1. United States
2. N.H.
3. Letter

I am writing regarding your public statements opposing ICE expansion and calling for guardrails on DHS enforcement, while recent funding vehicles appear to maintain or increase ICE operational capacity. If you voted against a specific DHS appropriations bill, please clarify whether that bill increased ICE's Operations and Support account above prior enacted levels, or whether it primarily continued baseline funding. There is a material difference between opposing a funding increase and opposing the enforcement structure itself. If ICE continues to operate at current or expanded capacity through omnibus packages, continuing resolutions, or reprogramming authority, then voting against a single standalone bill does not materially constrain enforcement. Please specify: • The exact roll call(s) in which you opposed increased ICE funding. • Whether you supported or filed amendments to cap detention bed counts or restrict facility siting authority. • Whether you voted for any broader funding packages that preserved or expanded ICE operational authority. • What binding oversight mechanisms (not press statements) have you secured to ensure transparency and accountability? Publicly condemning enforcement actions while voting for funding vehicles that sustain the same enforcement architecture creates confusion for constituents. If your position is that DHS requires reform rather than defunding, state that clearly and provide the legislative record supporting that approach. Constituents deserve clarity on whether your votes have reduced ICE capacity in measurable terms, or whether opposition has been primarily rhetorical. Please respond with specific bill and amendment numbers and funding deltas to ensure the record is transparent. Thank you.