H.R. 7744 – Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2026

Welcome back to the Rules Committee. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. Today, the Rules Committee is convening to consider H.R. 7744, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2026. Before we proceed, I'll address the developments on the U.S. military combat operations that took place in Iran this past weekend. First, all of us extend our prayers to all our military members, but especially to the families and loved ones of the service members who tragically passed away over the past few days. They dedicated their lives to serving and protecting the country they loved. May the knowledge of their service and memories of them and their service stay with us forever. Americans have been blessed from the beginning of our country with men and women who have been willing to sacrifice their lives so the rest of us can live in freedom. Let me make one thing crystal clear: the senior leaders of the Iranian regime who passed away have now faced justice and have reaped what they have sown. Their barbarism, terrorism, and blighting of international diplomacy are at an end. The world is rightly rejoicing. For decades, as all of us understand, Iran and its associated proxies have acted with brazen abandon that has led to the deaths of Americans, a serious degradation of stability in the Middle East and around the world, and attempts to sow fear in the hearts of millions through brute force. To be clear, Iran has been a state sponsor of terrorism for the last 47 years. Iran and the proxies it funded have caused horrible carnage against Americans during that time. Many of those leading that reign of terror have been extinguished. The Iranian people find themselves at a pivotal moment in their history, and they deserve unbridled freedom on their own terms. Let's not forget also that the people of Iran have endured brutal repression under the Islamic Republic for nearly five decades, as the Islamic Republic remained a constant threat to our homeland, our service members, and the American people. In 1979, in its very infancy, the regime's first act was to back a violent takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and consequently hold over 50 Americans hostage for 444 days. Four years later, in 1983, the regime's proxies carried out the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut and killed 241 American military personnel. 17 years later, the regime supported and was involved with the attack on the USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors and injuring 37 other crew members. Time and time again, their malign actions have been etched in the pages of history. Today, thanks to the bold leadership and resolve of the United States, our ally Israel, and partners in the Middle East, a new opportunity for peace has been kindled. The nations of the world should embrace the decimation of the chief sponsor of global terrorism. Our alliances are being secured. But most of all, American lives, the security of our troops in the region, and the interests of our nation are protected during this operation. Our colleagues across the aisle will inevitably want to adjudicate the President's actions and cry foul that he's acting with reckless abandon by not seeking congressional approval. Did they say the same about President Obama's decision to conduct airstrikes in Libya in 2011 without congressional approval? Did they say the same about the airstrikes under President Biden that were carried out in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen without congressional approval during his four years in office? I believe not. And I believe they'll not acknowledge that the President can exercise the authority granted to him under Article II of the Constitution in protecting the nation and its people. All we'll hear is more ire directed at a President who has made serious progress in building lasting peace throughout the world. It's not a new position for them. Now to the appropriations measure before us today. It is past time that we move forward with funding the Department of Homeland Security so that the agency remains best equipped to protect the American people and our entire nation. We do not have a moment to lose, especially when considering how the geopolitical developments over the past few days warrant our immediate attention right here at home. Our imperative here and now must be to fund this agency so that its lapse in operational capacity does not leave this nation vulnerable to all manner of threats. Time is of the essence here, folks. We must ensure a strong posture of security for our very homeland. A failure to do so is a failure to protect the American people and a failure to protect our interests. The answer before us all is undeniably clear. We must get this appropriations package over the finish line. We cannot afford to wait any longer. It's time to act. With that, I now yield to the ranking member, Mr. McGovern, for any comments he wishes to make.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And let me join with you in honoring our service members who lost their lives over the last few days. They're in our prayers, and so are members of their families. And Madam Chair, America is less safe under Donald Trump, and that is the simple truth. The war he launched over the weekend—and it is a war, by the way; he calls it a war, Pete Hegseth calls it a war, so according to them, it is a war—this war has made America and the world less safe. So I don't want any lectures today about threats to our homeland security. Those threats have increased exponentially because the President chose to unilaterally launch a recklessly misguided regime change war in the Middle East. Our country is less safe by the hour because of Donald Trump's chaos and stupidity. I'm not even going to waste my time talking about this bill because it's the same Republican DHS funding bill we voted on a couple of weeks ago, the same one that the House already passed and sent to the Senate. So let me get this straight: we're passing a bill we already passed, but we're removing a provision we already passed because it already passed. Is anybody able to follow that? I mean, what are we even doing here? It's the same lousy, rotten bill that does not put any guardrails or constraints on ICE or CBP after federal agents shot American citizens in the street. So speaking for myself, I will not give another penny to ICE or CBP. Republicans already shoveled $75 billion—that's billion with a B—into ICE in their big ugly bill, and I will not vote to give them another cent. Not only have these agencies broken the law, but this administration's obsession with using ICE and CBP to terrorize our communities has made us less safe by distracting from other critical functions at DHS, which are now under tremendous strain. So let's talk about homeland security. Let's talk about the fact that Donald Trump put a 22-year-old with no national security experience in charge of terrorism prevention for the entire country. Let's talk about how just last week, Kash Patel fired a dozen members of an FBI counterespionage team with a specialty in tracking Iranian threats in the United States. Let's talk about how DOGE gutted our ability to defend against cyberattacks, decimating agencies like CISA and reassigning cyber experts to do immigration enforcement. Again, Donald Trump and his administration have made this country less safe. I have never seen America more alone or isolated than we are now, and I'm deeply concerned that his reckless, illegal war will cause our allies to move even further away as this crisis deepens. Speaker Johnson should have called this Congress back on Monday, yesterday. We should have had an emergency meeting in this committee to bring a War Powers Resolution to the floor immediately. And if you think it's a great idea for Donald Trump to break his promise and unilaterally start another forever war aimed at regime change, then good for you. Vote for another war. But to cancel votes yesterday, to cancel votes today, as this Republican majority did—I mean, that is beyond shocking. It's pathetic. And all to delay and distract from the fact that Donald Trump broke his promise to MAGA. He said no more endless wars, no more regime change, no more costly quagmires in the Middle East. And what did he do from his gilded ballroom at Mar-a-Lago before slipping back to his million-dollar-per-plate dinner? He started a new forever war in the Middle East. That's what he did. Easy for him to do. It's not his billionaire donors who are going to get squeezed at the pump when gas skyrockets. His kids don't have to go off and fight and die. It's the kids from Worcester and small cities and towns in our districts, working-class folks, who will have to pay the price for this terrible miscalculation. Six service members are already dead. Americans are stranded throughout the region because this administration had no plan to keep them safe either. And Republicans are repassing a bill that they already passed a couple of weeks ago. It's a disgrace. And come back when you have a plan to rein in the lawlessness of ICE and CBP. Then we can talk. Until then, we're not going to rubber-stamp more money for agencies that defy judges and violate court orders while this President makes America less safe by the hour with his new forever war. And with that, I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our panel: Chairman Cole and Ranking Member DeLauro from the Committee on Appropriations. Your full statement will be submitted for the record. We ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman Cole, I welcome you back to the Rules Committee, and I welcome your testimony.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member McGovern, members of the Rules Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. I come before you today on H.R. 7744, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2026. The bill before us today is substantially identical to the bill that previously passed the House in January. It represents a bipartisan and bicameral negotiated compromise that provides full funding for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2026. As members will recall, in January, House and Senate negotiators from both parties reached a final agreement on our then-remaining six appropriations bills for 2026. After Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate reached agreement, the House fulfilled its part of the bargain and passed all six bills across the floor. Sadly, at the last moment, Senator Schumer reneged on the deal, refusing to pass the Homeland Security bill through the Senate as was agreed upon, even though a majority of members in both chambers supported the negotiated agreement. The refusal of Senate Democrats to honor the agreement triggered a lapse in funding for DHS starting in February. For more than three weeks, large portions of the Department of Homeland Security have since been shut down. But many employees in mission-critical roles, such as Transportation Security Administration officers, remain on the job without guaranteed pay and without full operational resources. I will state the obvious: today is no time for a shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security. Its agencies are on the front lines protecting Americans from vicious terrorists, drug traffickers, and hardened criminals. Just last week in Mexico, our neighbor to the south, a narcotrafficking cartel launched a series of terror attacks across the country. This weekend, Iran has begun lashing out in all directions, lobbing ballistic missiles around the entire Middle East region and unleashing their terror proxies on innocent civilians. These threats pose a clear and present danger to the safety of Americans, both at home and abroad. Now more than ever, we need the Department of Homeland Security to be up and running and doing their jobs to defend Americans from these threats. Emergency preparedness is not optional. FEMA operates within the department and serves as the nation's lead disaster response agency. Over the past two weeks alone, disaster declarations have followed wildfires, including in my state of Oklahoma and including my district, and an environmental emergency here in Washington, D.C., due to a broken sewage pipe. Communities are already facing real emergencies, and larger disasters are inevitable. FEMA must be ready to respond immediately and without disruption. Sadly, Senate Democrats do not seem to agree. Instead, they've rejected this bipartisan compromise legislation in favor of partisan gain, and they've allowed innocent Americans to pay the price: disaster victims left unassisted, airline travelers facing long delays, and millions of Americans left vulnerable to terrorism. They've likewise forced over 100,000 Homeland Security employees to work without pay until this is resolved. To make matters worse, the Democrat-led shutdown at Homeland Security is being driven by a push for reforms at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The bill before us includes critical reforms that were negotiated between the parties, including a requirement for law enforcement officers to wear body cameras and undergo de-escalation training, and requires additional notice and reporting to Congress. Sadly, the failure to enact this bipartisan compromise bill as negotiated means that these critical reforms are not being implemented. It's deeply ironic that the party that claims to want critical reforms and more oversight of CBP and ICE is blocking the very bill that provides many of these improvements. Madam Chair, it's clear and obvious what the end result of this pointless shutdown will be. I'm confident that the final outcome will closely mirror the measure Chairman Aderholt negotiated with Ranking Member Cuellar and that the House passed two weeks ago: a comprehensive bill that funds law enforcement body-worn cameras and de-escalation training, delivered a pay raise for our Coast Guard, increased support for firefighters and first responders, strengthened disaster preparedness, and enhanced efforts to combat fentanyl. But we need not wait. We can instead pass precisely that compromise in the form of the bill before this committee today. I urge my colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, to do so immediately. I thank each of you for your time, and I urge all members to support this bipartisan package. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Chairman Cole. Ranking Member DeLauro, you're recognized.

Thank you so much, and good afternoon to you, Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member McGovern, the members of the committee, and of course my colleague, my friend Chairman Cole. I appreciate the opportunity to testify this afternoon. The bill we are considering today has no chance of becoming law, none whatsoever. Republican leadership knows this and are still choosing to waste time on political theater while the president's reckless choice to start a war with Iran puts American lives in danger. There is, however, a piece of legislation that has a very strong chance of passing both chambers if only Republican leadership would allow it to come to a vote. That is legislation I introduced last month, which would fund the Department of Homeland Security, including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, CISA, the federal agency tasked with securing our nation against cyberattacks, TSA, FEMA, the Coast Guard, Secret Service, and other non-controversial components of DHS. I have offered my bill as an amendment. We could pass it this week if the Republican leadership allowed it. There is broad agreement on funding for these agencies. There is no controversy over funding disaster relief or aviation security or making sure the men and women of the Coast Guard and Secret Service are paid. No, the only controversy is over Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, two agencies that have shown themselves to be lawless and reckless and which are responsible for the harassment, detention, and death of innocent Americans. Even the White House recognizes these agencies need to be reformed. That is why they are in the middle of negotiating with Democrats to do just that. The bill we are discussing here today has already failed once. It failed in the wake of CBP agents and officers murdering Alex Petty in the street and Renee Good in her vehicle. My bill sets funding for ICE and CBP aside while negotiations continue on reforms to those agencies, reforms which the vast majority of Americans support: prohibiting the detention or deportation of U.S. citizens, requiring agents to get a warrant from a judge before kicking in someone's door, prohibiting operations at sensitive locations like schools, medical facilities, and houses of worship, removing masks, requiring badges and identification on uniforms, allowing independent investigations into wrongdoing, ending racial profiling, and ending roving patrols. The president's choice to start a war with Iran has put American lives in danger. Tragically, his war has already cost several U.S. service members their lives, and we honor their lives and pray for them and their families. And the president has assured us that more Americans' lives will be lost. The effort is not about actually passing a bill into law. It is political theater. It is a cynical attempt to force more funding for ICE and CBP without any guardrails, despite the overwhelming majority of Americans who believe reforms are necessary. To be honest, I'm surprised to learn that some of my Republican colleagues care so deeply about some of these programs. They were so conspicuously silent when the president proposed slashing the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's budget by $500 million, cutting CISA by $500 million. They did not say a word when the president and Elon Musk decimated the federal workforce and pushed close to 1,000 career employees out of that agency, reducing their total workforce by one-third. Did not hear a peep from them when the Trump administration appointed a 22-year-old with no national security expertise to lead the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships, an intern at the Heritage Foundation in charge of a key counterterrorism office at DHS. Nor was there an outcry when President Trump and Kristi Noem pushed to dismantle FEMA altogether. If Republican leadership is serious about passing a funding bill, my bill is the best option. With American security at stake, they can either choose to play political games or they can actually legislate. I will be here waiting whenever they come around to the latter. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to answering your questions. I yield back.

Thank you very much, Ranking Member DeLauro. Mrs. Fischbach, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I thank you, Mr. Cole, for bringing this forward because I don't think it's political theater, I don't think it's a political game to bring a bill forward that's going to fund TSA, that funds the Coast Guard, funds law enforcement training centers, and FEMA. And so I appreciate the fact that you brought it forward and will continue to support it because I think these are critical things that we are trying to fund, trying to get, trying to move it through the process. And just one quick question: I think at the beginning of your remarks you said it was a negotiated agreement. Did I hear that correctly?

That's correct.

Okay. So this was negotiated, and you said was it Senator Schumer who reneged on it?

That's correct.

Okay. Just wanted to check on that. So we have been consistent, Republicans in your seat, you have been consistent in trying to make sure that we have these critical services funded.

That's absolutely correct.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.

Thank you, Mrs. Fischbach. Mr. McGovern, you're recognized.

So this is kind of like déjà vu. I mean, we've been here before. And the reason why there's a problem is because after this was passed, I think when it went over to the Senate two days after it passed, Alex Petty was murdered. And so that has caused some great concern by members of the Senate, by members of the House. And so I don't want to belabor this point, but there are deep concerns over this. I think this is political theater because we all know that this is not going to fly as it is. And again, I don't want to belabor the point, but I mean, we have some serious issues with regard to ICE and CBP. And I mean, American citizens are being killed, and there just seems to be a total denial of all that. And so I just point that out. I don't want to belabor this by asking questions. I thank you both for being here, but I'm a no on this. And I thank the gentlelady from Connecticut for offering an alternative. With that, I yield back.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Mr. Roy, you're recognized.

I thank the chair. I won't take too long. Appreciate you all being here to testify. I will say I agree with the ranking member that I believe that we should be here working and early in the week and that the Senate should have been in session rather than breaking. I agree with those things. I would note that I've heard some criticism that we're out Friday. I think that was done out of a courtesy for Mr. Jackson's funeral. So I just think we should be mindful of that. I think we all want to go about doing the business that we're supposed to do. You know, there's a primary election in Texas today, I've been told, apparently. But I'm here because it's my job. So I would just ask Chairman Cole if I'm correct, recognizing that we have in fact, the ranking member's correct, sent appropriation bills over to the Senate, that the bill has not been passed in the Senate, correct?

That's correct.

And so we are here because the Department of Homeland Security is not currently funded. Is that correct?

That's correct.

And that the only funding that is in place to enable Border Patrol and ICE to carry out its duty is the funding that was made available through the passage of the big beautiful bill last summer. Is that correct, roughly?

That's also correct.

Today when I was going through the airport, stopped by a TSA employee, thanking me for something else I won't get into, but then also asking that we do our job in order to get their pay moving and get things funded. Currently that leaves TSA, Coast Guard at this particular moment in time in our history, Coast Guard, FEMA, and other functions unfunded. Is that correct?

That's correct.

And so therefore, the House of Representatives, the Republican leadership, is putting forward another opportunity for Democrats in this body to speak in unison with the Republicans that we should in fact fund Homeland Security. Is that correct?

That's correct.

And that is why the Rules Committee is meeting, that at this time, whatever we want to do in debate, we're going to go have a briefing at 5:00, and we're going to do our oversight function, and we should, about what is going on with respect to the conflict with Iran. But the fact of the matter, the conflict exists. The fact of the matter, that means that our Homeland Security should be funded. The fact of the matter, that means our Coast Guard should be funded. And therefore, we should do our job here in the House and send another strong message, preferably on a bipartisan unified basis, that we should fund that and send it over to the Senate. Is that why we're here and that's why this bill's before the committee, is that correct, Mr. Cole?

That's absolutely correct.

Anything else you want to add to that?

You know, obviously the bill hasn't changed a lot, but clearly conditions have. And in that sense, I think this provides everybody an opportunity to look again, assess the conditions that are different, and think, given that, would I change the vote I have? And I think that, you know, that's something, that's the right thing to do. I mean, we've been overtaken by events here a little bit, and regardless of what we feel, and we can negotiate, litigate in some cases, there's a variety of ways through the differences that we have, but we shouldn't be asking men and women to protect us and serve, we shouldn't be denying them resources, we shouldn't be shutting down things like the police training academy, that's an ongoing function, or Operation BioShield, which, you know, sniffs out if there was a discharge of a dangerous toxic material. There are important functions that just aren't happening, and there's the disaster relief fund is getting dangerously low. So again, let's just do the prudent thing. We can keep on negotiating, that's going on, but I fail to see the reason why men and women that literally have nothing to do even with the areas of dispute that we have should be held hostage in that. So again, we hope the Congress will avail itself of this opportunity and will re-look at it and get it passed.

I thank the chairman. I'll just close with this, out of respect for time, that we had the event that occurred in Austin, Texas this weekend. It occurred at a location that I'm quite familiar with, frequented quite a bit when I was in law school at the University of Texas. We had multiple University of Texas students who were affected, who were shot, killed. One young woman in particular who was shot multiple times in her abdomen, just required reconstructive surgery. She is, thank God, surviving at the moment. Another University of Texas student who was shot in the head, who again is, thank God, surviving at the moment. In addition to the three who have lost their lives. The shooter was in fact somebody who came to the United States in 2000, was someone who overstayed his tourist visa for an extended period of time, who then obtained lawful permanent resident status under a Republican administration by virtue of his relationship with, I believe, his supposed spouse. And then ultimately obtained citizenship under the Obama administration. And then later tried in two different occasions with two different women to obtain citizenship for those or LPR status for those two women. Ultimately was arrested for a hit and run later and now obviously we're dealing with the fallout from this event and the fairly notorious shirt that he was wearing with property of Allah, a Quran in the car, and an Iranian flag shirt. My point is just at this moment in time, now more than ever, we need the Homeland Security Department fully functioning and working with our law enforcement to be able to defend our communities and to ensure that law is being enforced and that people who are here should be here. And with that I yield back, Madam Chairwoman.

Thank you, Mr. Roy. Ms. Scanlon, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do agree with my colleagues that it's unacceptable that a portion of the U.S. government is not funded at this point because Republicans refuse to hold DHS accountable for the unlawful conduct of federal agents even after those agents shot and killed two U.S. citizens. Instead of protecting Americans from violent or dangerous criminals, the so-called worst of the worst, ICE and CBP under Kristi Noem's DHS have brought chaos and fear to American streets, terrorizing whole communities with masked and armed paramilitary forces and endangering American lives and liberties. American citizens have died in our streets, they've been dragged from their homes, and they've been detained without cause because of the lawless and unprofessional conduct of ICE and CBP. Dozens of migrant families have been torn asunder and dozens of them have died in ICE custody from abuse and lack of medical care in the inhumane detention centers from which members of Congress have been banned by this administration as they're being run by corporate overlords. And Americans have said that this is unacceptable and that's what we're responding to. But now we've got American service members dying overseas after the President started an illegal war against Iran. Six families are already mourning the loss of their loved ones and the President has said more Americans are likely to die. We're in a war. The President does not seem to have a plan, he's never had a plan to keep Americans safe whether at home or abroad. And perhaps the reason the administration didn't come to Congress first is that there was no imminent threat to justify this summary attack. The administration has floated multiple possibilities including imminent missile strikes or nuclear capability, regime change, and my favorite, that Netanyahu made them do it. But none of those explanations hold water or justify putting American lives at risk without congressional authorization. And here's the important part. If the White House cannot even tell Congress or the American people why they started a war, do we really think they have a legitimate strategy for conducting or ending that war? And the costs of this ill-conceived war of choice are mounting by the minute. In addition to the loss of life, reports say that in just a few days this latest war by this White House has already cost U.S. taxpayers over $1 billion. And that's money that's not being invested in American healthcare or housing or education. I agree with the ranking member that ICE and CBP shouldn't get another cent from American taxpayers until there's accountability for those agents' actions. And I agree with Ranking Member DeLauro that we should be looking at funding the other elements of DHS which are not implicated in that scandal. Our Republican colleagues should not be lecturing the American people on fiscal responsibility if they're willing to send billions of taxpayer dollars to a war in Iran without clarity on what we're doing there or when we'll leave, or to Kristi Noem without any assurances that DHS will end its attacks on Americans and their civil liberties. I yield back.

Thank you, Ms. Scanlon. Mr. Griffith, you're recognized.

Madam Chair, I look forward to the briefing. I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Griffith. Mr. Neguse, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the chairman and the ranking member both for your testimony, for being here. And I know we have limited time, look forward to the briefing later this afternoon. So really only two questions. Chairman, you spoke about in your view the necessity for this bill and I want to drill down a little bit. We've talked a lot about ICE and CBP. I want to talk about FEMA. Why do you believe it is important to proceed with this bill regarding FEMA funding?

A couple reasons. First, obviously those folks aren't getting paid. They ought to get paid, they're important people. We do have disasters both natural and man-made to deal with. Second, the reserves are being lowered as they pay legitimate claims out. So there's enough money there now, but that's the point. Disasters aren't always predictable, you don't know what you're going to need. I would prefer that the funding that was in the original bill that would flow into disaster relief funds be available in case something untoward happened.

And part of this I assume, or I presume, we're neighbors, you know, Colorado and Oklahoma. I assume part of your desire is motivated by the need to make sure that your constituents, if something happens in Oklahoma, tornadoes for example, whatever the case may be, disaster befalls your state that you represent, that you want to make sure FEMA has the backfill resources to be able to assist.

Correct.

Okay. I'm going to read you an article. This is from today. Quote, "Still recovering from 2025 disasters, these conservative Colorado communities have yet to see FEMA relief." The subheading is, "The communities have pulled together to rebuild these largely conservative enclaves while politics taints the process that could and may yet deliver FEMA funds." This is in reference, you may be aware, we had a series of disasters last year in my state on the Western Slope. In very conservative parts of Colorado. Massive wildfires and deadly floods. Our state submitted a request for federal reimbursement from FEMA, major disaster declaration. And that declaration was denied for political reasons. And for the last five months, those communities have suffered from a lack of any response by the federal government. It is very clear to Coloradans that FEMA is not going to be there to assist them under this administration, which is a very sad state of affairs, but unfortunately is underscored by all the evidence. There were only four states just last week FEMA announced a release of public assistance awards. Oklahoma was included, a number of other states were included. Four states were not included: California, Illinois, Minnesota, and Colorado. I think you could probably understand why many of us, particularly those members who represent those states, are deeply skeptical of the administration's efforts now to argue that this is all somehow above board and that it's really important that FEMA be fully funded when they are wielding FEMA as a tool of political influence against their perceived enemies. And I'm not accusing you of that obviously, Mr. Chairman, but I just, I would hope you would understand the passion that I have and that my colleagues have in particular in Colorado as we're dealing with this. Again, these are people who voted for President Trump. These counties are deeply conservative counties. I represent some of them. So it is absurd in my view that the administration is taking this approach and, again, you could understand my frustrations. But I'm happy to give you an opportunity to respond, but it's not, wasn't...

Oh, I think the gentleman makes a legitimate point. Look, I, it doesn't matter where disaster happens within our territory or to whom, we have an obligation as a government to respond. And I can't speak to the specifics of the cases you mentioned, but believe me, I've had problems under administrations, I must say, of both parties of getting what I thought was timely disaster relief. So I have great respect and sympathy for my friend's concerns and there's just no excuse for it. But certainly the excuse shouldn't be we don't have any money here when we should, in my view. So, but I'd be happy to work with the gentleman, learn more about the situation because I just don't think it's acceptable ever to withhold aid to the American people, again, regardless of where they're at, regardless of who they are, regardless of what their politics happen to be.

I thank the chairman and I would just suggest, I know you all are busy, you will be busy rather with markups for the next fiscal year. And I believe that this is an item that would be ripe for your conversations, particularly on the Homeland subcommittee, for some type of rider or language that makes clear that these major disaster declarations are no longer going to be subject to the wide discretion that has previously been given to the executive. Because otherwise we're going to be in a real dangerous scenario where essentially the party of the President will dictate whether or not a state is able to access any disaster recovery funds. And I don't, I agree with the chairman that I think that is a reprehensible thing and I think there's an opportunity for all of us to partner on that, put an end to it now so that for this administration and future Democratic and Republican ones that this isn't something that ever arises. I thank the gentleman and I thank the chairwoman. I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Neguse. Mr. Scott, you're recognized.

I'll be brief about this, but I agree with what Mr. Neguse said. FEMA should not be used as a political whipping stick. I will tell you as someone from Georgia, when Hurricane Michael hit Florida and Georgia, it was Chuck Schumer that would not allow the disaster aid. So FEMA should not be used as a political whipping stick and both parties have done it and I think it's unfortunate that people do that. Chairman, you know the Democrats have a bill, and I'm just read, it says that they introduced a bill, Ms. DeLauro introduced a bill to fully fund every agency under the Department of Homeland Security except Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and the Office of the Secretary. If we eliminate all of the funding for Customs and Border Protection, wouldn't that effectively open the floodgates at the border again that we finally got sealed under President Trump?

If we did that, it would. But there is funding again as I think Mr. Roy suggested in other areas that we actually have those areas more or less covered. You're just better off again passing the full bill that funds every function of this agency in my view. I don't think withholding the funding is a legitimate tactic. I don't think it's particularly effective. And I think there's always something unanticipated that happens or something you didn't think through. Just fund the government. You've got other concerns, it's very legitimate for those to be raised, for us to discuss them. Indeed, there's negotiation going on I think between the administration largely and Senate Democrats now. I saw some changes in both who was running Minnesota, saw some changes in some of the policies, number of people were, a lot of people were drawn to the agency or the, the effort was eventually came. So again, I think my friend Mr. Neguse has had legislation, or excuse me, litigation, you know, that resolved one of these issues in terms of oversight access. Those are perfectly legitimate tools and I think that so we have other ways to deal with this. I think the government shutdown, I've seen my party do them, I opposed them when we did them, I opposed them when Democrats do them. They don't work, they don't succeed, there are other mechanisms available. That's my viewpoint. I'd like to get the government fully funded.

Madam Chair, I'm going to yield any time that I have remaining. I know that we need to get to the hearing. Thank you for indulging.

Thank you, Mr. Scott. Ms. Leger Fernandez.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. You know, six Americans are dead, bombs are falling on our consulates and bases because Trump started what he has now described could be in his words forever war. He started that war without public support and without congressional authorizations. And Republicans didn't bring us back into session to address that war. Instead, they took extra days off and the only bill Rules has before us is a bill that we already passed and a bill that won't become law until the White House, Senate, and House finish their negotiations. So it does beg the question of what we're doing here today other than to double down on the ICE hold because the only thing that has changed is more Americans are dead, arrested, detained, having their cars broken and their windows shattered as they've pulled us out. And I think that that's the big question. Now, the issue of FEMA I think is important. But we also know that Trump has made it harder to get FEMA funding that's there. And he has used this funding issue to make it even harder even when the money's already there and that's exactly what he did with the food stamp, with the food, you know, food nutrition, is money was there and he refused to let it go. I'm going to sort of end here, but I wanted to allow the ranking member to respond to the issue of a bill and I think we have an amendment which will move to say let's fund those agencies where there is no dispute, where there is no need to create safeguards. Like we could do that so that way we cover the concerns that the Republicans have raised today. And that's what you're looking at. You're not saying let's never fund them, it's let's get those funded so we narrow it down to the limited issue of what's not funded. That's what you're intending to do, right, Madam?

Yes, I want to thank the gentlelady and look, quite frankly, and I'll just say this to my Democratic colleagues and my Republican colleagues. I'm quite frankly tired of the crocodile tears about FEMA, which is what was the agency was going to dismantle. They fired the gentleman who said let's deal with some reform, we don't have to eliminate it. I happened to ask that question, the next day he was gone because he didn't toe the line. I've talked about the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency. The president's budget had $500 million in a cut to that agency. Did they care about cybersecurity? Hell no. No words when Musk decimated the workforce. A thousand people out of the agency. What happens when they put in this novice to head up one of the most, you know, important functions of the agency? And it is really remarkable. Let's fund these if we're serious. And I think we need to be serious unless my Republican colleagues don't believe that we have a problem with ICE and CBP. We do. The country knows it and yes, we are in negotiations with the White House about that. Let those negotiations go on. In the meantime, let us fund cybersecurity, Secret Service, the Coast Guard, FEMA. And there is no dispute about any of this. We can get this done now, but there is the insincerity. No, I believe my Republican colleagues do support what ICE does and do support what CBP does and that is harassing. I've used the phrase marauding bands of armed masked agencies on our streets all over this country terrorizing our communities. If you support that, so be it. You support it because you're not willing to take it on and do something about it and also take on the fact that we can support. I go through airports, I go over and I say thank you to TSA and I can say to them, I can say that I can say to them, I'm going to vote for something that pays you. Now if my Republican colleagues want to say is I don't want to pay you because I don't want to separate out your missions versus other missions. That is what we're talking about here today. We can talk about a whole lot of other things, but let's fund those people who are working hard, let's take on ICE and CBC and continue those negotiations. I yield back.

Thank you, ranking member, and with that, I yield back.

Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez and ranking member. I was worried about where Rosa DeLauro had been.

She's here and she's going to fight back.

Mr. Jack, you're recognized.

No questions, Madam Chair.

Mr. Langworthy.

No questions.

Okay. Thank you. Well, gentlemen and lady, thank you again for coming before us today. There seem to be no further questions, therefore you're excused. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else seeking to testify on H.R. 7744? Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting. The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Jack.

Madam Chair, I move that the committee grant H.R. 7744, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2026, a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the bill shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit. Madam Chair, I move that the committee grant H.R. 7744, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act 2026, a closed rule. The rule waives all

Thank you very much, Mr. Jack. You've now heard the motion. Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule?

Madam Chair.

Ms. Leger Fernandez, you're recognized.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make in order amendment number eight to H.R. 7744 offered by ranking member DeLauro, which replaces the text of the bill with the text of H.R. 7481, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2026, which will fund those agencies where there is consensus should receive funding. So if Republicans came in here and said we want to make sure that FEMA gets funded, TSA, the Coast Guard, that they're fully funded, this is the amendment you want. This will accomplish that. But it leaves out funding for ICE and CBP until we can finish those negotiations that the chairman mentioned. We're not going to get a bill passed until those negotiations get funded for ICE and CBP. Let's fund those ones that we all know are essential so we can go past those TSA agents and say I voted to fund your position so you don't show up and work without pay. That's what we're asking you to do. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment so we could fund FEMA, TSA, the Coast Guard, and those essential functions. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.

Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez. Any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say no.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. The amendment's not agreed to. Ms. Leger Fernandez requests a recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll.

Mrs. Fischbach.

No.

Mrs. Fischbach no. Mr. Norman. Mr. Roy.

No.

Mr. Roy no. Mrs. Houchin. Mr. Langworthy.

No.

Mr. Langworthy no. Mr. Scott.

No.

Mr. Scott no. Mr. Griffith.

No.

Mr. Griffith no. Mr. Jack.

No.

Mr. Jack no. Mr. McGovern.

Aye.

Mr. McGovern aye. Ms. Scanlon.

Aye.

Ms. Scanlon aye. Mr. Neguse.

Aye.

Mr. Neguse aye. Ms. Leger Fernandez.

Aye.

Ms. Leger Fernandez aye. Madam Chair.

No.

Madam Chair no.

The clerk will report the total.

Four ayes, seven nays.

The nays have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Is there any further discussion on the motion from the gentleman from Georgia? Hearing no further discussion, the question is on the motion from the gentleman from Georgia. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed by saying nay.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.

We ask for a roll call, Madam Chair.

Mr. McGovern requests a roll call. The clerk will call the roll.

Mrs. Fischbach.

Aye.

Mrs. Fischbach aye. Mr. Norman. Mr. Roy.

Aye.

Mr. Roy aye. Mrs. Houchin. Mr. Langworthy.

Aye.

Mr. Langworthy aye. Mr. Scott.

Aye.

Mr. Scott aye. Mr. Griffith.

Aye.

Mr. Griffith aye. Mr. Jack.

Aye.

Mr. Jack aye. Mr. McGovern.

No.

Mr. McGovern no. Ms. Scanlon.

No.

Ms. Scanlon no. Mr. Neguse.

No.

Mr. Neguse no. Ms. Leger Fernandez.

No.

Ms. Leger Fernandez no. Madam Chair.

Aye.

Madam Chair aye.

The clerk will report the total.

Seven ayes, four nays.

The ayes have it. The motion to report is agreed to. Accordingly, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Jack, will be managing this rule for the majority. And Ms. Leger Fernandez will manage it for the minority. With that, without objection, the committee is adjourned. Thank you again for joining us.