DeLauro Floor Remarks Ahead of Procedural Vote on Republican Homeland Security Bill
WASHINGTON – Today, House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-CT-03) gave the following remarks during debate on the Rule to bring up Republicans’ Homeland Security bill:
“I thank the Ranking Member for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the bill at issue today is not a serious legislative effort. It is political theater. Republican leadership is trying to use President Trump’s aimless, costly, and illegal war with Iran to force through more funding for ICE and the Customs and Border Protection, without any substantial changes that the vast majority of Americans believe those agencies need. It is a cynical effort, and it is one that will fail.
“If Republicans are actually serious about the threat that President Trump’s war with Iran has caused, they then would move quickly to bring up my bill which in fact, and I’ll tell you what it will fund – and they rejected the amendment last night in the Rules Committee – the bill would fund law-abiding components of DHS: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), disaster relief fund, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the U.S. Secret Service, Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers, Science and Technology Directorate, Office of the Inspector General, Federal Protective Services.
“These are the agencies that are part of what we ought to be funding and we can fund today if the Republicans wanted to do it, and you know what, my friends, they do not want to do it. Because they support lawless and reckless agencies: ICE and Customs and Border Patrol. We could set those aside for further negotiations, as those negotiations continue.
“Unlike the bill Republicans have put forward, my measure actually has a good chance of passing, if only the Republican leadership would allow it to come forward with a vote. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the Rule to bring up my bill, H.R. 7481, so that Members can vote to fund the law-abiding agencies within the Department of Homeland Security.
“There is broad agreement on the funding of these agencies. No controversy over any of them. What there is significant controversy over: ICE and Customs and Border Protection, because they have beaten, detained, harassed, and even killed law-abiding U.S. citizens with zero accountability.
“I ask my colleagues across the aisle, why not allow funding for the parts of Homeland Security we have no disagreements over – let’s pass those. Allow the disaster relief to be replenished, allow TSA and Secret Service agents to be paid, allow the Coast Guard to support its servicemembers. Let’s ensure our cybersecurity measures are in place. We’re going to negotiate reforms to ICE, Customs and Border Protection – it’s underway.
“What are those reforms – which there is broad protection – to support? Prohibit the detention or deportation of U.S. citizens; prohibit operations at sensitive locations like schools and houses of worship; require agencies to get a warrant from a judge before you kick in somebody’s door; remove the masks; require badges and identification; allow independent investigations into wrongdoing; end racial profiling; and end roving patrols.
“Let me just say what I am sick and tired of, is listening to the crocodile tears that are being shed on the other side of the aisle for the federal employees who work at these agencies. They couldn’t care less. I’ll give you examples. The president’s budget had a $500 million cut to cybersecurity. Where were they when that happened? Where were they when President Trump and Kristi Noem talked about dismantling FEMA – the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
“Where were they on all of these bills, where they had their guru, Elon Musk, said 1,000 people could go from the cybersecurity agency. Not a peep out of them. It is disingenuous. They know it. The public knows it. And in fact, they want to support ICE, they want to support CBP, but they don’t want to support the federal employees.
“Vote No on the previous question. I yield back.”