers every time the administration attempted to defend it in court.

The Biden administration's rule merely restores the historical understanding of a public charge back to what had been in place for decades. Under the Biden administration rule, we align with decades-long policy that simply requires immigration officials to consider whether a noncitizen will become dependent on cash benefits. This is something I would imagine American taxpayers would like to know.

Nonetheless, I think it is also important to point out that the idea that immigrants somehow harm our economy or are a net cost to taxpayers is false. For example, earlier this year, the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation within the Department of Health and Human Services published a report on the fiscal impact of refugees and asylees at the Federal, State, and local levels from 2005 to 2019.

One of the key points of the study was this: The net fiscal impact of refugees and asylees was positive over the 15-year period at $123.8 billion, billion with a b, meaning that refugees and asylees contributed more revenue than they cost in expenditures to the American taxpayers. Their net fiscal benefit to the Federal Government was estimated at $31.5 billion, and the net fiscal benefit to State and local governments was estimated at $92.3 billion.

While I can't speak to the intentions behind the gentleman's amendment, I will note that this amendment won't even accomplish what my colleagues think it will. Since the Trump-era rule was rescinded, the effect of this amendment, if enacted, would be to simply revert back to the 1999 guidance, which is essentially the same as the current rule that is being implemented.

This amendment is just another baseless waste of time that does nothing to advance the best interests of Americans. I will vote ``no,'' and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, the Department of Homeland Security does not engage in rulemaking behind closed doors. There is a rulemaking process that involves the public. In fact, it was established by Congress, and it has existed for decades.

The amendment would prohibit DHS and its agencies from issuing major rules that are needed in order to implement and carry out laws enacted by Congress. Unfortunately, this is just another example of a bad policy rider aimed at unnecessarily tying the administration's hands.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I join my friend, the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee in shared opposition to this amendment.

Instead of discussing cuts to our cybersecurity agency, also known as CISA, we should actually be discussing investing more. We cannot continue to play these political games. We don't have the luxury of doing that if we want to be serious about staying ahead of our foreign adversaries. Given what we know, we should be serious.

We have all been warned about the clear intentions of the People's Republic of China, that it considers every sector that makes our society run fair game in its bid to dominate on the world stage.

The FBI Director told us that PRC's plan is to land low blows against civilian infrastructure to try and induce panic and break America's will to resist.

They are not alone in their plans to use cyber and other capabilities to threaten our national security, our economy, and, frankly, our way of life.

Now, I assure you, our adversaries are not holding back on their investments and they are not playing by the same rules. We have, unfortunately, already seen their capabilities and the kind of disruptions and destruction they intend to cause to the United States and our allies.

It is really unspeakable that we are having a debate right now about cutting our premier cyber defense capabilities. Now is not the time to reduce our ability to defend our Nation's cybersecurity posture. We should be investing in it.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, we don't even need to discuss the reasons why wasting funds on additional miles of wall is a bad idea.

The amendment does nothing but make an ill attempt to invest in an ineffective and costly response to the challenges we are facing at the border.

Furthermore, it also calls on the DHS Secretary to take action regarding the use of funds that Congress has already determined he does not control.

While CBP is the primary agency responsible for the seizure of these assets at the border, the proceeds typically go into the Treasury forfeiture fund, which is managed by the Treasury Department.

The allowable uses of these funds are defined in law, and there is an established process for which the Secretary of Homeland Security can make requests of the Treasury Secretary for a portion of these funds.

A significant portion of the proceeds are necessary for the agencies responsible for storing and maintaining seized and forfeited assets and a series of other mandatory requirements.

Requiring that all of the funds seized at the southern border be used for an ineffective, outdated border wall would create a problem with the execution of the fund, causing it to quickly become insolvent.

I oppose this amendment, I urge my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment. The Shelter and Services Program is incredibly important to communities across the country, including mine, Illinois' 14th District.

We all must realize that the flow of migration doesn't just impact communities at the border. It can be felt across the country, including in my home State of Illinois.

Eliminating the Shelter and Services Program will not stop migration. This funding provides States, cities, and nonprofits with the resources they need to provide temporary aid to new migrant arrivals.

As people come to our country legally seeking a better life, we cannot ignore their humanitarian needs. Last year, we were successful in providing $650 million for the Shelter and Services Program, but we know the needs of our communities go far beyond what we provided last year and even what this amendment provides.

However, I am grateful for the gentleman's amendment because it is an important starting point, and it provides a strong foundation for future discussions.

It is no secret that we need to overhaul our immigration system and that there appears to be bipartisan agreement on that. Until then, we must provide our communities with the resources they need to manage the surge now.

Reducing funding for a ridiculous border wall and ICE transportation funding to pay for this program makes sense.

We need to move away from expensive, ineffective, and outdated solutions that do not address the migration challenges we are experiencing today.

I urge support for this amendment, and I look forward to increasing this funding for the Shelter and Services Program in our final enacted bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

The Secretary of Homeland Security plays a critical role in our national security. Secretary Mayorkas has served in his role admirably and has been an honorable public servant for decades, including service as a U.S. attorney, the Director of USCIS, and the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security.

If my majority colleagues were sincere about addressing and ending the humanitarian crisis at the border, they would not have rejected the opportunity to even debate one of the toughest bipartisan border bills in history simply to appease the desires of those who wish to keep chaos on the border for political gain.

When the President and Secretary Mayorkas requested additional resources to secure the border, my colleagues across the aisle ignored that, too--even after they demanded that we take care of our own border first before we consider providing any funding to Ukraine and our other allies.

My colleagues and I remain ready to address the challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security and to work toward building a modern immigration system that reflects the realities of the world we live in today and advances the best interests of American families, businesses, and communities.

In addition, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that this amendment raises serious constitutional issues. Punishing the Secretary is not the way to handle policy disputes. Unfortunately, this amendment prioritizes legislative theater over the American people.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, Safe Mobility Offices are strategically situated in Central and South America and intended to be an alternative way for individuals to seek lawful pathways to the United States other than the dangerous journey that many migrants resort to in an effort to flee from persecution or dangerous conditions.

They are good, commonsense policies. My colleague across the aisle may be interested to know that these offices are also a useful tool in combating illegal border crossings.

Globally, we are facing the greatest displacement of people since World War II. That is why these offices are also in partnership with Canada and Spain.

Let's talk about the effect this amendment would actually have on the Department of Homeland Security. Taking away options for lawful pathways only further burdens Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection with more encounters.

These Safe Mobility Offices enhance our security posture because they allow the vetting of individuals before they ever set foot on U.S. soil.

It also takes money out of the cartels' pockets because it prevents individuals from paying smugglers and coyotes thousands of dollars to get them through our borders.

Finally, it takes the burden off of our already jammed immigration courts that are managing over 3 million cases and counting.

I hear so often my colleagues on the other side of the aisle complain about the chaos at the border, yet when the administration comes up with innovative solutions that aim to establish a more orderly, efficient, and less chaotic border environment, it is met with resistance, as demonstrated by amendments like this one that we are debating today.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, as a threshold matter, the underlying bill already includes a provision that would effectively end the current operation of the program referenced in this amendment.

That is because applicants must use the CBP One mobile app from abroad to submit information that is then used to conduct background checks. The majority's bill already includes a harmful provision that prevents the use of the CBP One app to facilitate the parole of migrants into the United States.

Setting aside the redundancy of this provision, it is worth spending a moment discussing the harmful impact of preventing this program to continue.

The parole process in place for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans provides the Department an opportunity to provide an alternative to the dangerous journeys that many migrants resort to taking to flee from persecution and dangerous conditions. It also enhances our security posture because it allows the Department to vet people before they arrive. It has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of these individuals being encountered between ports of entry at our southern border, which helps with having a more orderly and less chaotic border environment.

I really do wish my colleagues across the aisle, who talk all the time about wanting to secure the border, would start working with Democrats to provide DHS the resources it needs and stop trying to prevent it from executing programs that are actually working.

Instead of ending programs that are reducing chaos at the border, we should be discussing how to build upon the successes of these efforts.

Once again, this amendment has no chance of being enacted. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, the U.S. Constitution grants the Federal Government the sole authority to control immigration and secure the Nation's border. That includes determining who is allowed to enter the country and how the borders are to be secured. This is for a good reason. It is critical that we have uniformity and consistency in our immigration and border security policies across all States.

The Federal Government protects our national interests while maintaining positive relationships with neighboring countries. With this amendment, we are placing Border Patrol in the unfortunate position of being unable to properly secure the border where a State independently constructs or allows the construction of border barriers, such as a wall or fencing.

Furthermore, this amendment would impede CBP's ability to carry out its mission. CBP has indicated it would have challenges if this language were enacted.

For example, this provision would present an extreme life and safety risk to asylum seekers and other migrants who may need to be rescued. Border Patrol agents and CBP air and marine officers regularly save migrants from drowning. Preventing the removal of concertina wire or other structures on the border will cause an increase in drowning deaths, which would further place our law enforcement officers and agents at risk.

Mr. Chair, I will vote ``no,'' and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, while I can support additional funding for DHS components in fiscal year 2025, I must respectfully oppose this amendment. We are debating increasing a multibillion dollar agency by a miniscule amount at the detriment of the Office of the Secretary which is consistently under attack by this majority.

The Office of the Secretary and Executive Management has already been cut by 23 percent.

Mr. Chair, I support the men and women of CBP, but let's not continue with these amendments to message the majority's opposition to the Biden administration on the backs of the other career public servants this amendment will undoubtedly impact.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, I urge my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, the use of facial recognition technology, which is still a fairly new capability, requires robust oversight and internal controls, including a privacy impact assessment by DHS's privacy office.

I know that the Department of Homeland Security and TSA have been taking important steps in that direction, including departmentwide governance policies and allowing travelers going through TSA checkpoints to opt out of the use of this technology.

More work needs to be done to address the potential for biases and inaccuracies in the facial recognition algorithms, particularly regarding their ability to accurately recognize individuals from different demographic groups, as well as ensuring that travelers are aware of their rights to opt out of the facial recognition screening process.

However, I believe we should continue to lean in to address these challenges to ensure the appropriate protections and safeguards are in place while also embracing and investing in modern solutions that not only strengthen our security and expedite the traveler experience with DHS, but also improve the lives of everyday Americans.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and I move to strike the last word.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Magaziner).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, first, we should all support sensible steps to reduce the government's greenhouse gas emissions. Electric vehicles have the potential to significantly improve Federal fleet efficiency and reduce vehicle operation and maintenance costs.

Prohibiting the Department from buying one type of cutting-edge technology just because some of my colleagues want to score political points and continue to deny the existence of climate change is shameful and impractical. Transitioning our Federal fleet to electric vehicles where possible is not part of some woke agenda. It is a matter of practicality, risk mitigation, efficiency, and safety.

I support these efforts, and I believe the American people support the cost savings, cleaner air, new jobs, and healthy environmental future that will come with working to achieve our climate goals.

This amendment is just another partisan policy rider that gets us no closer to a final enacted bill for the Department before the close of the fiscal year.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, there is probably no agency in the Department that interacts with everyday Americans, our constituents, more than the Transportation Security Administration.

TSA's interaction with the traveling public is one that should reinforce TSA's commitment to the safety and security of the traveler and their experience with TSA. That is not just limited to screening baggage. It means respecting all travelers, including travelers from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds and the LGBTQIA+ community. TSA's recognition of inclusivity should be celebrated, not handicapped.

Whether this majority wants to accept it or not, we are a diverse nation. That is what makes us great. This amendment is simply another pointless culture war and a waste of our time. I oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

This amendment would further cut funding from the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management beyond the damaging cuts already included in the majority's base bill. The bill already eliminates funding for the Office of Immigration Detention Ombudsman and for the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships. It slashes funding for family reunification efforts and includes several undefined cuts to contracts, travel, personnel, and other base activities.

It includes no additional funding for much-needed investments in the Department's electronic health records management system, nor does the bill address the growth and workload for the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

The bill also withholds important investments in the new Office of Homeland Security Statistics, which should serve as the foundation of evidence-based decisionmaking across the Department's diverse set of mission responsibilities.

This amendment would require deeper cuts that will further harm important priorities. For example, the Office of Health Security is funded within this account, and it provides employee wellness and suicide prevention services for the Department's workforce. This account also provides funding for child well-being specialists to oversee the care of kids in CBP custody, ensuring they receive the proper level of care and helping to ensure that Border Patrol agents are able to prioritize their primary law enforcement duties.

Mr. Chair, amendments like this are unserious and unhelpful. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

It is absolutely disheartening to learn that any Member of Congress would actively work to undermine voting rights in this country. Yet, once again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are demonstrating that House Republicans have no regard for democracy and no desire to uphold every American's right to vote.

That is why the majority is so desperate to draw district lines to choke out the voices of vulnerable and underrepresented Americans. Now, with this amendment, we see another one of their tactics, which is cruel and un-American. It is an antidemocratic provision by the majority, this time seeking to suppress access to voting and removing steps the administration is taking to ensure that our elections are fair and free from outside influence.

Executive Order No. 14019 on voting access will help ensure that all Americans can exercise their right to vote, such as voters in underserved communities, voters who are younger and older, rural and urban, new citizens, servicemembers and veterans, Native Americans, voters with disabilities, and voters with language access concerns.

Every Member of this body should support these ideals. While the amendment would allow the administration to continue these actions for servicemembers, voters with disabilities, and Native Americans, it would remove such efforts for other populations. That should tell my colleagues everything they need to know about their real intentions.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, also known as CISA, is funded through this legislation. CISA plays a critical role in election security. For example, the Agency is working with the Department of Justice to combat the increased threats to election officials and election workers. How is that a bad thing?

Honestly, I cannot comprehend how anyone who holds public office in our country could possibly support an amendment that attacks the very foundation of our democracy. This amendment does nothing more than threaten the integrity of our electoral process by limiting CISA's ability to ensure safe and secure elections for all U.S. citizens.

Mr. Chair, I will vote ``no,'' and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, first, these policies should be debated in a different context, on a different bill. DHS' role here is guided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. DHS does not develop independent policies on these issues, but, rather, implements policies that originate with the CDC. Second, vaccines and masks are for the safety of self and others.

If enacted under this amendment, the Department would struggle to ensure the health of the traveling public in the face of a pandemic. This amendment undermines public health and the Department's authority to ensure the safety of the traveling public. Instead, it needlessly prevents risk control measures at great risk to our communities.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, last November, I joined my Democratic colleagues in sending a letter to President Biden to urge him to designate the Palestinian territories for temporary protected status and/or authorize Deferred Enforcement Departure for Palestinians in the United States.

I called on the President to take this action because I knew it would save lives, and I applaud the administration for taking this action.

The administration's policy includes important exemptions, too, such as for individuals convicted of felonies or who otherwise pose a public safety threat. We know that many civilians remain in danger in Gaza after the horrific attacks by Hamas on October 7. The humanitarian conditions in Gaza continue to be appalling, and children have been disproportionately harmed.

This amendment is cruel and unjustifiable.

Furthermore, even if it were adopted, it likely would not accomplish anything except creating chaos related to the implementation of a policy that involves agencies that are not only in DHS, but also in the Departments of State, Justice, and Labor.

The funds made available by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act do not impact USCIS's fee-funded operations, which would create confusion even within DHS about how to implement this amendment if it were enacted.

This amendment is nonsensical, and it ignores the realities of how our agencies actually work to solve pressing issues. I do not understand why we would want to be a Nation that sends civilians into dangerous, war-torn conditions to needlessly put their lives at risk.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, this amendment seeks to defund environmental justice efforts at the Department of Homeland Security.

As we continue to face unprecedented climate events, including extreme heat, poor air quality, flooding, and natural disasters of all types, vulnerable Americans have been struggling to adapt. It is no secret that minority communities have been disproportionately impacted.

I will remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that many of the communities that would benefit from environmental justice efforts exist in their districts, too. They exist all over the country, and we need a whole-of-government approach to environmental justice to meet their needs.

For too long, minority and low-income populations have endured disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects from various local, State, and Federal governmental policies.

Environmental justice strategies are a responsible step toward righting those wrongs. DHS' implementation of environmental justice efforts does not prevent it from securing the border, responding to disasters, or defending our critical infrastructure.

On the contrary, these efforts strengthen DHS' outcomes by ensuring that the Department considers the impact on human health and the environment of historically marginalized and low-income populations as it executes its mission.

Why would we want to prevent the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, disability status, or income with respect to DHS' execution of its responsibilities?

I will vote ``no,'' and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment not because I support the remain in Texas concept but because we are debating nonsense. This policy never happened. Why are we wasting time debating amendments to prohibit the implementation of nonexistent policies?

We heard a rumor about this becoming a policy over a year ago. Despite all of the executive actions we have seen since, the administration has done nothing to suggest they are planning to move forward with this one.

We can all invent amendments that prevent rumored policies from going into effect, and our bills would be loaded with nonsensical references to nonexistent policies.

Digging up old, rumored policies that never went into effect and are no longer being discussed is a waste of our time.

If I didn't know better, I would say my majority colleagues are running out of ideas on how to find failure with what the Biden administration is doing to secure our border.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, this amendment ignores the horrors for those who are exploited into forced labor trafficking and dangerous working conditions, many of whom are subject to strenuous work while making substandard wages.

The DHS memo referenced in this amendment was a reasonable and much- needed step toward combating worker exploitation and the problems that follow. We still have so much work to do.

Even the Department has noted that: `` . . . the most pernicious aspect of our country's unauthorized employment challenge: exploitative employers.''

Yet, I don't see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle bringing forward amendments that would comprehensively address that issue.

There is no denying that mass worksite operations furthermore threaten those who are most vulnerable to speak out about labor violations which has downstream impacts such as driving down wages and working conditions.

Adoption of this amendment only empowers bad employers and undermines the enforcement of our country's core labor standards to the detriment of all workers.

I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, first, let me clarify what the policy being attacked by this amendment actually does.

This policy does not confer a new path to permanent status, let alone a new path to citizenship. The people who will benefit from the policy are already eligible for a green card, but the policy removes a barrier that would require almost all families to be separated for 10 years before the undocumented immigrant could be eligible for a green card. On average, these immigrants have been in the United States for 23 years, are married to U.S. citizens, and still must go through a lengthy green card process.

However, with this policy in place, people get to go through the legal steps of getting a green card without being separated for a decade or longer from their families.

Any advocate for family values and unity should support this new process, which only applies to a limited subset of immigrants. Instead of being attacked, we should all applaud the Biden administration for advancing this policy. It demonstrates that the United States prioritizes family unity over archaic and harmful bureaucratic processes that serve no value and certainly provide no deterrence effect.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this new policy and vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, this is yet another attempt by my colleagues across the aisle to attack any effort by the Biden administration to tackle the climate crisis and help our communities become more climate resilient. It is obviously misguided, antiscience, and will put all of us at greater risk of harm as a result of climate disasters.

Only flawed and shortsighted thinking would presume that the climate crisis does not intersect with so many of the issues relevant to the Department's mission, including migration, national security, and disaster relief.

Mr. Chair, I will vote ``no,'' and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the temptation to take congressional action against government individuals when we hear they have done something that we find offensive, but as lawmakers, it is important that we defend the core principles upon which our country is founded, and that includes a system of checks and balances.

We know from the Secretary's testimony earlier this year that there is an active investigation related to Nejwa Ali, a Trump-era hire, and that she has been placed on leave and is not performing the duties and responsibilities for which she was hired. We must allow this process to work.

Ironically, the bill we are considering today would cut important departmental resources that are meant to strengthen its personnel security vetting policies and procedures, such as a cut of nearly $14 million to the Office of the Chief Security Officer.

It is a shame that, throughout this process, my majority colleagues continue to criticize the Department for not doing its job while at the same time they propose cutting the resources the Department needs to address the very concerns that they continue to raise.

In addition, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that this amendment also raises constitutional issues.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, the Department of Veterans Affairs' Financial Services Center provides a purely administrative function for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to process third-party medical claims for those in CBP's and ICE's custody.

Regardless of your stance on immigration, those seeking medical attention should not be denied access to care. The third-party medical providers who provide any medical care that can't be provided within ICE and CBP facilities deserve to be paid in a timely and accurate manner.

The VA's Financial Services Center has that capability, and we are fortunate that it does. This is not unlike how the Department of Agriculture's National Finance Center is the finance center that is used to process the payment of paychecks for thousands of employees across the Federal Government.

Further, this amendment does not prevent ICE from providing medical care to those in its custody. It will simply make it more expensive and more cumbersome not only for DHS but also for the local medical service providers seeking reimbursement for the services that they provided.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, throughout the debate today, it is not clear if our colleagues saw today's announcement, so I just want to make sure that we all know that the Presidential proclamation issued by President Biden to temporarily suspend the entry of certain noncitizens across the southern border and the complementary joint interim final rule issued by DHS and DOJ have now been in effect for 3 weeks, resulting in a significant reduction in the number of encounters at our southwest border.

Under that interim final rule, asylum eligibility is generally limited for those who cross the southern border unlawfully or without authorization during times of high encounters. While it is still early, the Border Patrol's 7-day encounter average has decreased more than 40 percent to under 2,400 encounters per day.

The Immigration and Nationality Act outlines the conditions under which a country may be designated for temporary protected status, and it requires periodic reviews to determine whether the conditions for this status continue to be met.

Based on USCIS' latest review, the Secretary extended El Salvador's TPS designation through March 9, 2025. Since the earthquakes of 2001, El Salvador has continued to suffer from hurricanes, floods, and other natural disasters, making it difficult for the country to fully recover and allow for the safe return of individuals currently receiving TPS benefits.

El Salvador also continues to struggle with gang violence, crime, and general insecurity and economic instability, which pose risks to the safety and well-being of any potential returnee.

I encourage my colleagues to take these concerns to the appropriate authorizing committee if the gentleman feels that the INA should be amended in any way, but singling out a country through this amendment process is an inappropriate way to handle this matter.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chair, the Immigration and Nationality Act outlines the conditions under which a country may be designated for temporary protected status, and it requires periodic reviews to determine whether the conditions for the status continue to be met.

Based on USCIS' latest review, the Secretary extended Honduras' TPS designation through July 5, 2025.

Since the devastation caused by Hurricane Mitch in 1998, Honduras has continued to suffer from hurricanes, floods, tropical storms, and other natural disasters, making it difficult for the country to fully recover and allow for the safe return of individuals currently receiving TPS benefits.

Honduras also continues to struggle with gang violence, drug trafficking, crime, and economic instability, which pose risks to the safety and well-being of any potential returnee.

I encourage my colleagues to take their concerns to the appropriate authorizing committee if the gentleman feels that the INA should be amended in any way, but singling out a country through this amendment process is an inappropriate way to handle this matter.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source