Homeland Security

Madam Chair, thank you for yielding.

The revised spending allocations presented today contain only technical corrections to the initial allocations, which were adopted on a party-line vote two weeks ago.

Because there are no substantive changes from the initial allocations, I must once again oppose them.

They do not change the topline spending levels for any of the subcommittee bills – even though Members on my side of the aisle have consistently asked for bipartisan cooperation on funding levels.

These spending levels continue to short-change our national defense, while providing huge increases to domestic programs. Non-defense spending would increase by nearly 17% overall, and some agencies would receive unprecedented 30-40% increases above fiscal year 2021.

Underfunding our national defense while giving such extreme increases to domestic programs is unacceptable to Members on my side of the aisle.

Madam Chair, thank you for yielding.

First, I want to thank the subcommittee chair, Ms. Roybal-Allard, and the ranking member, Mr. Fleischmann, for their work on this Homeland Security appropriations bill. It's a very important bill, and I know you have put a lot of work into this.

I know that you both work extremely hard to find common ground. Unfortunately, there are just too many differences of opinions in this year's bill, and I am going to have to oppose it in its current form.

To put it simply, the bill before us today proposes funding levels and policies that fail to address the illegal immigration crisis we are currently experiencing in this country.

If we are going to get serious about stopping migrants from making the dangerous journey to the United States, then we cannot include some of the things in this bill, such as:

I would like to Chair Roybal-Allard and Ranking Member Fleischmann for your work on this Homeland Security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2022.

I know that you both try to work together when it is possible, but unfortunately, there are just too many differences of opinion in this year's bill, and I oppose it in its current form.

To put it simply, the bill proposes funding levels and policies that fail to address the illegal immigration crisis we are currently experiencing in this country.

If we are going to get serious about stopping migrants from making the journey to the United States, then we should not be doing some of the things we see in this bill, such as:

Madam Chair, thank you for yielding.

These spending allocations will increase discretionary spending by hundreds of billions of dollars to an all-time high of $1.5 trillion.

This nearly 9% increase above fiscal year 2021 comes at a time of record-high deficits and debt:

• This month, the national debt reached an astonishing $28.3 trillion.
• In the first 8 months of this fiscal year, we have already borrowed $2.1 trillion.

We must exercise fiscal responsibility and return to reasonable levels of federal spending, now that the pandemic hopefully is nearing an end.

Although these allocations do not show the exact split between defense and non-defense programs, we know the topline is based on the president's budget. Those numbers included an enormous, 17% increase to non-defense programs. At the same time, the president's budget cut defense spending to below inflation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3237 – a bill to provide funding for Capitol security and other purposes.

Unfortunately, after several weeks of discussions, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen the path of partisanship instead of working together, and I want to explain how we ended up in this situation.

In January, the Speaker of the House directed a retired lieutenant general and his team to review security needs on the House side of the Capitol following the events of January 6th. This review was directed without even consulting House Republicans or the Senate.

Even though the review by General Honore began as a partisan effort, Members of the Appropriations Committee hoped things could get back on track and we could negotiate a funding agreement that could be supported by both parties in both chambers.