Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to understand how a
Make America Secure Appropriations minibus does not include the bill
for the Department of Homeland Security which is responsible for
security at our borders, security in the coastal maritime environment,
security for air and surface transportation, security of cyber networks
and critical infrastructure, and helping State and local jurisdictions
prepare for, prevent, and respond to terrorist attacks and natural
disasters. Instead of including the entire DHS funding bill in the minibus, the
majority is expected to use a second rule to insert just one part of
that bill--funding for the President's border wall--ignoring much more
pressing and immediate security needs. Furthermore, because the Department has failed to submit to Congress
a required report laying out the long-term plan and justification for
border
infrastructure, Members of Congress are unable to responsibly evaluate
the long-term border security strategy and comprehensively assess its
costs, benefits, and trade-offs. Given this enormous $1.6 billion initial price tag, Members should,
at a minimum, have the opportunity to vote on it separately and in the
context of the entire Homeland Security bill. I submitted an amendment
to prohibit the use of funds for border wall construction, and I hope
the Rules Committee will make it in order. While I do not support the DHS bill in its current form, I firmly
believe the House would be in a stronger position to make a more
informed and responsible decision on how best to invest these $1.6
billion in the context of debating and amending the entire Department
of Homeland Security funding bill. For example, instead of using $1.6 billion of taxpayer money for just
74 miles of border wall, we could pay for the first two heavy Coast
Guard icebreakers which are critically needed to help the United States
better counter the ever-increasing Russian presence in the Arctic. Or we could invest in additional technology and hire thousands of new
customs officers at every air, land, and sea port of entry in the
United States, reducing wait times for travelers, better facilitating
the flow of commerce and contributing to economic growth. This would also enhance our ability to intercept more illegal
narcotics and other contraband because, contrary to what some may
think, the vast majority of the worst illicit drugs flowing into our
country arrive through the ports of entry, not between the ports. In
2016, 86 percent of the heroin and 81 percent of the cocaine and
methamphetamine came through the ports of entry. In other words, more
physical barriers at the border--in addition to the 654 miles of
fencing already in place--is a misguided and ineffective strategy to
address drug smuggling. In addition to the fact that we could be using these $1.6 billion for
more pressing security needs, I am concerned that, by including only
border wall funding from the DHS Appropriations bill, we would be
sending a terrible message to frontline homeland security personnel--
many of whom routinely put their personal safety at risk to serve our
country--that the President's border wall is more important than all
the work they do. Mr. Chairman, when it comes to the security of our Nation and the
American people, we in Congress have an obligation to act in their best
interests and to invest their tax dollars wisely. If the only homeland
security item in this bill is funding for 74 miles of border wall, we
will fail to meet that obligation. This bill should not include funding for a border wall, and the House
should have an opportunity to vote on this funding in the context of
the entire Homeland Security funding bill. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
Keywords matched
border wall border security