But at the end of the bill I will be asking Members of this body to reduce the increase for homeland security from its 16 percent level to 7.1 percent, which is the President's request; and, number two, thereby avoiding a veto. I desperately want this body to pass a responsible funding level for the Department of Homeland Security and not have it vetoed. There is a veto threat there. If you want to prolong this agony over the bill, we need to pass a responsible funding level for the Department, which I think the President's proposal is responsible and even generous. But this Department, like all other departments in the government, is still subject to fiscal responsibility. I am for a strong homeland defense, like all the rest of you, and for a number of years I chaired this subcommittee and I think we have done a good job of holding spending in line. But this increase is not needed. It is wasteful and it must be controlled. And the overall cutting amendment that I will offer at the end of the debate will be the responsible way to do it.
Hal Rogers: “But at the end of the bill I will be asking Members of this body to reduce the increase for homeland security from its…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing funding levels for the Department of Homeland Security during a House floor debate.
Share
More from Hal Rogers
The VORTEX Act will help protect our Veterans, ensuring they receive the best comprehensive care possible with readily available prescription information for their medical providers.
I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky, my close friend, whose district was the hardest hit and whose constituents along with all those impacted are in our prayers.
As we celebrate National Police Week across the country, I rise on the House floor this afternoon to honor the memory of the five fallen police officers who we lost last year in eastern Kentucky. Three police officers in Prestonsburg…
Due to timing issues with the State-Foreign Operations Subcommittee markup, I was unable to vote on the MTR for H.R. 3564. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 288. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the…





