Pay Our Homeland Defenders Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before I make my remarks on the bill, I would like to take a moment to praise the work of one of our staff who is leaving the committee next week.
Jocelyn Hunn is a trailblazer. In 1983, she became the second woman to ever work as a professional staff member for the House Appropriations Committee.
In her career, she fought to preserve our natural and cultural resources, ensure access to clean air and water, and provide services to all Americans to advance their well-being and help them to achieve a better life.
Jocelyn is retiring from a career in government service on Tuesday. The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee and the entire House of Representatives owe her a debt of gratitude for her tireless work, and that began more than four decades ago.
I wish my friend Godspeed. It has been a pleasure to work with her. It really has.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this twice-doomed legislation.
Madam Speaker, what is the definition of insanity?
It is doing the same thing over and over and over again, expecting a different result. This is not a serious effort. It is just more political theater.
Here is the truth: The President has given up on funding DHS. He said earlier this week that any deal Congress makes, ``I am pretty much not happy with it.'' Then, he said to Republicans: Don't make a deal with the Democrats.
Does that sound like someone who wants to end this crisis and pay TSA workers?
Madam Speaker, the Congress is on its own. The only way we are getting out of this logjam is if we work together to exercise our power of the purse.
The talks in the Senate have all but fallen apart. The President is refusing to get behind anything. Tomorrow will mark the second full paycheck that TSA workers and others across DHS will miss.
I might just make a note here, because I think it is important to say something about this. In fact, at this moment, 85 percent of ICE and CBP are being paid; Secret Service, 75 percent; and Coast Guard, 85 percent.
TSA workers are being paid zero, but the TSA Administrator confirmed yesterday that the Department made the decision not to pay TSA workers. The Department made that decision, I am sure in concert with the President of the United States, that these are folks who are expendable. We don't have to pay them. Let's pay the others and leave them on their own.
Again, this is not someone or some Department that cares about TSA workers.
I have put forward a proposal that I honestly believe is a reasonable middle ground between the two sides of this discussion. Democrats do not want to provide more funding for ICE or CBP without legally binding policy changes that protect our communities. Republicans are opposed to many of these changes and want to fund ICE and CBP without any new protections.
Neither side disagrees over funding for TSA, FEMA, the Coast Guard, or other parts of DHS. What we are caught up on is whether or not we can deal with ICE and CBP separately, or if we have to fund everything all at once. I do not believe that it must be all or nothing.
My proposal, which I introduced over 1 month ago, funds the parts of DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, that we all agree on. It funds TSA so that these workers can get paid--they can pay their bills, they can stop sleeping in their cars, and they can avoid evictions--and so that we can put an end to the long lines at airport security.
It funds FEMA so that we can replenish the Disaster Relief Fund and ensure that our communities are prepared for the next natural disaster.
It fully funds cybersecurity so that we are equipped to prevent or respond to any threat that comes our way.
It separates out the funding for ICE and CBP for the time being, just for the time being, so that we can negotiate on that issue without holding the rest of the Department hostage.
I have been listening to the debates over this impasse. I believe some of my Republican colleagues are under the impression that my proposal is designed to permanently shutter ICE and CBP. That is not true. That is not the case. We will have to pass a bill to fund those agencies, and we will do so when we have come together on an agreement that establishes reasonable protections against abuse, reasonable protections, I might add, that the vast majority of Americans support.
We cannot have masked, armed Federal agents roaming our communities, breaking down doors with no warrants, arresting people with no explanation, and, yes, even murdering Americans in the streets.
In the meantime, there is no reason to keep the rest of the Department shut down.
Madam Speaker, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.
My amendment would have replaced the text of the doomed Republican proposal with the text of my bill to fund the parts of DHS over which there is no disagreement.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, let me just make a couple of quick points here.
I think I said earlier it was the TSA Administrator yesterday who confirmed that the Department made the decision not to pay TSA workers.
In addition to that, the Department of Homeland Security has a $10 billion slush fund that comes from the Republicans' big, beautiful bill. They could dip into that slush fund to pay TSA screeners if the Trump administration chose to do so.
By the way, this is the same account that former Secretary Noem used to buy two luxury jets for her use and to rent a horse for $20,000 so she could ride atop it in her ads. If she can do that, then the new Secretary could use this $10 billion slush fund to pay TSA screeners. They have chosen not to do it. They are not shedding any tears for those workers.
It is false. It is politics. It is a cudgel, and they are using them and playing them for political reasons. Again, they choose not to pay them, and so it falls to us. Yes, it falls to us.
Everyone in this room wants to pay TSA employees and Coast Guard and FEMA. My bill does that. It actually does it. The bill before us does not do this.
Let's be reasonable. We have done this before when parts of the government were closed and we thought that some should open. We did it for food inspectors because our food should be inspected so that people can get access to it. We have done it for military pay. Why aren't we doing it for TSA employees? We could do that today.
Do you know what. We don't need a discharge petition. We need a Speaker of the House to take this bill and bring it to the floor, and I would bet you dollars to doughnuts that, in fact, we would have overwhelming support from Democrats and Republicans in passing it. Then TSA, FEMA, the Coast Guard, Cybersecurity, and Secret Service can get paid for the jobs that they are doing.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the distinguished Democratic whip.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the distinguished Democratic leader.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLAURO.
Mr. Speaker, let's be clear: ICE and CBP are being paid. TSA is not. That is what President Trump and the Republicans have decided.
I am delighted to hear about this newfound concern that my Republican colleagues have about wanting to fund these agencies. I think it is very clear: Where were they when the administration proposed eliminating FEMA entirely? Where were they when the President proposed cutting cybersecurity by $500 million? Where were they when the President unilaterally eliminated collective bargaining rights for TSA workers? They were silent, not one word.
Spare me, spare all of us, and spare the American people these crocodile tears which you shed about people that you cut. Republicans cut a thousand people. Republicans allowed Elon Musk to cut a thousand people from cybersecurity and then sat around saying nothing. So, again, spare us all.
Now, let me just say this to you: The chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee said a little while ago that what the Democrats were offering were radical and unachievable reforms.
Let's take a look at the radical and unachievable reforms: arrest warrant requirements; prohibit the detention and detainment of U.S. citizens; Fourth Amendment protections; search and seizure protections; officer ID requirements; no mask but badges like other law enforcement agencies; prohibit immigration enforcement at sensitive locations such as schools, churches, and medical facilities; end racial profiling; restrictions on the use of force to prevent future deadly incidents like those we saw in Minnesota; prohibiting the Department from withholding evidence for use of force-related investigations; protecting Member access to all ICE facilities, including new facilities that they are buying with $45 billion that they received in the big, beautiful bill; and, yes, mandatory body-worn cameras.
These policies have to be built into law. That is what needs to happen here. I have offered--and I did this a month ago, more than a month ago now--I said plainly speaking--because there are serious disagreements about ICE and about CBP, serious disagreements.
Mr. Speaker, 70 percent of the United States, the people in this country, believe that these agencies need to be brought under control and that we need protections. Let's hammer that out. Let's hammer it out on its own.
Why do we want to hold hostage the men and women who are doing their job every single day? They are not asking for more. They are asking to be paid for the work and the service that they give to all of us. Why are we holding them hostage and deliberately doing so with TSA agents? As I said, ICE and CBP, they are being paid. CBP has $65 billion. ICE has $75 billion.
Our people are hurting. They need to get help.
The President said $500 million cuts to cybersecurity. That is what he said in his budget. No one blinked an eye when he said he was cutting 1,000 workers from cybersecurity. Now we have this newfound worry about cybersecurity? Again, spare us.
There is a very simple solution to this.
Let us take the agencies on which we have mutual agreement. It is a reasonable middle ground between two sides of this discussion. We don't want to provide more funding for ICE or CBP without the binding policy changes that protect our communities.
Republicans are opposed to many of these changes and want to fund ICE and CBP without any new protections. Neither side disagrees over funding TSA, FEMA, Coast Guard, or other parts. What we are caught up on is whether or not we can deal with ICE and CBP separately or if we have to fund everything all at once.
I personally do not believe it must be all or nothing. That is not the spirit of compromise that allows us to move forward and to create policy changes and initiatives in this Nation.
My proposal funds the parts of DHS that we all agree on. It funds TSA so they would get paid. They can pay their bills, stop sleeping in their cars, and avoid evictions. We can put an end to the long lines at airport security. It funds FEMA so we can replenish the disaster relief fund. It ensures that our communities are prepared for the next natural disaster. It fully funds cybersecurity so we are equipped to prevent or respond to any threat that comes our way. It separates ICE and CBP for the time being, not forever, for the time being, so we can negotiate on that issue without holding the rest of the Department hostage.
As I said earlier, I listened to the debates. I believe some of my Republican colleagues are under the impression that the proposal is designed to permanently shutter ICE and CBP. That is not true. We have to pass bills to fund those agencies. We will do so when we can come together on an agreement that establishes those protections against abuse, which the majority of Americans support.
There is no reason for us to keep the rest of the Department shut down. It is an easy solution if we choose to take it. This is about political will and a choice. Quite frankly, we do not need a discharge petition. The Speaker of the House could call up this bill at any moment, place it on the floor, and it would pass overwhelmingly. But there is a discharge petition. If we have to try to get it to the floor, it would be my hope that several of my Republican colleagues would find that this is a reasonable solution, a way to accommodate both sides of the argument.
Let's come to a compromise on what we can do with ICE and CBP, but let us fund the agencies that so deserve to get paid for the job that they are doing for the American people. It should be up to us to do our job for the American people, and today our job is to bring up this compromise and allow us to fund these agencies and to continue to negotiate about ICE and CBP.
That is the responsible thing for all of us to do today. It can be done, and I would just say one last thing. What we are doing here today is what I said at the outset. This is not three times is the charm. This bill has nowhere to go, nowhere to go, and it is an argument that has failed in the past. It will fail again.
Let's fund the agencies that deserve our support. Let's make sure we get the kinds of protections for the American people and ICE and CBP.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source