Lauren Underwood

Ms. UNDERWOOD

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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