H.R. 8029 – Pay Our Homeland Defenders Act

Good afternoon. 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 four measures: H. Res. 1128, H.R. 5103, H.R. 7084, and H.R. 8029. H. Res. 1128 and H.R. 8029, two separate measures pertaining to the Department of Homeland Security, express the support of the House of Representatives for the Department of Homeland Security and allocate full funding for the agency respectively. For over a month, DHS has suffered severe disruptions to its operational posture. We have seen it, experienced it, and learned about it extensively through various mediums. More than 60,000 TSA officers are currently working unpaid, and nearly 400 have resigned. Meanwhile, passengers are forced to wait in line for hours to get through airport security. In addition, among those working unpaid are 18,500 essential emergency response staff from FEMA, nearly 900 cybersecurity experts at CISA, over 9,000 Coast Guard civilian personnel, and 7,700 civilian staff of the U.S. Secret Service. This madness and the misguided obstruction for over a month on the part of our Democrat colleagues must be put to an end. At what point will our Democrat colleagues say enough is enough and vote alongside us to fully fund DHS? Will it take a large-scale attack on our very soil for them to come to their senses and end their blockade? I sure hope that is not the case. Will it take even further detrimental disruptions to the lives of the American people for them to change their minds? Many people are asking these exact questions. The delay in funding DHS is egregious, to say the least. H.R. 5103, the Make the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful Act, would require the development and implementation of a program under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior to renew the District of Columbia through the removal of graffiti, enhanced private sector collaboration, and restoration of federal public monuments. Further, it would establish a commission to coordinate and collaborate across federal agencies, the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia to create joint priorities to enable the full enforcement of federal and local laws within the district. Our capital city should be a model that the rest of the nation should look to. Everyone who lives, visits, and commutes here should be able to enjoy a city that is as safe as it is clean. This is certainly another measure worthy of bipartisan support through and through. Finally, we turn to H.R. 7084, the bipartisan Defending American Property Abroad Act, which would institute prohibitions to any nation within the Western Hemisphere with a free trade agreement with the U.S. that unlawfully seizes American assets. This legislation yields an overdue tune-up to U.S. maritime security law, which will serve as a serious boon to the nation. It provides the president the authority to deny entry into U.S. ports for vessels that use ports or terminals in Western Hemisphere countries where American-owned ports, harbors, or marine terminals have been seized or nationalized. It also contains specific safeguards and conditions for removing such presidential designations if an offending country returns the seized property, terminates any future seizure measures, provides adequate compensation, or otherwise resolves the dispute to the president's satisfaction. We have another good slate of bills before us today. I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and the subsequent discussions all of us will have. With that, I now yield to the ranking member for any comments he wishes to make. Mr. McGovern.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. Today, millions of people are expected to fly in the United States. And all across the country, they are running into the same mess: endless security lines, overworked TSA officers, and chaos at the airport. All because, as Republican Senator John Kennedy from Louisiana said last night on Fox News, Donald Trump demanded, quote, "no deals with Democrats." Kennedy said, and I quote, "We could have had TSA paid by the end of the week, but the president said no deal." Let me say this plainly: Democrats support funding TSA. We support funding FEMA. We support funding the Coast Guard. We fully support paying the people who actually keep this country safe. We are not in charge. Republicans are in charge of Congress and the White House. And if they want to get something done, there's nothing stopping them. The problem here is Donald Trump. The problem is this Republican obsession with holding everything hostage unless they get an even bigger blank check for ICE or a vote suppression bill signed into law before the midterms. I mean, that is what this is about. For weeks, TSA workers have been forced to work without pay while Donald Trump threw one tantrum after another, even sending ICE agents into airports to pull focus from the real problem. ICE is not TSA. They are not trained for that job. Sending immigration agents into airports does not fix a security staffing crisis. It makes the whole thing more chaotic, more intimidating, and more absurd. And now, after weeks of this insanity, after airport lines wrapped around terminals, people missing flights, Americans getting unlawfully arrested by ICE at airports, we hear there may be some kind of deal in the works. If the deal is real, then why the hell are we considering for the third time the same DHS funding bill that the House already passed twice? I mean, we're just wasting time. And that seems to be the theme of the week. Families were already struggling with a cost of living crisis. Now Trump's illegal war with Iran is making that worse: higher gas prices, higher transportation costs, higher fertilizer costs, higher food prices in a country where people already cannot afford to live. So what are Republicans bringing us today? Not a bill to lower costs, not a bill to help families get by, not a bill to end this war. No, we get the same DHS funding bill for a third time and a non-binding resolution saying Congress supports DHS. We get a bill related to one port in Mexico that does nothing for people paying too much for groceries, rent, or gas. And we get yet another bill to meddle in the lives of the people of the District of Columbia. This DC bill is yet another case of Republicans treating the people of DC like they aren't capable of governing themselves. And I want to commend the residents of the district who are here today, who always show up every time we do a bill to try to micromanage their affairs. I mean, but you know, DC residents, they pay taxes. They serve their country. They do everything citizens are asked to do, and still this Congress refuses to treat them like full citizens. It is outrageous. The people of DC deserve better than being used as props in Republicans' latest power trip. So what's before us today is an unserious agenda for a country facing very serious problems, which is, quite frankly, business as usual under this Republican majority. And with that, I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern. I now welcome our first panel: Chairman Cole and Ranking Member DeLauro from the Committee on Appropriations, Chairman Garbarino and Ranking Member Thompson from the Committee on Homeland Security. Your full statement will be submitted for the record. We ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman Cole, 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. 8029, the Pay Our Homeland Defenders Act. As we sit here, the Department of Homeland Security has been shuttered by Senate Democrats for nearly 50 percent of the fiscal year. That's right, since last year, we are approaching 100 days when DHS personnel and critical missions have been left in limbo. Employees have been reporting to work without pay, and strain has been added to the very department charged with protecting the homeland. And why? Not because there are funding disagreements, but because Senator Schumer wants to commandeer appropriations to seek policy changes elsewhere. 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. The House proudly fulfilled its part of the bargain and passed all six bills across the floor. Unfortunately, at the last moment, Senator Schumer reneged on the deal, refusing to pass Homeland Security bill through the Senate as was agreed upon. Large portions of the Department of Homeland Security have since been shut down, with many employees in mission-critical roles, such as Transportation Security Administration agents, Secret Service agents, and the brave service members of the United States Coast Guard, continuing to work without guaranteed pay and without full operational resources. By this Friday, Senate Democrats will have denied over 80,000 American families more than a billion dollars in take-home pay. These are people who are still showing up for their shifts. The numbers are even higher when you include furloughed employees. Madam Chair, that is heartless. That is unfair, and that is cruel. What's worse, Senator Schumer's decision to block Homeland Security funding for his own selfish reasons has placed the country at serious risk. As our military is involved in ongoing combat operations against the Iranian regime, a state sponsor of terrorism which has shown itself to be willing time and time again to commit terrorist atrocities against innocents, this is no time for a shutdown. Sadly, Senator Schumer does not seem to agree. Instead, he and Senate Democrats have repeatedly rejected the bipartisan compromise legislation in favor of partisan gain. And they have allowed innocent Americans to pay the price: disaster victims left unassisted, airline travelers facing long delays, and millions of Americans left vulnerable to terrorism. To make matters worse, the administration has shown itself to be ready and willing to negotiate with Senate Democrats to make reforms at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Not only has the president made a change at the top of the department, nominating my friend and home state Senator Markwayne Mullin, who has been confirmed as the next Secretary of Homeland Security, but has also released a letter publicly indicating measures they are willing to implement. These reforms include requiring the use of body-worn cameras, placing restrictions on immigration enforcement at sensitive locations like hospitals and schools, increasing congressional oversight, and requiring agents to wear visible officer identification while carrying out immigration enforcement activities. In fact, two weeks ago, my counterpart in the Senate, Senator Collins, stated directly in an interview that the White House's proposal was, quote, "eminently reasonable," unquote. Sadly, Senate Democrats do not seem to agree. Despite publicly claiming that the shutdown is to produce reforms at ICE and CBP, they've continued to reject the very reforms they claim to support. This includes not only the reforms the White House has proposed, but also those contained in the very bill before us today, which were negotiated on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, such as the requirement for ICE officers to wear body cameras and undergo de-escalation training. While Senator Schumer sits idle, we will not. And is why the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security Vice Chair, Representative Juan Ciscomani, is leading a renewed effort in the House to fund critical security operations and pay personnel who are working with no pay. The Pay Our Homeland Defenders Act comprehensively funds DHS. It doesn't selectively decide which parts of Homeland Security matter. It ensures critical missions and personnel are resourced and ready. I urge my colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, to do the right thing and support the bill. I thank each of you for your time, and I urge all members to support this bipartisan package. I look forward to your questions.

Chairman yields back. Now recognize the ranking member, Ms. DeLauro, for her five minutes.

Thank you so much. And I want to thank the chair and Ranking Member McGovern and the members of the committee for the opportunity to testify this afternoon alongside my friend, Chairman Cole. We are here once again to discuss a piece of legislation that will not become law. It is the same piece of legislation that has already failed to become law several times. Republican leadership knows this bill will not become law. But rather than pursue serious solutions, Republican leadership has opted once again for political theater. This is three times, and in this instance, three times is not a charm. It seems as though theatrics are all President Trump and Republican leadership can offer the American people. Instead of funding TSA, President Trump sent ICE agents with zero training in aviation security to roam around airports across the country, intimidating travelers and doing absolutely nothing to reduce the lines at TSA checkpoints that are only getting longer and longer. You know, 85 percent of ICE and CBP agents are already being paid. This administration is picking and choosing whom they want to pay. And they do not want to pay TSA workers. They are holding these and other employees hostage for political gain. Before the shutdown began, I introduced a bill to fully fund TSA, FEMA, the Coast Guard, cyber security, Secret Service, and more. But Republican leadership is blocking it from even receiving a vote because it does not also fund ICE and CBP. Republican leadership refuses to support any measure that does not provide more funding for ICE and CBP. They will not pay TSA agents unless we also fund ICE. They will not fund FEMA unless we also fund ICE. They will not fund the Coast Guard unless we also fund ICE. They will not fund any other part of the Department of Homeland Security unless they also get more money for ICE and CBP without any of the protections against abuse by those agencies that the American people are demanding. And I might just add that in the reforms that were presented by the Democrats, there is nothing that the administration is talking about about requiring to get a warrant from a judge before kicking in someone's door. No masks. They refuse to say that people will not wear masks. The end of racial profiling, there's a no. Establishing a use of force policy in law, no. Allow independent investigations into misconduct, no. Mandate the use of body-worn cameras, no. We are only two months removed from the murder of Alex Preti, almost to the day. This administration is hoping that we and the American people will forget what caused this. That we will forget about the abuse, the harassment, the violence, and the chaos simply because it is not in the news as much anymore. But they are wrong. These are our constituents. They are our communities. These protections are essential. But Republican leadership are so opposed to any protections that they refuse to pay these federal workers. And astonishingly, they are crying out about the impacts of the lapse in funding. Where were they when this administration proposed eliminating FEMA entirely? Where were they when the president proposed cutting cyber security by $500 million? Where were they when the president unilaterally eliminated collective bargaining rights for TSA workers? Where were they when Secretary Noem spent $20,000 to rent a horse so that she could use it in a TV ad? Where were they when she took money from the Coast Guard for two luxury airplanes? They were silent. Last week, Democrats filed a discharge petition to force a vote on my bill that would fund TSA, pay those workers, and fund every other agency under DHS except ICE and CBP while negotiations continue over reforms to those agencies. There is no practical reason that TSA workers' paychecks need to be tied to more funding for ICE and CBP. There is, however, a political reason: gain the upper hand in negotiations over reforms to those agencies. The Republican leadership are withholding the paychecks from these workers to exert leverage in those negotiations. That is wrong. I know some of my Republican colleagues can see that this is wrong. I encourage them to sign onto our discharge petition. I will speak for myself here, but people know that I am not in favor of abolishing ICE. I believe we should reform it and create stronger guardrails against abuse to keep our communities safe. However, I do not believe that while negotiations over those reforms play out, there is any need to shut down the rest of DHS. Let us pay the TSA officers, the FEMA employees, the cyber security experts, the Coast Guard while negotiations over ICE and CBP continue on a separate track. Republican leadership's all-or-nothing approach is prolonging this shutdown. It is completely unnecessary. To my Republican colleagues in rank and file who I know have been hearing from their constituents about wait times at the airport, from federal workers going without paychecks, I invite you to sign on to this petition. If you have questions, come find me on the floor, reach out to my office. You know how to get in touch with me. You can ask Chairman Cole, I'm good to my word. Let us work together to fund the parts of DHS over which there is no controversy. We are on day 38 of this shutdown. It is long past due. Let us get it done. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you, and I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Now recognize Chairman Garbarino for his five minutes of an opening statement.

Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member. Thank you for all the members of the committee. We sit here today on day 39 of an entirely preventable shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. Shutdown that is disrupting our transportation security, our maritime security, our cyber defenses, our disaster response, our immigration enforcement, and our ability to detect and respond to domestic terror threats. Those civil servants whose job it is to keep us safe are doing so without pay. The Coast Guard continues to protect our waterways, many without pay. Secret Service continues its no-fail mission, many without pay. Cyber Security Infrastructure Security Agency continues to detect and deter malicious cyber actors without pay. The Federal Emergency Management Agency continues its life-saving response work for natural disasters, many without pay. The Office of Intelligence and Analysis continues to collaborate across the intelligence community and with state and local governments to disrupt terror threats without pay. Critical support staff at Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement continue advancing their border security and immigration enforcement missions without pay. And the Transportation Security Administration continues to protect and defend our airports and skies without pay. There are more than a billion dollars in lost wages every month this drags on. This isn't an argument being made in the abstract. Since the beginning of this shutdown, we've seen acts of violence across the country from Austin, Texas, to West Bloomfield, Michigan, and ISIS-inspired attacks at Old Dominion University and in New York City. We are getting closer to the largest sporting event in the world history, the 2026 FIFA World Cup, and the largest nationwide celebration, America 250. These events cannot be rescheduled. They are happening whether we are prepared or not. If Democrats continue to keep the department shut down, the threat against Americans during these events will only increase. And we have started to see the catastrophic impacts of the Democrat shutdown on air travel. Just this past weekend, we saw major hubs in Houston and Atlanta with four-hour security lines. New Orleans and Baltimore faced three-hour security lines. And Philadelphia closed three security checkpoints due to unscheduled officer absences. The TSA call-out rate is now routinely greater than 10 percent every day, some and at some airports more than 40 percent. When the first DHS appropriations bill was released, it was clear that, quote, "if we allow a lapse in funding, TSA agents will be forced to work without pay, FEMA assistance could be delayed, and the U.S. Coast Guard will be adversely affected. All while ICE continues functioning without any change in their operations due to $75 billion it received in the one big beautiful bill," end quote. Those were not my words. Those are the words of Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro. Ms. DeLauro's words were true two months ago and are true today. The Department of Homeland Security was created after the terrorist attacks of September 11th in direct response to the operational silos among security agencies and general failures in coordination and information sharing. As a lifelong New Yorker and the representative of a community forever marked by the September 11th terror attacks, the mission of the department is deeply personal for me. 25 years later, its purpose is essential as ever. The department exists to ensure that all agencies and personnel are working together to accomplish their interconnected missions to protect, defend, and secure the homeland. The resolution introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. McKenzie, simply supports all the civil servants working at the department to keep us safe. The 3,373 DHS employees that live in Massachusetts, the 3,869 in Pennsylvania, the 3,112 in Colorado, and the 2,428 in New Mexico. Voting for this resolution is voting to support those people. It's voting to reassure all Americans that Congress will defend their safety and security. And it's voting to ensure this vital department upholds its post-9/11 mission. With your support and the support of the House, we can work together to recognize these hardworking men and women and encourage these vital missions. I urge support of this resolution and welcome your questions. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Now recognize Ranking Member Thompson for his five-minute opening statement.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member, and members of the Rules Committee. We're here today because Republicans have failed to govern. Their failure and their failure alone has produced a nearly 40-day shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. And instead of sitting down to negotiate a serious path forward, they've brought us this: a non-binding resolution that does nothing to reopen DHS, nothing to pay its workforce, and nothing to make our country safer. A resolution is not a paycheck. A resolution is not accountability. And a resolution is not a substitute for governing. Transportation security officers are working without a paycheck right now. The men and women at FEMA, CISA, and across DHS are showing up every day not knowing when they will be paid. They do not need our words. They need a check. They need this shutdown to end. Let me be clear about where Democrats stand. Democrats have been fighting for the TSA workforce and broader DHS mission long before Republicans discovered this week that DHS is more than ICE and CBP. I've personally worked for more than a decade to give TSA personnel the same employment protection as other federal workers. When TSA and American Federation of Government Employees reached a collective bargaining agreement two years ago, I was proud to celebrate that milestone with them. House Republicans voted against those very protections. And now, the Trump administration is moving to strip TSOs of their collective bargaining rights. That is the record. That is the history, and it is worth stating plainly. Because that is how we got here today. Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, Tom Homan, Kristi Noem, and Corey Lewandowski have tried to turn DHS into a national police force, a weapon for their political agenda while systematically neglecting the critical missions of TSA, FEMA, CISA, and every other component outside of ICE and CBP. House Republicans watched it happen and said nothing. And Americans are less safe for it. Thousands of employees have already left DHS, leaving dangerous staffing gaps in some of the most technically demanding positions in the federal government. House Resolution 1128 does not mention any of that. It does not mention that for over a year, the Trump administration has withheld or delayed homeland security grants for state, local, tribal, and territorial governments, leaving disaster survivors to wait and first responders without the resources they need to protect their communities. Words on paper will not fix that. Only real action will. It does not mention that DHS and FEMA continue to withhold counterterrorism funding from nonprofits, synagogues, churches, mosques, the very institutions that have been targets of terrorist attacks on American soil. A resolution is not protection. Funding is protection. It does not mention that the administration has politicized DHS's cybersecurity mission, leaving our critical infrastructure and federal networks more vulnerable than they should be. This resolution will not secure a single network. Only leadership and funding will do that. Because I genuinely support the DHS workforce and because this resolution tells only part of the story, I have offered three amendments to address those serious deficiencies. So let us tell the whole story here. The Trump administration caused this shutdown. The Trump administration has disparaged and diminished the DHS workforce since the first day it took office. The Trump administration has made the American people less safe in the process. House Democrats have been at the negotiating table from the very beginning. We want DHS funded and reopened. We have said so consistently, and if House Republicans were sincere about ending the shutdown their own failures created, they would work with us, fund the full missions of DHS, and answer the public's legitimate demand for accountability and reform of ICE and CBP. Don't just take my word for it. Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana told Fox News just last night that when Senate Republican leader Thune informed the president that his conference was prepared to accept the Democratic compromise position, the president said, and I quote, "No deal with the Democrats." And it gets worse. The president is now attaching new conditions to ending the shutdown, including his so-called SAFE Act. That makes no sense. It has nothing to do with funding the DHS workforce, and everyone in this room knows it. And yet, instead of showing any leadership, House Republicans are backing the president's order to deploy untrained ICE officers into airports contrary to their mission, contrary to common sense, apparently to intimidate travelers. And while all of that is happening, we are here debating a non-binding resolution that will not pay a single TSO, will not reopen a single office, and will not make a single American safer. The American people deserve better than this Republican failure theater. The DHS workforce deserves better. I urge my colleagues to stop the performance and start governing. Ranking Member DeLauro's measure to reopen DHS today, cosponsor my bill, H.R. 2086, the Rights for the TSA Workforce Act, as my good friend Chairman Andrew Garbarino has already done. Not a resolution, action. Mr. Chair, with that, I yield back.

Chairman yields back. Now recognize Ms. Fischbach for any questions that she may have of the witnesses of this first panel.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just want to clarify something. I thought that one of the testifiers talked about how this didn't do a thing to pay anybody, but as I look at H.R. 2029, I know there's a second bill that expresses support, but H.R. 8029 would. Am I reading that correctly, either Mr. Chair? I'll just throw it out there.

You are reading it correctly. 8029 would pay the entire workforce at DHS.

Okay, so we are, we are putting something forward that would actually solve this problem and pay those folks. And I was just wondering, you know, Democrats have multiple times voted over and over to not pay the not only the TSA, but the Coast Guard or not fund DHS in general. And I'm just wondering, I know you talked a little bit about the consequences, but maybe some of the consequences that we're not seeing. TSA is obviously one of the big ones right now because...

Well, I think you can break the consequences in two categories. I mean, obviously, there's consequence, well, maybe three. There's consequences for the workers themselves. These are people for the most part that are still showing up that literally have, they went 43 days last year without getting paid. Now they've gone 38 days this year without getting paid. And those are, you know, TSA agents, certain elements of FEMA, certain elements of the Coast Guard, but tens of thousands of federal workers that ought to be getting paid. They have all got, you know, either rent or mortgages to pay. They've all got, you know, families to feed. They've probably got car payments and none of those things, you know, it's just incredible to me that people that are not making all that much money, these are for the most part $40,000, $45,000 a year jobs, are being put through this strain again and again. It's just unconscionable. Then there's the consequences for the public in terms of inconvenience. My friend Mr. Garbarino went through some long wait lines that are out there, particularly at major airports, but they're going to, they're coming to an airport near you soon if you haven't seen them yet, you will. Because people can't just indefinitely work for free. And that means there's going to be fewer and fewer people reporting to work over time and the wait lines are going to get longer and longer. Finally, there's just the danger. Look, we are in military action. You can agree about it or not agree about it, but we ought to have every defense available. And stressed, overworked, and unpaid people in DHS are not going to perform as well as people that are getting paid and know they're taken care of. So I mean, I just think it's unconscionable, particularly because the administration has made a lot of the reforms that Democrats have asked for. They were upset about former director Kristi Noem, she's not there now. There's just no excuses at this point other than perceived political advantage. And I think that's unconscionable. You know, I've listened to years of lectures from Democrats about shutting down government. You never shut down the government. You keep working the problem, you keep debating it, you keep working, but you don't shut down the government. Democrats in the Senate have shut down the government three times in less than four months. And they're continuing these shutdowns for record lengths of time. So I mean, the hypocrisy here is breathtaking, particularly in light of the concessions that have been given. So again, I look, I would personally be embarrassed to get on an airplane if I'd been voting the way my Democratic colleagues have. I'd be embarrassed to walk past the people that are sitting there doing their job not getting paid and give them some claptrap about, you know, I'm busy smearing this other federal agency as if every person in there was some sort of criminal, most of whom are not, they're mostly law enforcement officials doing a tough, thankless job protecting all the rest of us from people that Democrats allowed to come into the country in many cases illegally and then didn't cooperate in their extradition. I mean, it's just, I mean, it's all politics. And it's particularly true in Senate Democrats. Again, the bill we're talking about, this is a bill they agreed to. Now, would they have liked other things in it? Yes, and by the way, a lot of those things have been granted since then. But this is the bill they agreed to, said send it to us in this form and we will pass it. And they didn't. And that's just breaking your word. It's hard to negotiate with people that break their word. And Senate Democrats have consistently broken their word here. Not House Democrats. They've kept their word, but Senate Democrats have.

Thank you. I'll just add, you know, this resolution I have today honors the men and women who are working without pay, but when you ask about consequences, tomorrow we have a full committee hearing where we have TSA, CISA, FEMA, and Coast Guard all coming in to talk about the consequences of this shutdown. So we will have, there's plenty of them, but we will have a full list tomorrow after that testimony.

Thank you very much. And I just, it is very sad that those folks, and you mentioned all of the things that they're facing, whether they have mortgages, kids, with the going without pay, and not only just TSA, but you know, Coast Guard, everyone who is in that, in that budget. And it's just sad that they're being held hostage because the Democrats don't like some people in ICE. And it's sad that that whole bunch, you know, the whole bunch of folks are having to deal with that. So I would urge, I think that I think that we were invited to join with you on, I think I can't remember who said it, but invited us to join one of the bills. But I would invite you to vote for, you know, H.R. 8029 so that we can get this taken care of. So and with that, I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Now recognize the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern, for his time of question.

Yeah, I got to tell you that this is why people, this is why people hate Congress. And Mr. Cole, I'll just say to you, just to kind of put a little balance here, when I walked through Logan Airport in Boston today, the TSA agent that I talked to said Trump sucks. That's what he said to me. And I said I agree. I agree. And you know, this is the, this will be the third time. I mean, this, this funding bill, funding DHS has already, we've already voted on it twice, right? And it failed both times in the Senate, am I right?

A majority of both houses have voted in favor of it repeatedly. A majority of both houses have voted for it repeatedly. So we have a Senate rule, if I can answer your question, we have a Senate rule, but a majority of both houses have repeatedly voted for this.

Well, have the rules changed in the Senate? They haven't. So this, this has not passed the Senate twice. Do we have any intelligence or any assurance that it will succeed a third time?

Not to my knowledge.

Alright, so we're sending over a funding bill that already failed twice, that will fail a third time. And, and we know that Senate Majority Leader Schumer reached out to President Trump and said, look, you know, let's see whether we can work out a deal here where we can fund everything except ICE and CBP, and we can fight about that later, and Trump said no deal. And then I'm look, I'm reading now Senator Kennedy from Louisiana, the Republican, said that he was asked about, now this was six hours ago, about an emerging compromise to reopen the Department of Homeland Security, and Kennedy says that Trump is reconsidering and might support a deal. Do we know whether there's any truth to that?

I don't.

I mean, it seems to me that if we are truly interested in funding TSA and FEMA and Coast Guard, that the best way to do that, the quickest way to do that, is to try to work out a deal. And again, it seems like Republicans in the Senate are open to it. And so I don't understand why we don't go down that road and try to, you know, put this behind us and the contentious stuff we can fight about later. There is an old saying, you don't have to agree on everything to agree on something. There is probably about 80 percent in this Homeland Security bill that everybody agrees on. And there is 20 percent that people don't agree on. Let's get the stuff we agree on done, and then you can figure out, you guys are in charge of everything, figure out a way to deal with the other 20 percent. But to go through this exercise of just kind of doing the same old, same old again and again, it is like people see through this. And with all due respect on the kind of the sense of Congress resolution, I am going to tell you that is not going to cut it with FEMA employees or TSA employees. I mean, they do want us to fund their salaries, and we could do that really quickly. We could do that really quickly. I didn't hear any of you talk about being against FEMA or against the Coast Guard or against TSA. Everybody is for it. So let's fund that, and then we can fight about the rest. But I don't want to belabor this point because it seems like it is kind of a waste of time we are having this hearing again. But there is an easy, quick way to fix this, and we just ought to do it. And again, if in fact the President is reconsidering his hard no deal, that is a good thing. You know, let's see whether we can, Ms. DeLauro has a compromise bill that I think everybody would support, and let's just do it. So anyway, I am just sorry we are here again wasting time on something that we know is going nowhere. With that, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, for his time of questioning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I came here yesterday, I flew up through Hartsfield-Atlanta Jackson Airport, and I want to commend the airport workers and the TSA workers that were there. And I know there were, depending on what time you got to the airport, some had longer lines than others. I was through security, I think it was less than 10 minutes from the time I came in. And the reason this matters with other people taking the position that TSA would normally have is the TSA agents were doing the check-in with your ID and your boarding pass, and they were doing the actual scans of the carry-on luggage going through, but they had Atlanta Hartsfield Airport employees that were handling the actual direction of which, well, everybody is going in one line right now, but even when you put your luggage in the bins, it was an Atlanta Hartsfield Jackson employee, not a TSA agent, that was helping make sure that you were doing the right things there. And so it has helped with Atlanta Hartsfield employees doing that, and I think it will help with Immigration and Customs Enforcement filling in in some other airports and helping alleviate some of the congestion. I think it is an unfortunate situation, and it is, I mean, I think if you want to know why members of the general public hate Congress, it is because members of Congress who are voting against funding TSA say they want TSA agents to be paid. And so I listened to the Ranking Member say that Republicans are in charge. We don't have 60 votes in the Senate, and that has allowed the Democrats to use the rules to punish the people.

And that is why you need to make a deal.

With who? With people who don't do what they say they are going to do? I mean, I want, this is my question, Mr. Cole, this is my question. So the Democrats are upset about Immigration and Customs Enforcement and incidents that occurred in Minneapolis, Minnesota, is my understanding. Is that a fair statement? Is that, I mean, we are having this discussion because of what happened in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Until that, there was an agreement to fund DHS. Is that a fair statement?

I am not sure who you are directing the question to.

Well, I will ask you. There was an agreement until what happened in Minneapolis, Minnesota happened.

Correct. That is correct.

We, there was an agreement. Do the Democrats dispute that? Mr. Thompson, do you dispute that? Did we not have an agreement until what happened in Minneapolis, Minnesota?

Well, I think there was the discussion of an agreement. We did not have a firm agreement. And at that point when ICE became erratic and out of control and started killing people, you have to fix it. And this was an opportunity to fix it. And I think if you see where Democrats are, we are prepared to work, but ICE is seriously out of control.

I don't agree with your statement there, but let's, that Immigration and Customs Enforcement is out of control. I do not agree with that. I am sorry that the two people were killed in Minneapolis, Minnesota, but if we are, you know, Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations have been occurring over the last several decades in this country, and governors and mayors have allowed everywhere else there to be peaceful protests but not interference with federal law enforcement operations. And that is the difference in Minneapolis, Minnesota. And again, I am sorry that the young lady and the young man are dead. But this is about ICE. But the Democrat proposal, and Mr. Cole, I just want to make sure I understand this correctly. The Democrat proposal stops the funding for Customs and Border Patrol, correct?

I believe that is correct.

Well, Ms. DeLauro, does your proposal stop the funding for Customs and Border Patrol, correct?

It does. There is $65 billion that they have right now, and 85 percent of CBP and ICE are being paid right now. So the administration has chosen who they want to pay or not for political reasons. They want the lines there. It is political theater. We could pay these people all tomorrow if the Republicans wanted to move forward.

The political theater is the shutdown that the Democratic Party is putting on right here that is causing a lot of pain throughout this country. But you, your proposal, I disagree with your assessment of ICE, but your proposal stops the funding for Customs and Border Patrol. For the last, for the Biden administration, the Biden administration opened the floodgates and let millions and millions and millions of people into this country. We have no idea who came into this country when you opened the floodgates. And now your proposal is to keep them here no matter who they are.

No, please, don't. I know this is your time, but this is absolutely false. This issue is payment. ICE is being paid. Your proposal, CBP is being paid. The people who are not being paid are CBP...

Ms. DeLauro, does your proposal stop funding for Customs and Border Patrol?

Through the appropriations bill, yes. The big beautiful bill that you all passed provided $140 billion for, and CBP has $65 billion now. ICE has $75 billion now. 85 percent of those folks are being paid because the administration said we are going to pay these people, but we are going to hold hostage TSA people, Coast Guard, FEMA, and cybersecurity.

If you stop the funding for Customs and Border Patrol, it opens the floodgates again, and that is the Democrats' proposal. Would you like to, do you have any, can you, would you address that to Mr. Garbarino?

Garbarino, yes. I would just say there is a lot that ICE and CBP do that are not immigration enforcement.

Absolutely. Naturalization process.

They have, CBP has responsibilities, to facilitate, one of their responsibilities is to facilitate lawful trade and travel at ports of entry. That was something that was not funded...

Ag inspection.

Yeah, those are things that were not funded through the one big beautiful bill. ICE, HSI investigations, was not funded through the one big beautiful bill, but what they do, they combat transnational crime, they combat human trafficking, and they combat child exploitation. So there is, to defund an entire agency that does a lot of different things and say they have funding, they do have funding. They have funding that was directed under the one big beautiful bill for certain things, not everything that they do. Which is why you have to be careful with just cutting out complete agencies because they have a lot of different responsibilities.

A $10 billion slush fund. And I would just say my proposal allows to continue debating CBP funding while the reforms are being discussed.

Ma'am, it is my time. You are about out of time. I am sure that they gave you plenty of time. Go ahead, Mr. Scott.

If there was an agreement until the shootings in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and I am again, I am sorry the two individuals are deceased, I wish that it hadn't happened. But you know, the political theater is Chuck Schumer continuing to shut down the government. They are disrupting the economy. The disruption of the economy is intentional, and it is about the next election for Chuck Schumer, and that is all it is about. And with that, I yield.

Gentleman yields back. Now recognizes the gentlelady of Pennsylvania, Ms. Scanlon, for her time of questioning.

Thank you. I do feel like we have to be clear about why Republicans have shut down the Department of Homeland Security. I mean, Republicans control the White House, they control the Senate, they control the House of Representatives. They run this government right now. And they control what bills come before this committee and what bills go to the floor. And with their control of Congress, Republicans have not done the work to pass a bill that would fund all or part of DHS. Not done the work to get it across the table. Republicans in the House and Senate have now voted over a dozen times to block legislation that would fund all of DHS except for ICE and Border Patrol. Those are the parts of that agency or that department that have been used in these radical, lawless mass deportation efforts. ICE is the main part of the agency, but we really can't forget Greg Bovino, Customs and Border Patrol, who has been central to the killings, to the abuse, to the tear-gassing of kids, to the, he has been filmed hurling tear gas canisters at protesters. So yes, Customs and Border Patrol has been part of what the American people have said we need to reform and which the White House has been unwilling to reform. So we've seen Republicans block the legislation that would fund all of DHS except for ICE and CBP. They have voted multiple times against funding for TSA. Republicans have voted multiple times against funding for FEMA and they've voted multiple times against funding for the Coast Guard and cybersecurity. All these measures had the votes to become law if Republicans would have just said yes to the yes. But they've held TSA and Coast Guard paychecks hostage and kept the shutdown going for weeks in order to appease the president and his radical base I guess. Democrats have provided Republicans with multiple good faith proposals to negotiate a DHS funding bill. We've brought amendments in this committee and we'll do so again. We've brought amendments in the Senate and on the floor to fund DHS except for ICE. And hundreds of us have signed a discharge petition to force a vote here in the House and we'll continue to try to negotiate an end to this shutdown. But Republicans have to come to the table and stop just pushing the same damn bill. We can't forget the majority of Americans want to see major reforms to ICE and Customs and Border Patrol. They want the chaos to stop. They don't want ICE in their neighborhoods. They don't want ICE to arrest and kill American citizens or to invade our homes without warrants or to tear gas protesters or traumatize toddlers. The American people don't want this. So we need major changes to the way ICE and Border Patrol operate starting with a full stop to their lawless aggressive tactics that are terrorizing communities around the country. This shouldn't be that hard. Congress should fund the rest of DHS now and work towards an agreement on ICE and Customs and Border Patrol. It can be that simple. Our Republican colleagues just need to take yes for an answer. So Ranking Member DeLauro, this is the last piece of the fiscal year 2026 budget that needs to be funded, right? We've funded 11 other bills?

11 and three quarters if we could.

And those were worked out with a lot of hard work I know with you and Mr. Cole, agreements were reached. So it can be done. We should stop fighting over the parts that the American people agree need to be taken care of. Just to be clear on something, we've heard a lot about the risk inherent right now in this situation with the war that Trump started and all. The FBI is the agency responsible for investigating domestic terrorism, isn't it?

Yes.

And the FBI is fully funded at this point, isn't it?

Yeah.

Is there anything else you want to add to this discussion?

Well, I would like to talk about because I think the parts of this agency that we don't reflect enough on are Coast Guard and I've mentioned that and incredibly that the former secretary, yes she is gone, but she took $200 million from the Coast Guard for two luxury airlines, airplanes for herself and she also paid $20,000 to rent a horse so she could be a part of an ad. By the way, which she said with the ads that the president approved of the ad. So this notion that no one knew what she was doing, I mean, so she's paid a price for that effort. So to tell me you care now about the Coast Guard and they diverted Coast Guard resources to immigration enforcement rather than the traditional operations. Let me get to the cybersecurity issue because that's one I think people focus in on. It's amazing to me that there wasn't a peep when the Trump administration, the president's budget, his request proposed a $495 million cut to the agency. There's also that they gutted CISA, close to 1,000 seasoned employees were cut with you know in the chainsaw massacre here. So that if you tell me that this is such an important piece of our national security, where were you when this happened? They had to let go the latest acting director who failed polygraphs, he uploaded sensitive information into ChatGPT. So who do you put in charge of these efforts? So you take a look at each one of these areas. I mentioned the Coast Guard, I've mentioned cybersecurity, FEMA, whoa. The president and Secretary Noem wanted to dismantle FEMA. I have direct experience. I asked the acting director at the time, do you think we should reform or we should eliminate? The gentleman in all honesty he said, I think we should reform, we shouldn't eliminate FEMA. He was summarily fired the next day. It's really pretty incredible. And then the cut, they eliminated billions of dollars in FEMA grants, the BRIC grants, etc. No word from any of our Republican colleagues now about what that meant. And the TSA, look, I went to Bradley Airport in Hartford, Connecticut, my husband and I flew out of, this is months and months ago, the TSA employee came up to me, he said to me, Rosa, he said, I wanted to do this job after 9/11, said to protect my country. He said, they abrogated all of our collective bargaining rights. He said, why? He says, I want to do my job. He says, I and so that there's a reality here about what was done to folks. And now this notion that all of a sudden there's this big concern. The concern has been on our side to be very honest. I introduced this piece of legislation that's more than a month ago where I said, let us carve out, we've done this in the past. Let us carve out the places where we have no disagreement. We are all in agreement about the need to make sure that these agencies and the employees are whole. But we do have serious, serious concerns about ICE and CBP. The country has serious concerns. My proposal will allow us to continue to debate those issues and we can come to an agreement. There's no doubt in my mind. We came to an agreement on 11 appropriations bills and we could do that in the meantime. Let's get this back on track. Let's let people avoid eviction notices. Let's get people who are sleeping in their cars out of their cars and back to where they are and can go home and have their families being safe. That is all this is about. It can get done and it can get done quickly. We just need, you know, it takes two to tango. Thank you.

I think your point's well taken, it could be ended last week, it could be ended this week. We just need Republicans to say yes. I think your point is well taken about the treatment of our federal workers by this administration, whether it's ending their negotiated contracts, whether it's terrorizing them in the words of Russell Vought over at the White House.

Wants to wake up every morning scared.

Yeah, and they are scared. Firing people, making a really hostile work environment to folks who are dedicated to public service. Ranking Member Thompson, we just heard about the proposed White House cuts for cybersecurity, CISA. This is the organization that looks at threats from foreign actors and for example exposed a lot of the misconduct by Russia in connection with the 2016 election.

That's right.

Okay, that's what I thought. All right, thank you for your testimony. I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Norman for his time of questioning.

Was talking to a TSA agent coming in Charlotte today. Pretty upset, had a disabled son, he hadn't gotten a paycheck and another one had a disabled mom, not having money basically to bring them food. You know it's a sad day we even having to discuss this to use a branch of government to shut down because you want to disarm agents that are getting killers out of a neighborhood. It's pretty sad really. It's outrageous and the we got a report the sleeper cells in this country are alive and well and are being activated as we speak. I guess the Democrats can just keep doing what they're doing and more lives will be lost and more you know more theater. This is just words here by the left. It really is. It's a if if it would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. But I see that you know we're thankfully the TSA agents are not going to be disarmed. They're not going to be their lives put at risk. They're not going to allow a rogue party which the Democrat Party has now become. They're just not going to allow this to happen to the agents that are putting their lives on the line and many are are they're really suffering now. And I guess as one Democrat told me, he said, you know if it gets to a point where it'll affect me, we may do something but maybe not. So I guess maybe shut the airports down. Let's shut where it affects politicians and let's see if they come to their senses then. It's a it's really a sad day. The only good news that I see, you got millions of the Americans that they're not buying your words that this is a Republican shutdown. This just isn't. We know that. And maybe they'll hold them accountable at the election box. That's the only way you deal with this these this now rogue Democrat Party. That's it. New York's getting a fine example of what socialism is all alike, what disarming the police is all about. And just so I guess it'll it'll get so bad and then maybe maybe it'll be something will be done. I doubt it until it affects it affects the party that's doing this to a country that particularly now doesn't deserve this with the war and the other things going on. The Trump derangement syndrome is alive and well. Keep it going, I think the American people are seeing it and we'll this'll end, this too shall end at some point. But I hate the lives that are going to be lost particularly in with what looks like is coming our way with so many areas, sleeper cells being one of them. Mr. Chairman I yield back.

Gentleman yields back now recognize gentlelady of New Mexico, Ms. Leger Fernandez for her time of questioning.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And you know we debated this bill already as we pointed out, we've debated this bill and we've put it on the floor twice. Republicans passed it out twice. And last time we debated the the the bill, I will say my colleague Representative Jack, he said, and I'm going to quote him here on the floor of the House as we were debating this bill, he said, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one thing clear for the record and for everyone who is watching today. This debate is not about funding ICE or CBP. Those agencies were already funded through H.R. 1, the one big beautiful bill which was enacted last year, close quote. He was not the only Republican who got up and made the statement that this bill was not about funding ICE or CBP because they are funded. Now, Chairman Cole, do you agree or was Representative Jack wrong when he said that on the floor of the House?

He was substantially correct. Not every part of ICE, as Mr. Garbarino pointed out, is funded.

Right. But he was substantially correct and I would say that even Republicans have said the exact same thing. So if we passed a bill, since ICE is already substantially funded, if we passed a bill to fund FEMA, to fund TSA, to fund Coast Guard, this would be done. We have a solution. And in fact, the senators have already said that. I'm going to quote now Senator Kennedy, John Kennedy. "The Democrats offered to open up everything but ICE. Ted and I said okay, let's accept their offer. And then at the same time we would offer a bill for reconciliation where we don't need Democrat votes. That way we're," open quote, "that way we're out of the shutdown and DHS is back open." Thune submitted that to the President and he said no. No deals with Democrats. So we're back to square one. Now, Chairman Cole, you actually believe in bipartisanship. You believe in making deals with the Democrats. So I'm going to ask you, if that deal went through, would we be able to get TSA agents paid?

I do believe in making deals. And we made a deal with Senate Democrats and they broke their word. So I do believe it, but it's hard to make deals with people that break their word. This is the second time Senate Democrats have done this. Second time. They did it last year on the short-term clean CR. They did it this year. That was a deal they made and they broke their word. So kind of hard to make deals with people that don't keep their word. I will say, and I've said this before publicly, that was not true of House Democrats. They made a deal and they kept their word on the deal. But Senate Democrats did not. So you try and deal with people that don't keep their word. So that's point number one. Point number two, you know, Democrats faced this dilemma with Obamacare back in 2013. We offered to open up whole stretches of the government. You said no, it has to all be opened up. So which is it? And so it's just to me, look, the easy thing is simply to vote for the bill.

But the question, the question is really not about, the question is about if, if we actually, if we funded, if we passed a bill to fund FEMA, TSA, the Coast Guard and the other agencies, would we then be able to start paying those TSA agents?

I don't know because I don't know what deal Senate Democrats will take. Look, used to be Kirstjen Nielsen had to be gone. She's gone. Used to be I have to have cameras. You got cameras. Used to be we have to have judicial warrants for search in certain places. I think Senator Mullin committed to that in his testimony. So there's been multiple concessions made here. This is a my way or the highway over a bill that the majority of members in both chambers have voted for repeatedly. The only people voting no are mostly Democrats. I mean, you know, we have Democratic support in the Senate. So this is just, well, we're the minority, but because we have a Senate rule, we've decided we will, a rule by the way which almost every Senate Democrat has voted against, we're going to exploit this to shut down the government to make a political point. Now, who gives into political blackmail? Not very many people I know. I wouldn't expect my Democratic colleagues to do it. I certainly don't intend to do it. So I mean, we'll wait and see what happens in the Senate, but I'm pleased that my party has advanced and will pass a bill to keep the government open for the third time.

Chairman, I think the question is, can we fund TSA, FEMA and Coast Guard immediately and is there support for that?

I don't know that that would pass the Senate. If you're asking me can it pass the House, I certainly believe it can. If you're asking me can it pass the Senate, no, I don't know whether they would do that or not. And if they said they would do it, I have no reason to believe them because they've twice broken their word to me. So no, I don't have any certainty that that would pass.

Well, Chairman Cole, I really appreciate your statement that if we put that bill on the floor to fund TSA, FEMA and Coast Guard that you believe it would pass the House. And that's what Democrats are trying to do.

It might pass the House. I don't know. It hasn't been whipped on my side.

I'm still speaking, Chairman Cole. And I think that we had an amendment in this Rules Committee and every single Republican voted against it. We tried to bring it up. We actually have a discharge petition to allow House Republicans and Democrats to say can we fund FEMA, TSA and Coast Guard. And Ranking Member DeLauro, why is it important to actually be able to vote on that kind of bill?

You know, I just think that we have an opportunity here to come together about an issue that we all agree on. I'm sorry. Thank you very much. That we have an opportunity to come together to vote on an issue that we all are in agreement on. You know, we have done this before with carve-outs where people have said we need to have military pay, we need to do this with the airlines, we need to do this with so forth. So what we're suggesting is that where there is controversy, and it is not an insignificant controversy, 70 percent of the American public believes that we need to have reform with these two agencies given what has happened nationwide, not only in Minneapolis, but nationwide in my own community in New Haven, Connecticut. So in the interest of the American people, why shouldn't we then support that which we agree on and fund them for the rest of the year? And we can debate, I would just say one thing about, and you all know how closely Chairman Cole and I can work, but about agreements where you shake hands. I have a very, you know, it's such the front of my mind, there was an agreement with Speaker McCarthy on the Fiscal Responsibility Act. There was an agreement with Speaker Johnson on the Fiscal Responsibility Act. Both reneged on that deal in which to move forward. So it's not a question of who to blame. The question is right now, right now we have a choice. And that choice is either to fund these agencies, keep these people working and paid for the jobs that they do, they should not be held hostage, and in the meantime, let's continue to make progress on the reforms that are needed for ICE and CBP.

So Representative Garbarino, you, Suffolk County is, you represent Suffolk County and they have both sheriffs and police over there in your, from what I understand, you're a very big supporter of law enforcement.

Yes.

Yeah, I am as well. I love my, you know, I represent a huge rural district. I love my sheriffs. I love my police. Let me ask you this. Do your law enforcement, your sheriffs and your police, are you able to look them in the eye and give them a smile and do they smile back and you can see it because they're not wearing masks? Do they wear masks?

Well, I'm here to talk about the resolution. Well, but yeah, I'm here to talk about the resolution about supporting the men and women who are protecting the nation right now and not being paid. Not about whether police are wearing masks. I'm here to talk about the people who are working at Coast Guard, FEMA, CISA, TSA and all the other agencies that are not getting paid. And I, the resolution in front of us today that I'm here to talk about talks about how this agency, DHS, the department, was set up after 9/11.

Right. You already said that, Representative. My question was, my question was whether your law enforcement wear masks.

And I'm here to talk about whether or not this, about the resolution.

So Representative, if you don't want to answer the question, that's fine. I don't have unlimited time, Mr. Garbarino. I understand that, but I would answer questions about the resolution that I'm here to talk about. Okay, let me ask, I'll just go real quickly, see if, you know, usually you ask a witness a question and they answer it, right? Even in the Rules Committee, even with such august, you know, oh my god, we got chairmen and ranking members. Ranking Member Thompson, do your sheriffs and police officers wear masks?

No.

Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro, do your sheriffs and law enforcement wear masks?

No, their names and their badge numbers are on their uniforms.

Chairman Cole, do your sheriffs and law enforcement wear masks?

Depends.

Depends if it's cold.

It does. It does depend.

So, so I think the other question we could go down and say do your sheriffs and law enforcement go into people's homes without a warrant outside of an emergency? And I think we'd go down the list and for those who are willing to answer that honest question, it would be no, no, no. And then Mr. Garbarino, I would take it would not answer the question because he wants to talk about his resolution. But I think that's the issue, is that what Democrats are asking about, asking for, are guardrails that every other law enforcement agency has. That's what we're asking about. Would the gentleman yield? Would the gentleman yield to the question? Sure, what's the question?

In Minnesota, sometimes law enforcement wear masks because it's like 30 below out.

Precisely. There are good reasons for it. And sometimes SWAT officers, we understand that, undercover, of course.

If we just say no masks, then in 30 below, they wouldn't be allowed to wear masks.

So I think that that's the issue, right? And you're not allowed to break down people's doors without a warrant, regardless of how cold it is. So the last question that strikes me is this is a matter of choices, and this presidency is making choices. And it looked to me like it would cost about 12 billion, let's round, to actually fund TSA. And do you know how much it cost us in the war in Iran in the first six days? 12 billion. Right, so there are choices that this administration is making, and he's making the choices not to pay for the Affordable Care Act tax credits, not to pay for Head Start, not to pay for Medicaid, not to pay for FEMA, but instead to spend the kind of money we're spending on the war. And these are all about choices. Right now, President Trump has said his choice is no deal with Democrats. That doesn't make sense. People want to open up and to get our agencies paid. Ranking Member Thompson, is there anything else that you want to add to this discussion before I yield my time?

Well, thank you very much. I think the CISA point we need to highlight. We put CISA into DHS as part of protecting our cyber systems. We've lost over 1,000 good employees who worked every day on trying to keep our systems safe. And they've kind of gone on to do other things. But we know that one of the biggest threats as a country will come from a cyber attack. And for us to allow that to happen is unfortunate. I'm happy to hear that the new secretary is going to try to bring as many of those people back as possible because we shouldn't have left them. They should have never been caught up in this. And so I hope we can get back together and work on those things that we agree on, get those resolved, and those things we disagree on, we continue to talk about it. And that's Ms. DeLauro's effort to try to separate what we agree on from what we disagree on is that's why the discharge petition is being offered to do just that.

And I'm very pleased to hear that there was an estimate that it would pass this House, which means there would be Republicans voting for it if we could get it actually on the floor. Hopefully that will happen because I think it would send a strong message to everybody that there is a way to make sure we start paying those TSA agents. And with that, I'll yield back, Mr. Chair.

Gentlelady yields back and now recognize myself for the time to ask questions. And I'm going to open with a soliloquy. Chairman Cole has mentioned several times that a majority of both Houses have actually supported bills that would have reopened and funded DHS. I've been odd man out mostly until this year. I have long worried about the ramifications of the Senate's 60-vote rule. While I understand the arguments from both sides that it creates problems, it forces, as some have argued here today, that having the 60-vote rule forces compromise. And when the rule was first created in the 1970s, most people think this rule dates back to the early years of the Republic, it does not. And when it was first created in the 1970s, they only used it sparingly. Now it's used on every bill. Hundreds of House bills, maybe thousands in my tenure here, have gone to the Senate never to be seen again because people know that they can put a permanent, or excuse me, they have a rolling hold. So for the folks watching at home, what happens is a Senator A puts a hold on a bill for 30 days and he works out a deal with Senator B who then puts a hold on the bill for 30 days. Both sides have used it, so I'm not this is not an attack on one side of the other. But Senator A puts a hold on a bill for 30 days and then his compatriot Senator B puts a hold on the bill for 30 days and the next thing you know you have a Senate hold going on indefinitely which then requires the 60 votes. Now prior to the 72 rule, it was 66 votes to stop a filibuster, but you had to be on the floor talking. And the longest one in history before the adoption of the new rule was just over 24 hours. So even if every Senator in the minority decided to stand up and go for 24 hours, it still wouldn't be more than about 40 days or 45 days. And the most shocking thing about that is that it takes away the concept of a majority rules. Whether you're a Democrat or Republican, and both sides have used this as a tool since the 1970s, but again it didn't really take on this modern life until after about 2000. And then it didn't start to be used to shut down the government as a leverage point until a handful of years ago. And it's creating a problem for the Republic. And I once noted to some of the leadership in the Senate, and this was a long time ago and I didn't say it publicly, but I'm going to say it publicly today. I did the math. In 1860, 40 point I forget whether it was five or eight, but more than 40 percent, remember that with the 60 percent rule, the 60-vote rule, you're saying 40 percent can anything over 40 percent can block. In 1860, more than 40 percent were slave states. If this rule had been in effect in 1860, would we ever have eliminated slavery? God forbid. This rule prevents a majority rule situation. And so I feel that the Senate needs to reform itself. If it wants to slow things down, if it wants to do other things, fine. But make sure that you're not blocking the will of the voters by requiring a supermajority as in defense of slavery was proposed by Calhoun with his tyranny of the majority. It wasn't exactly this rule, but he saw it coming and he used the tyranny of the majority theory and then somehow we backed into it in the 70s. I'm not exactly sure how that happened. But we have a system that's damaging the Republic. And I'm not going to ask any of you to comment because if anybody's going to get in trouble, I'm just going to make it me. I'm not going to get everybody else in trouble. But I appreciate it and I appreciate the frustration that is felt on whatever the issue is when you have a majority of Senators agreeing on something and they can never get a vote on the floor, they never get a vote when it's supposed to come to the floor. It's just plain bad government and now we're seeing the impacts of that. It's taken 50 years to get here, but here we are. And with that, I yield back. And this panel is now finished. I don't see anybody else that want to ask questions. And the real chairwoman is here to take over, but I had to get that off my chest. Thank you all for your patience with me. You all have a good day and we'll take a few minutes to let these folks exit and then we'll get ready for the next panel.

I now welcome our second panel. Two very great gentlemen, Representative Ezell, Ranking Member Larsen from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Your full statement will be submitted for the record. We ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. Representative Ezell, I welcome your testimony.

There we go. This is my first time to testify before the Rules Committee, so I'll do my best. So thank you, Dr. Foxx and all members here. This legislation was favorably reported by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on January 21, 2026. This common sense legislation imposes consequences on countries, specifically in the Western Hemisphere, who take property from American companies and claim it as their own without paying for it. Under this bill, the President may limit entry into the United States from vessels that call on a foreign port, harbor, or marine terminal taken from Americans by a South, Central, or North American country. Going forward, any vessel that stops at that port, harbor, or marine terminal may be barred from entering or operating in any United States navigable water or transferring cargo in the United States port. If that country pays full value for the property or returns it, the designation can be removed and access to our nation's ports and waters can be reinstated. Simply put, this legislation holds countries responsible for their actions. The Defending American Property Abroad Act of 2026 is an important step that Congress can take to protect American industries and build upon the efforts of the administration to support American companies. By ensuring that the protection of American companies' rights, this legislation safeguards a crucial component of this country's economic growth and our national security. In closing, I urge for this bipartisan legislation and for the Rules Committee to grant a rule for consideration on the floor. I look forward to answering any questions that you may have and I yield back.

Thank you very much, Mr. Ezell. Ranking Member Larsen, you're recognized.

Thank you Chair Foxx and the ranking member McGovern. As we've seen with recent vessel boardings and seizures, the Coast Guard has broad authority to enforce American laws on the water. The Coast Guard routinely interdicts drugs and migrants, enforces fishery laws, and ensures the safety of property and life at sea. In fact, in the fiscal year 2025, the Coast Guard set record-breaking numbers. The service seized over 510,000 pounds of cocaine in the maritime domain, over triple its yearly average. Even more impressively, the Coast Guard saved over 2,200 lives and over $40 million of property by running over 6,700 search and rescue missions. They do all this while protecting global fish stocks by enforcing domestic and international fisheries laws. This bill, H.R. 7084, does not help the Coast Guard address the violations of the law at sea. Instead, the bill inserts the Coast Guard into a property dispute between a U.S. company and the Mexican government. That, if anything, will only add to the Coast Guard's burden. Coast Guard is already strained in its ability to effectively conduct its missions. Just last week, the Vice Commandant testified before the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that the Coast Guard is a $20 billion organization operating on a $13 billion budget. Now, H.R. 7084 prohibits vessels, commercial shipping or cruise vessels, from entering or operating in U.S. waters if that vessel made a port of call at a port that was nationalized or expropriated by another country from a U.S. citizen or company. Now, requiring the service to police and prohibit certain vessels from entering U.S. waters due to an international property dispute would further strain, excuse me, strain the service's resources. This legislation is meant to apply to only one port in Mexico, but it is so broadly written that it would encompass all disputes in other countries and with other companies, both today and in the future. Now, Congress has a lot of pressing issues we should be considering today. President Trump has promised less war and lower prices. Instead, the American public is getting more war and higher prices. So I'm offering an amendment today to force the President to certify that his exercising of authorities under this legislation would not increase costs for everyday Americans. It's become clear to me that the President did not consider the impact of war on oil prices or the economic impact on Americans. So this amendment would ensure the administration considers the potential cost before exercising authorities in this bill, and I'm asking that this committee make this amendment in order. In closing, I wish we were taking time today to discuss ways to lower costs for my constituents. Instead, we are attempting to interject Congress into an international land dispute. Now, I am sympathetic to the plight of this particular U.S. company in this particular dispute. Absolutely. This legislation, however, will not solve their problem. This is a problem that is ripe for a solution through diplomacy, active U.S. government engagement, and even a trade agreement. But not in this legislation. For all these reasons, I'll be voting no on this legislation when it reaches the floor later this week, and I ask the committee to approve the amendment that I've offered. With that, I yield back.

Thank you, Ranking Member Larsen. Ms. Fischbach, you're recognized.

I just will say thank you both for being here, and Mr. Ezell, congratulations, you made it through so far. But I have no...

They ain't over.

I know. And I yield back.

Thank you, Congresswoman. Ms. Scanlon, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We talked earlier about priorities and what bills are being brought to the House floor. And I think once again, this bill shows us that the priorities of this Republican majority are not the American people. If we were to walk up to anyone on the street and say, what are the biggest issues facing our country, I suspect we would hear skyrocketing price of gas and this spreading war in the Middle East that Trump started. I think we can be pretty sure that most Americans would not say that their number one priority is the legal problems of a U.S. mining company in Mexico. But that's the bill that's being brought to the floor here today. You know, we've got folks experiencing a cost of living crisis, we've got thousands of Marines being sent to the Middle East, paychecks of TSA agents are being held hostage, and this is what is on the House floor this week. So, you know, I don't support this legislation for the reasons outlined by the ranking member. Is there anything else you want to add on the topic?

Just to add that there are avenues to resolve this particular dispute. And I try not to have the committee be, the Committee on Transportation, become a place where we're solving individual problems as opposed to broader policy problems. And so given that the fact that there are avenues or venues to deal with this particular dispute that are available and that this legislation doesn't resolve this problem that exists, I just do think we need to, as you say, get focused on things that will lower prices, will lower the cost to average Americans as opposed to this particular legislation. Thank you.

Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you, Ms. Scanlon, our resident historian and expert on all things Jeffersonian. Mr. Griffith, you're recognized.

I don't think I would go quite that far, but I appreciate the gentlelady's kind comments and appreciate the witnesses being here today and I yield back.

Ms. Leger Fernandez, you're recognized.

Well, let me do a little bit of history then. No, I really, I need to say I represent many people in my district who have had their property taken by a government and who did not have any redress. And so I can understand the frustration, but you know, I'm talking about my own family and many of my compatriots, many of the people in the north, the United States government took their lands and turned them into the Forest Service. So I understand the frustration, right, when governments take private property. But I appreciate you did a great job, such a good job, I don't have any questions for you, and thank you for being here, Ranking Member Larsen, as well, and I yield back.

Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez. Mr. Norman, you're recognized.

Chair, I appreciate you testifying today, it's your first time, but welcome. This is pretty common sense to me, so I have no further questions. I'll be voting for it. Yield back.

Well, gentlemen, we thank you very much for coming. I agree, Mr. Ezell, you did a great job. Mr. Larsen, you were very kind in your comments and we appreciate you coming. Seeing no further wishes to ask you any questions, you're excused.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Been chewing on this all day.

I now welcome our third panel, Representative McGuire and when he comes, Representative Subramanyam from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Your full statement will be submitted for the record. We ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Representative McGuire, I welcome your testimony and I'll recognize Mr. Subramanyam when he comes. So we won't wait, we'll let you go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the committee. This is my first time in the committee. And I want to thank you. I urge the Rules Committee to grant an appropriate rule for House consideration of my bill H.R. 5103, the Make the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful Act. Violent crime in Washington, D.C. has been unacceptably high for far too long. Unfortunately, the D.C. Council and congressional Democrats have claimed that any reduction in these crime rates on paper, no matter how small or fleeting, justifies avoiding the difficult decisions needed to restore law and order in our nation's capital. In December, the House Oversight Committee discovered that D.C. leadership pressured and at times directed police commanders to manipulate crime data in order to maintain the appearance of low crime in our nation's capital. To make matters worse, in pursuit of a broader social agenda rather than the safety of citizens, visitors, and workers, the D.C. Council advanced failed soft-on-crime policies that protect criminals while impeding effective law enforcement and criminal prosecutions needed to secure this important city. Fortunately, we now have President Trump who is determined to confront these challenges head-on. The Trump administration's efforts have already helped reduce the violent crime that has long plagued our nation's capital. And now Congress must continue advancing much-needed legislative reforms to secure the progress made so far in addressing crime in the D.C. area. Last year, the Rules Committee and the full House demonstrated Congress's commitment to reform many of the failed soft-on-crime policies that the American people soundly rejected in the 2024 presidential election. I ask this committee to do that once again today. On March 28, 2025, in response to the crime in D.C., President Trump signed Executive Order 14252, Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful Again. H.R. 5103, the Make the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful Again Act, codifies that executive order by establishing the D.C. Safe and Beautiful Commission made up of key federal law enforcement and other federal partners to focus on ensuring safety through full enforcement of federal and local laws in the district. President Trump's executive order and this bill also call for the Secretary of the Interior to establish a working group on the beautification of the district. Our nation's capital must be a beautiful beacon of democracy for all who visit. For too long, the district has allowed encampments and vandalism to plague our nation's monuments and national parks. This is a federal problem to solve on behalf of all Americans, not a matter of strictly for local governments as Democrats would claim. Overall, D.C. residents and visitors to our nation's capital should feel safe and proud of America's history on display in the city. And Congress has the constitutional duty to ensure the district is safe and secure, which this bill will help accomplish. Again, I ask the Rules Committee to grant an appropriate rule for the House's consideration of this legislation, and I welcome the committee's questions.

Thank you very much, Mr. McGuire. I'm not sure when our other colleague is going to be here, but we will go ahead and see if there are any questions for you. Ms. Fischbach.

I yield back with no questions and welcome to the Rules.

Thank you.

Leave the people of D.C. alone. I mean, these people here pay taxes, they serve our country in so many ways, and you know, we treat them like a client state. We micromanage everything. You know, the American people have been crystal clear about what they want from their elected representatives. They want us to bring prices down. They want us to bring gas down. They want us to bring healthcare premiums and copays down. They want us to lower the cost of drugs, drug costs. They want housing, they want rent. They don't want sweeping tariffs that drive up the price of everything from coffee to computers, or to get entangled in another forever war in the Middle East. I mean, the war in Iran has already resulted in the deaths of 13 Americans, cost the taxpayers $30 billion, that's $1 billion per day, and caused gas prices to skyrocket to nearly $4 a gallon. But what are Republicans focused on instead? For the 11th time since Trump took office, you are having the House vote on policies to micromanage the lives of 700,000 residents of D.C. I mean, this bill literally requires the administration to create a program, which has already been created by Trump by the way, in order to quote beautify D.C. I don't know how you guys can sit here and tell us that Republicans are focused on bringing down prices across the country when the President is laser-focused on building a lavish ballroom and a triumphal arch in D.C. and Republicans in Congress are bringing a bill to the floor focused not on gas, not on housing, not on healthcare costs, but on beautifying D.C. So again, I don't have any questions other than to say, leave the district alone. I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Next time you need to tell us how you feel. Mr. Subramanyam, thank you for joining us. You're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the committee today. I appreciate the sponsors' intent to make the District of Columbia safe and beautiful, but I oppose this bill because unfortunately, this bill does neither of those things. And so let's start with safety. Crime was already going down in D.C. in 2024. Violent crime in D.C. was down 35 percent, reaching an overall 30-year low. In 2025, violent crime was down 29 percent, a little bit less since the National Guard came in. And yes, crime is going down, which is good, but at a significantly slower pace than before President Trump's second term and this National Guard plan. And why was crime going down? That's really important in this context. It's not because of National Guard troops wandering the streets. It's because of D.C.'s community policing investments in public safety and public health and targeted community outreach. Those things were working. And so we should be investing in the stuff that works. And it's hard for me to think that now investing in National Guard troops will lead to less crime in D.C. when it already hasn't over the past year. In fact, the National Guard is making people paranoid, including the good guys, especially the good guys. People are nervous and they don't want to visit D.C. when they see the National Guard's presence. And one 24-year-old visitor summed it up really well. He said, the streets here, it looks like Call of Duty, and it's making D.C. uglier. We should be giving D.C. money for infrastructure, for small businesses and community improvement projects to fight homelessness, not withholding funds like we have been this Congress. So let's make D.C. safe and beautiful, but not with this bill. And so I urge the committee to oppose. I yield back.

Thank you. Pardon me. Mr. Griffith, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In my little bubble, all is right in the universe. Virginians are arguing the issues of the day amongst themselves and in a civil manner. We have the two gentlemen here as witnesses who are Virginian, and I think it's fabulous because from the early days of the Republic, Virginians didn't always agree. Don't forget that Patrick Henry did not sign off on the United States Constitution. He had this fear that the federal government would take over everything. Shockingly, he might have been correct. But there were other Virginians who were gung-ho on the Constitution. And so that's what we like to see is that when there's a division amongst the philosophers of the day, that you have Virginians well-represented in the United States Capitol in an even and fair manner as it is to be. Now, I would submit that for those who do not want Congress interfering in D.C. affairs because the Constitution gives us Congress that right, that perhaps they should take a look at my bill that does a retrocession of the vast majority of the remainder of D.C. back to Maryland. And then that would be an issue where they could become an independent city within the commonwealth or within the state of Maryland and wouldn't have to worry about being involved with Congress except for one little teeny patch between here and the White House and the roughly 10 to 20 citizens living in that section would be able to vote in Maryland. With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.

Thank you. Again, resident scholar Griffith. Ms. Scanlon, you're recognized.

Thank you. This is one in a series of legislative propaganda efforts we've seen over the last couple years targeting the District of Columbia and its residents. We've seen a series of bills designed to strip D.C. of meaningful autonomy, to overturn democratically enacted legislation leading to its occupation by the National Guard and the loss of over $1 billion in locally collected taxes. These attacks on D.C. and its residents have not made the city safer or more beautiful, as we just heard. Investments by the city through its democratically elected leaders in programs that work have led to reduction in crime and other civic improvements. And instead, Congress's clawback of funds that D.C. residents paid themselves have led to the loss of money to D.C.'s public schools, its police department, its fire department, and other vital civic services. So I think we really need to think about the fact that the members of Congress imposing their nanny state views on the District of Columbia were not elected by the 700,000 people who live in the district. And in fact, the district's population exceeds that of almost 50 members of Congress. So this is a significant portion of our country's populace that is not getting the right to represent themselves. I would just end with, if Congress really wants to make the nation's capital a better place to live, the first thing we should do is give the residents of D.C. a vote and fulfill their decades-long petition for statehood. Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you, Ms. Scanlon. Mrs. Houchin, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Our nation's capital should stand as proud as a proud reflection of who we are, a city that embodies America's strengths and our highest ideals. But today, too many residents and visitors instead see a city facing some real challenges with clear room for improvement in safety, order, and the condition of its public spaces. Recognizing the urgency of these concerns and the need for stronger action, President Trump has already led the effort to deploy resources to restore public safety. This builds on that effort by creating a lasting framework to coordinate across agencies to restore monuments, memorials, and public areas. These are goals that should be broadly supported across the aisle. At the same time, transparency and accountability are critical to any serious public safety effort. Late last year, the Oversight Committee released findings including statements made by Metropolitan Police Department personnel in transcribed interviews which strongly suggest that then-MPD Chief Smith led a pressure campaign to reduce crime reporting, masking the challenges residents were facing day-to-day. Congressman Maguire, could you elaborate on the findings of that report, explain how this legislation would address the underlying safety concerns and the need for greater transparency?

Well, thank you for the question. The Oversight Committee investigated allegations of manipulation of crime statistics in D.C. That investigation uncovered that efforts were made in the Metropolitan Police Department to manipulate and lower publicly reported crime statistics. Multiple commanders in the MPD stated that there were clear pressures from those higher up to lower the classification of crimes to present to the public the perception of low crime in the district, and that there was a push to deliberately lower crime statistics prior to President Trump's federal surge months ago. I think all of us would agree that the number one priority of government at the local, state, federal level is to keep our citizens safe. But covering up crime to get better statistics is wrong. Multiple commanders testified that the MPD Chief Smith created expectations that many of the crimes specifically affecting public crime statistics had to be reviewed by her or her assistant chiefs prior to their inclusion. They also stated that Chief Smith pushed for the more frequent use of intermediate criminal charges, which are lower degree criminal charges that go unreported to the public. It is also clear from the investigation that Chief Smith threatened and retaliated against MPD personnel that presented her with spikes in crime. Her actions contributed to an atmosphere that was both hostile and unpredictable, leading to many MPD officers retiring or leaving the department. My bill, H.R. 5103, addresses the findings from the investigation by facilitating the deployment of more robust federal law enforcement presence in the district in coordination with local law enforcement, ensuring both federal and local laws are being followed. Additionally, this bill directs the D.C. Safe and Beautiful Commission to collaborate with MPD leadership and union to assist the facilitation and recruitment, retention, and capabilities of its officers and provide federal personnel and resources to reduce crime. This will ensure that MPD personnel are provided the support and resources they deserve that will keep the district safer.

Thank you, Representative Maguire. I just wanted to note that this is an issue that should be of importance to all Americans as they visit the nation's capital to expect that it will be safe. We cannot tackle or address a problem that we can't understand due to the lack of transparency and oversight. I thank you for this bill, and Madam Chair, I yield back.

Thank you, Mrs. Houchin. Ms. Leger Fernandez, you're recognized.

Thank you, and I really do want to thank the gentleman from Virginia, Representative Griffith, for his comments with regards to the history of the filibuster. You want to get rid of the filibuster, and I think D.C. would love us to get rid of the filibuster because then we could have D.C. not as part of Virginia, but as a state. I think that would just be great for the citizens to actually be able to vote and have a say. I also note that the bill would allow the commission to restore to the extent practicable those monuments, memorials, statues, and similar properties which have been defaced. Now I would point out that we've seen some defacement of some pretty important property, including President Trump putting his own name on the Kennedy Center. Who puts their name, a living president slapping his name on such an august institution? So I'm wondering if they'd want to take that out. I'm wondering what they would do with the East Wing. He destroyed that. That was like part of what the White House is, and maybe we needed a ballroom, but do you just go in with a wrecking ball? So I mean, I'm sorry, but when you say make D.C. beautiful again, we can't trust him. We can't trust him. And Representative, you pointed out that we don't need to, D.C. is doing some hard work itself. So with that, Madam Chair, I yield back and I have no further questions.

Thank you very much, Ms. Leger Fernandez. Mr. Norman.

Thank you. Representative McGuire, did the person who falsified the crime records have any consequences?

Well, obviously we report that to the DOJ, and the DOJ's got investigations. I don't have an answer for that, but I can get back to you on that.

Well, I sure hope something's done. That's unbelievable that he's doing that. And as far as D.C. being a state, 46 percent of the federal the budget for D.C. comes from federal government. They don't have any source of income, there's no commercial properties, it's all government buildings for the most part. So I'd just add that what you're doing is what we would enjoy and what we like.

Madam Chair, may I have a response to that? Am I able to respond to what he just said?

Mr. McGuire, certainly.

Certainly. Well, if you remember James Madison, when our founding fathers were creating our Republic, Pennsylvania wanted to be the center of government for our country. And then New York wanted to be the center of government for our country. So they created, they, you know, Maryland and Virginia ceded some land because otherwise those states would become superstates and they would get all the money and all the influence for the 13 original states. And so they created a neutral district. And under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, authority for D.C. is under Congress. And we are Congress. And certainly if things are not being done, if people are being robbed, raped, and killed, if our monuments are being defaced, we have the greatest country. We're not perfect, but our rule of law, our way of governing has lifted more people out of poverty, given more people freedom and opportunity than any other country in the world. And we are about to celebrate 250 years. And when people come to see this country, it's a reflection of our whole country and our great people. And so making it safe and beautiful, I would imagine this should be nonpartisan. Any American should be able to live, work, and raise their family in peace and walk down any street in America with their little girl, especially D.C., and be safe.

Madam Chair.

Mr. McGovern.

Mr. Subramanian, I think, wanted to say something and I think some of this needs to be a fact check on some of this stuff, but if he could respond, that'd be great.

Yeah, a fact check on a couple things. As far as federal government subsidies in DC government, federal funds are a smaller percentage of DC's budget than they are of the average state budget and the DC government receives less in federal funds than DC pays in federal taxes. So DC's actually a donor jurisdiction. So I know there's a lot of federal government buildings in the area where we may frequent, but there's a it's a bigger city than you think and there's a lot of private companies here that actually are a big part of the economy of this city. The second thing is this I think there's been some reference to this Republican Oversight Committee investigation. They interviewed eight current and former DC Police Department commanders. They sat for transcribed interviews and actually those not only was there not found definitively a manipulation of data, but it seems like they actually found evidence that the administration has actually misled us about crime in DC to justify the federalization of the DC Police Department and the deployment of troops to DC's streets. And so I just want to clarify all of that while we keep going.

I'm shocked to hear that. Thank you.

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

I don't have any questions, Madam Chair. I would just say that earlier today I did go to a lunch that was down towards the Wharf and my chief of staff commented that a couple of years ago she enjoyed walking down that way and she would no longer walk that way because of the crime and the threats in that area. So I'll leave it at that.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. Our nation's capital should reflect the very best of this country and Washington, DC is not just another city. It is where millions of Americans come each and every year to see their government, visit our monuments and our wonderful historic sites, and experience the history that defines us as a nation. But right now that standard is slipping. Mr. McGuire, we've heard a lot from the other side here tonight about this bill, including a little misinformation. Wanted to give you a chance to I think I'm going to be the last Republican here to respond or to clear anything up for the committee.

Sure. Well, I guess first of all, I would say to Mr. Norman, one result of that investigation is that the MPD police chief did resign. So so that was a good positive effect. Let's see, talk about crime. In 2023, DC had 274 homicides, the highest in 20 years. They had 957 carjackings, 75 percent involving guns because criminals don't care about the law. Like I said, you should be able to walk down any street and be safe. And I've had I had a woman tell me about a year and a half ago she went into a subway and a homeless woman grabbed the door for her. She said, let me get the door for you. And that woman then punched her in the back of the head. She lost consciousness, came back to, and the woman that the homeless person that punched her got arrested. And then the detective called her later that day and said, hey, we let her back in jail, but she's not going to be a problem. The same day that she was attacked. I've had a young woman who lives in DC for 10 years tell me that she takes a Uber if she walks two blocks. She said now she walks 20 minutes to work every day and is safer. Another young woman, I didn't understand the comment, but she said I walk my dog at 8:00 at night. And I was thinking, what's the big deal? She goes, you don't understand, before President Trump made DC safe and beautiful, she didn't walk her dog in the dark. And I would hope that people would say thank you for helping us. You know, it was people got used to murders in DC. And now there's hardly any murders in the last year compared to what we've had the last five years. So we just want to codify the authority that Congress has and that is oversight and authority on DC.

Okay. Well, thank you very much. A safe and well-maintained capital is not a luxury, it's a responsibility and we should not be lowering our expectations for the condition of our nation's capital. We should be raising them and this bill takes the practical steps to do that and I urge my colleagues to support it and I yield back, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. I deferred my questioning, but I do want to make a couple of comments. I recently read a very interesting book by a man named Fergus Bordewich called The First Congress. And it really does have a fascinating story in it about how the Virginians made sure that the capital was located here. Mr. McGuire talked about the fact that New York wanted it, Pennsylvania wanted it, but President Washington and Mr. Madison worked, let me say that way rather than say a more value-laden word, worked very hard to get the capital here. And it's an interesting story and I would encourage all of you to read that book. It really is fascinating about how the Congress came to be as a result of the First Congress. And in case you haven't heard, I just thought of this one, the reason they call the Senate the upper chamber, you know why? The First Congress met in New York and the Senate was on the second floor and the House was on the first floor. So that they don't they don't deserve being called the upper chamber for anything except that they met on the second floor. I learned that in the book. And I agree with my colleagues, we are celebrating the 250th anniversary of this country. We're very fortunate that that is happening. No, I don't think any other republic has lasted this long. So we're extremely lucky to be here. And I do think that Washington should be a very special place for people to visit, that it should be clean, that it should be safe. There are going to be I think millions more people than normal coming here. And so I hope things will go very well this year and that there will be adequate security here and that people when they come, many for the first time, will be really proud that this is our capital city. So with that, gentlemen, I think no one else is here to ask you any questions. So we appreciate your coming and you are excused.

Thank you, Madam Chair and the committee. Thank you.

Thank you.

And you did very well, Mr. McGuire. Tell your colleagues to come and watch us before they come to testify. So they'll know we're not big bad bullies up here. Is there anyone else seeking to testify on H.R. 8029, H. Res. 1128, H.R. 5103, or H.R. 7084? Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting. The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentlewoman from Indiana, Ms. Houchin.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the committee grant H.R. 8029, the Pay Our Homeland Defenders Act, 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. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H. Res. 1128, expressing the support of the House of Representatives for the Department of Homeland Security, under a closed rule. The rule provides that upon adoption of the resolution, it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider H. Res. 1128. The rule provides that the amendments to the resolution and the preamble printed in the Rules Committee report shall be considered as adopted and H. Res. 1128 as amended shall be considered as read. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security or their respective designees. The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 5103, the Make the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful Act of 2026, under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Government and Reform, now printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 7084, the Defending American Property Abroad Act of 2026, under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, now printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. Finally, the rule provides that Section 8 of House Resolution 707, agreed to September 16, 2025, is amended by striking March 31, 2026 and inserting the remainder of the 119th Congress.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. So the gentlelady just read a motion for another four completely closed rules. So that brings you guys to a new all-time record of 125 closed rules this Congress. That's over 85 percent of all rules that you have brought to the floor. I mean, it's completely unprecedented. It's been over two months since this committee has reported a structured rule. Over two months without a single amendment considered on the House floor. And I know, you know, you love to pretend that somehow your hands are being forced and there just weren't any amendments to make in order for the bills that we've considered over the last two months. Well, two things. You guys don't even call for amendments anymore. And let me give you another newsflash. Every single bill that's come before this committee in that time has had at least one amendment submitted. They all could have been structured rules. So this meeting isn't over. There is still time to correct course. In fact, I'm about to give you an opportunity to report a structured rule today. So Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move that the committee make in order amendment number four to H.R. 8029 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 of 2026. So Democrats support funding for law-abiding agencies under the Department of Homeland Security. That's what this amendment does. Specifically, it pays our TSA agents so these Republican-caused delays at airports can finally come to a stop. And guess what? It seems Republicans support this amendment too. Senate Republicans, after weeks of foot-dragging, finally capitulated and presented this very proposal to the president, the guy you all are afraid of, Donald Trump, who said then, who then said no. So all this chaos at the airports is the fault of one person. Let's be clear. It's the fault of Donald Trump. And now it seems from reports at least that maybe he is backtracking on that. So instead of voting for a third time to send a bill that everyone knows cannot become law to the Senate, let's advance Ranking Member DeLauro's bill now without delay so that we can stop this madness. And if you want to vote against funding TSA and FEMA and Homeland Security and other agencies at Homeland Security, that's your, that's your prerogative. But I mean, this is the House of Representatives. We should deliberate. We should at least have a vote and a discussion on this. And with that, I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern. I recognize myself. I realize that every week you bring up the closed rules issue.

I do.

And every week I am going to correct your statistics. So it's true there have been 121 closed measures, but the number needs context. Twelve were in the rules package, which passed two weeks before the 119th Rules Committee even organized. So this committee had nothing to do with those. An additional 47 measures were either CRAs, which cannot be amended, or measures which received no amendment, making them closed by definition. Many amendments that have been offered, particularly recently, are non-germane. If you take out all of those bills, only 62 measures or 43 percent of all rules reported have been closed by the discretion of this committee, not 85 percent. So and I do take offense a bit at the term we could fund all law-abiding agencies. I believe all of our agencies are law-abiding or they would be enjoined by a court. So I...

Well, Madam Chair, if I can respond.

Mr. McGovern.

You know, your 44 percent number excludes almost half of the measures that you've brought to the floor. So you're telling us that 60 closed rules are not real closed rules. Yet they are still including, you're still including them in the total number of rules to distort numbers in your favor. And so let's just say that we were to accept your exclusion of 60 measures and do the math honestly. So your closed rules percentage would still be nearly 75 percent. That's still an all-time record high, double the so-called discretionary rate when I was chair. And so I, you know, I get the spin, but the bottom line is this is the most closed Congress in history. And I guess what you didn't address is why the four measures that we are debating today are all closed. Why they have to be closed.

Well, it's my understanding, I saw the, let me see. There were amendments offered as I understand it. And let me see my notes here. So doesn't mean that they are eligible for consideration, the amendments that came in on these bills. Many considerations must be made such as germaneness, potential violation of both House and Congressional Budget Act rules, whether amendments contain earmarks, as well as other technical aspects that must be investigated. For clarity, it's long been the practice under both Republican and Democrat majorities not to make in order any amendment which would violate any House or budgetary rule. Aside from that, the majority, no matter who controls the gavel, has the discretion to control what amendments, if any, are to be made in order. And I...

So why is Ms. DeLauro's amendment not being considered?

Well, I think as you understand, it would completely is the complete opposite of what it is we're trying to do.

Well, well again, I get it, you disagree with it, but that's not the rea, that's I mean, if that's going to be the reason that if Republicans just disagree with an idea that we're not going to be able to debate that, well, that's a, that's an interesting precedent that I, you know, that maybe we should consider when we take over. But I want to just take one other, make one other statement. You know, you took issue with me talking about, you know, departments and agencies that comply with the law. Just so you know, President Trump's ICE and CBP are out of control. And according to the, to the chief judge of the U.S. District Court of Minnesota, ICE has violated 96 court orders in 74 different cases in 2026 alone, likely more violations than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence. So this is the root of our concern and our opposition. These lawless agencies need to be reined in before they receive any further funding. So I just want that to be clear for the record as to why I made that statement. And again, I would urge that my amendment be supported so we can actually debate a measure to fund all of the departments in Homeland Security that are actually following the law.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Is there any further discussion or debate? Ms. Scanlon, you're recognized.

Thank you. I want to thank the ranking member for offering the amendment to fund all of DHS except Customs and Border Protection and ICE. I do have to disagree with him that it's all Donald Trump's fault that we have not yet passed this bill. I think it's the fault of every Republican member who's been too afraid to vote for the amendment, too afraid to sign the discharge petition, too afraid to stand up for their constituents, for the folks in TSA and the Coast Guard, etc. So I would urge all of our Republican colleagues to do the right thing, take yes for an answer, and vote for this amendment so we can fund TSA and the Coast Guard and FEMA and cybersecurity. I yield back.

Thank you, Ms. Scanlon. Ms. Leger Fernandez, do you seek recognition?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. And I would also point out that in the Senate, there have been seven votes to fund TSA, FEMA, Coast Guard, and the other agencies. Seven votes. In the House, there's been one vote to fund them, and that was in this Rules Committee last time we met and voted out the Homeland Security. This will be the ninth time Republicans vote against funding TSA, FEMA, and Coast Guard, knowing that ICE and CBP already have the money. Chairman Cole acknowledged that they are substantially funded because of the BBB. Representative Jack said it on the floor of the House last time we debated this bill. So let's just be clear. That is what is before you now. Are you willing to start paying the TSA and the Coast Guard and making sure we have FEMA funding? That is the bill. And Chairman Cole acknowledged earlier tonight that if it hit the floor, it would likely pass, which means there would be Republicans passing it, it would be bipartisan. That is what we are asking you to do. That is what Americans want because ICE and CBP have billions of dollars. The chair of the Appropriations Committee acknowledged it earlier tonight. So that is the vote we are making today. Very clear. Are you going to be willing to pay those TSA agents that some of you have pointed out you pass by every time we get on a plane? I'm going to vote to make sure they get paid by voting for Ranking Member's amendment. And I yield back. Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez. Ms. Houchin, you're recognized.

Thank you. I just want to comment that that's the argument being made is disingenuous to the point. We've already funded DHS, including all of our TSA agents, under Republican votes out of the House of Representatives. What this amendment would do is essentially fund everything else and defund ICE, which is not something that Republicans are going to vote to do, especially at a time when under the Biden administration millions of illegal immigrants, including members on the terror watchlist, were let into the country across the southern border. I will be voting no to this amendment. Thank you. I yield back.

The majority has money, so it's not defunded. So please let's set the record straight. Stop misinforming the American people about what the reality is. ICE has a lot of money based from that awful bill you guys all passed that gave tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires.

Will the gentleman yield? Will the gentleman yield?

Oh, yeah.

In this amendment, you are not funding ICE.

Correct. It's not defunding ICE.

I know what you're saying. I know what you're whispering in his ear, that ICE has already been funded. I know you're doing that. But what I'm saying is in this amendment, it doesn't, it does not fund ICE.

Right. It does not defund ICE. What the gentlelady said, she said defund. She didn't say, she didn't say that. She did say defund. She said defund.

I said because you wouldn't be funding it, you wouldn't be funding it.

But you're correcting your misstatement. I accept that.

I will, I will, I will correct my statement that you're not funding ICE in this amendment. Thank you.

Any further discussion? Hearing none, the vote is on the measure in, here we go, too much. Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Excuse me. No. Those opposed, no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to.

Request a roll call, Madam Chair.

The gentleman requests a roll call. The clerk will call the roll.

Mrs. Fischbach.

No.

Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman.

No.

Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy. Mrs. Houchin.

No.

Mrs. Houchin, no. 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. Ms. Leger Fernandez.

Aye.

Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye. Madam Chair.

No.

Madam Chair, no. The clerk will report the total. Three ayes, eight nays.

The noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to.

Madam Chair.

Mr. McGovern.

I have an amendment to the rule, so I move the committee add a new section to the rule, and maybe this one might get more bipartisan support, providing for the immediate consideration of H.R. 7941, the Pay TSA Act of 2026, sponsored by Congressman Langworthy and co-sponsored by several members including Congresswoman Houchin, under a closed rule, debatable for one hour equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security. And again, since Republicans have yet again blocked the House from voting on the Democratic proposal to fund all the law-abiding agencies under DHS, including FEMA, the Coast Guard, and TSA, which would ensure all of these federal workers receive their long-overdue paychecks, maybe my Republican colleagues would support an up-or-down vote on the floor on their own bill to make sure that at minimum, TSA employees are eventually paid. And I urge a yes vote on my motion and I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Is there any further discussion on the motion by Mr. McGovern?

Just clarify what did he?

He's add, Madam Chair.

7941.

He's amending to the floor.

He's amending the Pay TSA bill, which is your bill, to the floor.

The motion, just a minute, just, just a minute. Mr. McGovern's motion is to add a new section to the rule bringing up the bill 7941 entitled Pay TSA. That's Mr. motion, Mr. McGovern's motion. That's the motion. Okay. Any further discussion? All those in favor of Mr. McGovern's motion to amend the rule to add a new section bringing forth the bill 7941, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Mr. McGovern requests a roll call vote.

I might win this one.

Mrs. Fischbach.

No.

Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman.

No.

Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy. Mrs. Houchin.

Yes.

Mrs. Houchin, aye. Mr. Langworthy.

Aye.

Mr. Langworthy, aye. 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. Ms. Leger Fernandez.

Aye.

Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye. Madam Chair.

No.

Madam Chair, no. The clerk will report the total. Five ayes, six nays.

The noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to.

Madam Chair.

Is there further discussion?

I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee strike section five of the rule which turns off privileged consideration of resolutions of inquiry for the rest of this Congress. Tolling the days of resolutions of inquiries is not unprecedented. When Democrats were in charge, we turned off ROIs for a period of time along with other day counts. Why? Because we were dealing with a global health pandemic and navigating how Congress and committees could operate safely. After we worked out how to operate safely and after lobbying by our then Republican minority, I might add, we turned ROIs back on. That was the right thing to do. So I just ask what reason is there to turn ROIs off right now? There's not an unprecedented flood of ROIs being introduced. There is not a global pandemic that hinders the ability of committees and the House to meet to dispose of ROIs. I think Republicans are hiding because they're scared. Republicans don't want to take votes on getting information about all of the president's unpopular policies that are hurting the American people because that is the real answer. They want to hide behind this resolution and not take votes on getting answers and conducting oversight.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern. For over 600 days in the 116th and 117th Congresses, ROIs were blocked from coming to the floor by the Democratic majority. In fact, every Democratic member of this committee voted to extend such provisions despite protests from Republicans. And while you, they may contend that this was during the COVID pandemic, the reality is committees were working and operating for quite some time. We've operated this Congress without the use of resolutions of inquiry and it has had no impact on the minority's ability to conduct oversight of the administration. So as was done under the Democrat majority, we will utilize this tool as necessary.

So I guess my question would be what, I mean, you may not buy our reason that we had a pandemic and it was extraordinary times, we did turn them back on. I'm just trying to understand what is the reason for turning them off now?

Our, our reason is that you've had plenty of opportunities to do oversight with the administration. All right. Any further discussion on Mr. McGovern's motion? I'm going to call you Mr. Motion eventually. Mr. McGovern's motion. Hearing none, the question is on the amendment by Mr. McGovern. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Mr. McGovern requests a roll call. The clerk will call the roll.

Mrs. Fischbach.

No.

Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman.

No.

Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy. Mrs. Houchin.

No.

Mrs. Houchin, no. 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. Ms. Leger Fernandez.

Aye.

Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye. Madam Chair.

No.

Madam Chair, no. The clerk will report the total. Three ayes, eight nays.

And the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to.

Madam Chair, I have one other amendment and in my never-ending quest for bipartisanship, maybe this is one of these bills that can get a.

Well, we have a never-ending quest for bipartisanship too, Mr. McGovern.

I my amend, I move the committee add a section to the rule directing the clerk of the House to present to the president H.R. 7211 sponsored by Representative Griffith and H.R. 3377 sponsored by Representative Norman no later than one calendar day after the adoption of this resolution. President Trump threw a temper tantrum a couple of weeks ago and vowed not to sign any bills until the so-called SAVE Act was passed in the Senate. That's not actually, that's not actually a problem constitutionally as bills presented to the president become law even without his signature after 10, 10 days unless he vetoes them. Unfortunately, Speaker Johnson and Leader Thune are bowing to Trump's fragile ego once more and ignoring their constitutional duty to present bills to the president once they have passed both chambers. And really, it's, it's shameful. This isn't some new optional responsibility. Thomas Jefferson wrote in his manual some 225 years ago about how withholding a bill from the executive is an infringement on the rules. There are now two bills that passed the House and Senate two weeks ago that Republican leadership are still holding back from presenting to the president. Two such bills were written by our colleagues, Representative Griffith and Norman, to award medals to honor veterans for heroic acts. Both passed unanimously. Now I think these bills should go to the president as soon as possible. I trust that the members who brought forward these bills will prioritize honoring literal American heroes over protecting the fragile ego of a man sitting in the Oval Office. And I would urge a yes vote on my motion.

Madam Chair, move to sever, move to sever Mr. McGovern's motions or motion because it covers two different bills.

Mr. Griffith has moved to sever the motion and separate, I'm sorry, Mr. McGovern, the second bill was which number? I've got 7211.

7211 and 3377.

Okay, I did get it right. Okay. So Mr. McGovern has asked that the clerk of the House report to the president the bills 7211 by Mr. Griffith, authored by Mr. Griffith, 3377 authored by Mr. Norman, and he said they have passed unanimously in the House and was it by unanimous consent in the Senate?

I mean, yeah, I mean, they're, they're ready to go. I don't, I mean. Okay. I mean, maybe we can sever some of the rules that we pass around here because this is, this is really out, I, I just want to say, Madam Chair, what is happening here in this Congress? I mean, while you guys are all micromanaging D.C., I mean, you ought to be worried and you're worried about the how wonderful the city's going to look for the 250th anniversary, maybe my friends ought to be concerned about protecting our democracy and our republic on the 250th anniversary.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern. The motion, we have a motion from Mr. Griffith to sever the motion.

And I believe the proper terminology would be to divide the question.

I don't think a motion to sever is even a motion.

What you're trying to do is to want to vote on 7211 and a vote on 3377. I believe we understand that. So first we need to, first we need to vote on Mr. Griffith's motion to sever. Can we get a proper motion from Mr. Griffith that we can then debate and vote on?

While stated poorly, I think the motion was clearly understandable, Madam Chair, but the motion would be to divide the questions because two questions having been put together puts people in a bind as to which one they might want to vote for or against.

I think we understood it even if the language was not perfect. Okay. So the motion from Mr. Griffith is to separate the vote on as to divide this. Okay. All right. Okay. What we're going to do, Mr. McGovern, is we're going to vote first whether to present 7211 and then 3377. Okay? All right. So the motion is...

Do you want to ask unanimous consent so we can save some time?

Well, we can do it by voice, I believe. Okay. So all those in favor of a vote of presenting to the President... having the Clerk report to the President H.R. 7211, please say aye.

Aye.

Those who disagree say no. No. In the opinion, the noes have it. On those in favor... roll call. Okay. The Clerk will call the roll.

Mrs. Fischbach.

No.

Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman.

No.

Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy. Mrs. Houchin.

No.

Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy.

No.

Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott.

No.

Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith.

Aye.

Mr. Griffith, aye. Mr. Jack.

No.

Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern.

Aye.

Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon.

Aye.

Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse. Ms. Leger Fernandez.

Aye.

Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye. Madam Chair.

No.

Madam Chair, no.

The Clerk will report the total.

Four ayes, seven nays.

So the motion is not passed. Amendment's not agreed to. Now the vote on presenting to the President H.R. 3377 by Mr. Norman. The Clerk will call the roll.

Mrs. Fischbach.

No.

Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman.

No.

Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy. Mrs. Houchin.

No.

Mrs. Houchin, no. 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. Ms. Leger Fernandez.

Aye.

Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye. Madam Chair.

No.

Madam Chair, no.

The Clerk will report the total.

Three ayes, eight nays.

The noes have it, the amendment's not agreed to. Is there further discussion on the motion from the gentlewoman from Indiana? Hearing none, the vote... hearing no further discussion, the question's on the motion from the gentlewoman from Indiana. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, no.

No.

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

We have to have a roll call then.

Mr. McGovern requests a roll call, the Clerk will call the roll.

Mrs. Fischbach.

Yes.

Mrs. Fischbach, aye. Mr. Norman.

Aye.

Mr. Norman, aye. Mr. Roy. Mrs. Houchin.

Aye.

Mrs. Houchin, aye. 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. Ms. Leger Fernandez.

No.

Ms. Leger Fernandez, no. Madam Chair.

Aye.

Madam Chair, aye.

The Clerk will report the total.

Eight ayes, three nays.

The ayes have it, the motion to report is agreed to. Representative Houchin will be managing this rule for the majority.

And me for the...

Mr. McGovern for the minority. Without objection, the committee is adjourned.