House Homeland Security Committee advances reconciliation text that funnels billions to border projects amid sharp debate over deportations and due process

The House Committee on Homeland Security met in markup session to consider Committee Print 119A, a reconciliation text tied to H. Con. Res. 14, the concurrent budget resolution for fiscal 2025. Committee leaders debated a package that Republican members described as a $69 billion infusion into homeland security — including roughly $46.5 billion for a border barrier and related infrastructure — while Democrats repeatedly warned the measure funds an administration they say is violating due process and will be paid for with cuts to Medicaid and other programs.

The committee’s chair opened the hearing by reading the committee’s assignment and offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute from the Committee on Homeland Security. “This package empowers us to finish construction of new, strategically placed border barrier system,” the chairman said while explaining the substitute. Ranking members and Democrats countered that the reconciliation text is a vehicle to finance tax and spending priorities that would cut domestic programs and enable what they called aggressive immigration enforcement under the current administration. The ranking member called the proposal “a big, beautiful bill for [billionaires] and a terrible deal for everyone else.”

Why it matters: Committee Print 119A is part of the House Republican reconciliation process under H. Con. Res. 14 and would authorize large new sums to DHS programs. Members repeatedly framed the markup as consequential for border policy, homeland security operations, and oversight of the department’s use of enforcement powers. Much of the debate focused on whether the bill should include specific statutory protections limiting DHS actions — particularly the agency’s use of removal authority and its transfers of detainees to facilities outside the United States.

What members debated and the record of votes The markup included an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Representative Green (Tenn.) that was opened to amendment. Committee members offered and debated numerous amendments to the substitute. Democrats repeatedly pressed for restrictions on DHS use of funds to remove U.S. citizens or to send detainees to foreign prisons; Republicans and some committee Democrats advanced and defended measures aimed at increasing spending for border fencing, checkpoints, personnel and technology.

Throughout the three‑plus hour session, members told stories they said illustrated the stakes. Several Democrats recounted cases they described as examples of due‑process failures — including families they said had children who are United States citizens and were removed to Honduras, and individuals sent to detention in El Salvador. Republicans emphasized agent testimony that, they said, supports additional physical barriers and checkpoints and argued that increased resources will reduce illicit cross‑border drug flows.

Votes at a glance: - Committee Print 119A (first reading dispensed): designated and opened for amendment (clerks designated the text; no final committee disposition in transcript). - Amendment in the nature of a substitute (Committee on Homeland Security; Rep. Green, Tenn.): offered and opened for amendment; discussion proceeded and multiple numbered amendments were considered (no final roll‑call disposition of the substitute appears in the transcript). - Thompson (Miss.) amendment prohibiting DHS funds being used to deport U.S. citizens: defeated on voice vote (chair ruled “no”), and a recorded vote was requested; further proceedings on the question were postponed. - Carter (La.) amendment prohibiting use of funds to deport minor children who are U.S. citizens: defeated on voice vote (chair ruled “no”); a recorded vote was requested and proceedings were postponed. - Ramirez (Ill.) amendment (No funds to remove noncitizens to third‑country prisons except lawful extradition): the chair’s ruling and subsequent requests produced mixed floor rulings; committee action on a recorded vote was postponed. - Kennedy (N.Y.) amendment to prevent use of funds to reduce FEMA personnel or operational capacity: adopted by voice vote; a recorded vote was requested and proceedings were postponed. - Multiple other amendments (on topics including CISA workforce reorganization, student‑visa notice provisions, veteran employment protections, and prohibiting DHS support for actions contrary to Supreme Court orders) were debated; many were defeated on voice votes and several had recorded‑vote requests that postponed final action in committee.

Discussion versus decision - Discussion only: Committee members explored factual claims about border encounters, ‘‘gotaways,’’ criminal activity linked to cross‑border flows, and the scale of DHS spending. Many Democrats framed the package as tied to a larger reconciliation plan that would cut Medicaid and other programs. Members also recounted individual cases they said raised due‑process concerns. - Direction/assignment: The clerk designated Committee Print 119A and the substitute was opened to amendment; multiple members asked for recorded votes on amendments, which under committee rule postponed further proceedings on those questions. The chair also stated the committee would recess as votes were called and reconvene 30 minutes after the last recorded vote. - Formal actions: The committee accepted the substitute for amendment consideration and held voice‑vote rulings on multiple amendments; one amendment (Kennedy’s protection of FEMA personnel and operational capacity) was adopted on a voice vote, with a recorded vote requested. Many other amendments were ruled not adopted on voice votes and have pending recorded‑vote requests.

Clarifying details from the record - Funding figures discussed on the record included a $69,000,000,000 DHS infusion and a widely cited $46,500,000,000 allocation that members characterized as funding for a border wall and related infrastructure. - Members said the administration spent approximately $300,000,000 early in the term to “militarize the border” (quoted in debate), and some Democrats referenced a reported $6,000,000 contract between DHS and El Salvador. - Members stated operational details discussed in the meeting: expansion of border patrol checkpoints, technology investments (drones, towers), and hiring additional CBP and ICE personnel.

What members requested next Multiple members requested recorded votes on amendments that were decided by voice vote; per committee rules those recorded votes were postponed and will be scheduled later. The chair announced the committee would recess to accommodate the floor voting schedule and reconvene 30 minutes after the last recorded vote was called.

Quotes and source attribution Committee attributions in this report use speakers’ identification from the transcript. Examples of direct remarks recorded in the hearing: the chairman said the package “empowers us to finish construction of new, strategically placed border barrier system,” and the ranking member said the reconciliation text would hand “massive tax cuts and giveaways for billionaires on the backs of hardworking Americans” while cutting Medicaid. Representative Carter described the deportation of a 4‑year‑old child with cancer as “illegal and unconstitutional.”

Background The markup is part of the House reconciliation process tied to the concurrent budget resolution for fiscal year 2025. Members repeatedly referenced last year’s bipartisan Senate border negotiations as an alternative path they said would have improved oversight and produced different trade‑offs; Democrats urged testimony from the Secretary of Homeland Security and other department officials but said the department’s senior leadership had not appeared at committee hearings referenced in debate.

What to watch next Recorded votes that were requested in committee will determine whether several of the Democratic‑offered protections (on deportations, transfers to foreign prisons, and other constraints on DHS authority) will be incorporated or formally rejected by the committee. The status of the substitute and the scheduling of additional committee votes and floor action will shape how and whether these DHS provisions remain part of the broader House reconciliation bill.

Ending note The markup showcased sharp partisan disagreement over the scope and limits of immigration enforcement, the proper uses of federal funds for border infrastructure, and how Congress should protect constitutional rights during enforcement operations. Several members urged immediate oversight hearings and department testimony on specific cases and policies; the committee left many contested amendments pending for recorded votes to be scheduled later.