Senate amendment to H.R. 7147 – Homeland Security and Further Additional Continuing Appropriations

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 the Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2026. In the early morning, early hours of this morning, the Senate passed a Swiss cheese-like funding proposal for the Department of Homeland Security. It is unwise and sorely deficient. The Senate's proposal is nothing more than unconditional surrender masquerading as a solution, and the House will not bend itself into submission by acquiescing. The Senate's proposal operates on the mere hope that funding from H.R. 1 can be used for every aspect of pay and resources for our nation's border protection. Going that route will undercut all new important dollars provided by the Working Families Tax Cut Act to backfill current operational needs. These points alone disqualify any serious consideration by the House. That won't fly with us. We don't operate on hope. We operate on process, deliberation, and action. Under President Trump, we have secured the border. And we'll be damned if we go down the road of passing legislation that undercuts the progress made by our Republican majorities and the administration on that front. Let's recollect just how dire the situation was at our border just over a year ago. During the Biden administration, CBP recorded more than 2 million gotaways. That's almost double what was tracked during the previous decade. 388 illegal aliens whose names appear on the terror watch list were apprehended crossing between ports of entry along the southwest and northern borders during the Biden administration, up from just 14 between the years 2017-2020. Transnational gangs like MS-13 and Tren de Aragua infiltrated the United States and rapidly exerted growing control in U.S. cities, including a notorious takeover in Aurora, Colorado. Now let's compare this record to the Trump administration's record. October, November, and December of 2025 combined marked the lowest number of nationwide encounters to start a fiscal year in recorded history, over 76 percent lower than the encounters recorded from October through December 2024 under the Biden administration. Border Patrol apprehensions between ports of entry at the southwest border in December decreased 86 percent compared to December FY 2025 and 97 compared to FY 2024. Southwest border apprehensions are down over 77 percent compared to President Trump's first month in office. U.S. CBP agents apprehended an average of 209 inadmissible aliens per day along the southwest border in December, 96 percent lower than the daily average under the Biden administration. And let's not forget about the serious reduction in fentanyl trafficking that has been achieved. In 2025, fentanyl trafficking at the southern border was cut by 56 percent compared to the previous year. President Trump's decision of allocating funds to TSA is a positive and decisive development. I commend his strong display of leadership in doing so. His action allows us time to negotiate legislation that will protect the border and fund the priorities that Republicans and Democrats understand are paramount to the entire nation. Our position on this matter is as simple as it is ironclad. We won't be force-fed a non-starter by the legislative body that sits opposite of us. Our eight-week continuing resolution provides time for us to deliberate, build consensus, and move forward with a solution that is not soluble like what the Senate has offered up, all while ensuring our homeland defenders are paid. I encourage our Democrat colleagues to join us in supporting this measure. With that, I now yield to the ranking member for any comments that he wishes to make.

I don't even know where to begin, Madam Chair. Honest to God. And I don't even know, and I say this with respect, what you're talking about. The bottom line is Republicans cannot govern. It is crystal clear. You cannot govern. And in fact, the American people should be able to sue you for malpractice. This is ridiculous that we're at this point right now. And I want to say to the American people that if you woke up this morning not knowing who to blame for this shutdown, you will go to bed tonight with no doubt on who to blame. It's House Republicans and Speaker Johnson. I mean, what the hell are you guys doing? This is insane. You know, the Senate passed a bill last night by voice vote. Not a single senator dissented. Senate majority leader, Republican Senate majority leader Thune was on the floor when it passed by voice vote. He's one of you guys, because you control the House, the Senate, and the White House. But the Senate bill that passed last night can pass the House today with a large majority. I mean, according to reports last night, Trump was ready to sign the bill. Now I hear he's wobbling and now he's saying he doesn't know if he'll sign the bill. Let me just say about the president, there's something severely wrong with him. And one of you needs to stage an intervention, because not only to prevent the Republicans from more embarrassment, but for the sake of our country. You know, if the Senate bill were brought to the floor that passed last night, we could put an end right now to the unnecessary hardship that so many federal workers are facing, the uncertainty that they're facing. Not next week, not in a month or 60 days from now, but right now, if Speaker Johnson would just put it on the floor. And I know a lot of Republicans would vote for it. I had a, I've had a number of conversations with Republicans on the floor today who told me they would vote for it. And I know many of you have as well, and probably many of you might vote for it as well. But instead of doing the responsible thing, the obvious thing, the obvious thing, the speaker is cowardly bowing to a handful of extremist wackos in the Republican conference. And by the way, these wackos don't care about governing. They don't care about the people that they are hurting. They only care about writing another blank check for ICE or passing a voter suppression bill before the November election or getting a shout-out on some batshit crazy right-wing podcast. To Speaker Mike Johnson, you are supposed to be the speaker of the whole House. You're not a member of Trump's cabinet or the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus. You're not just the speaker of a small minority of crazy members who throw a fit every time we're about to solve a problem. You are supposed to be the speaker of the whole House. So act like it. Act like it. And instead we are here with the latest gimmick from the speaker that will ensure that the shutdown continues when we could enact a law today to end it. But this garbage CR bill is a non-starter that will do nothing to get us out of this situation. It's dead on arrival in the Senate. You already know that. You all know that, and the speaker knows that. And reportedly even many House Republicans have called this plan stupid. I followed the social media that was going on while you were having your conference call. And we heard a number of your Republican colleagues call this plan stupid and say that you're going to be blamed and you are going to be blamed for this shutdown. You know, this is not complicated. This is not complicated. Speaker Johnson needs to grow up, he needs to grow a spine, and he needs to be the leader of this House. Put the Senate bill on the floor. Let it, let it pass with a large majority of House votes and let's end this mess. And that's what I hope we'll do. But before I yield back, Madam Chair, I, I just have a question because I think there's a lot of confusion right now about what the hell's going on here. So I'd like to ask you, what are we doing here procedurally? I mean, I've heard rumors of gaveling in and gaveling out so that we could vote on the rule tonight like we have some time machine. I've also heard that we may take the rule to the floor tomorrow morning. Can we get some clarification on what the hell the plan is? Because every hour Republicans drag this stunt out means more chaos, more lines at the airport, more federal workers not getting paid, more Americans getting screwed over. So what is the, what is the game plan? Are we going to make, are we going to adjourn and make believe that in an hour or on a different day, or are we coming, are we going to vote on all this stuff tomorrow?

Mr. McGovern, you've been around a long time and you know that there are different roles for our different people and our different committees to play. The Rules Committee is here to pass a rule. The majority leader makes decisions on when to call bills up and when to call rules up. So you'll have to...

Well, you're a lot more patient Rules Chair than I was, Madam Chair, because to be honest with you, I mean, if I were about to report a rule out, I'd like to know am I going to the floor today? Or am I going to go to the floor tomorrow? Are we going to the floor on Monday? And I think there are a lot of members on both the House, on both the Republican and the Democratic side who are just trying to figure out like, do we cancel all of our late-night flights tonight? Do we cancel our flights tomorrow? I mean, so you have no idea when, when we report this rule out, when it might be brought to the floor?

I might have an idea.

Well, could you, and you're not allowed to inform? Is that a radical subversive...

I mean, help, help us here today with getting through this rule quickly. And the quicker we get it done, the quicker we'll all know what's going to happen.

Yeah, well, I mean, I, you know, again, if, if anybody's watching... Well, I'd like to know that we'd be getting out tonight. Look at, I mean, this is, this is not a game and it's not a joke. I mean, people are getting screwed over because of what you're doing here today. And the idea that we have no idea when we might even bring this up, I mean, I, I just, I mean, like that's some sort of subversive, like secret thing that you're, that no one's supposed to know? The American people are not allowed to know when we might want to bring this to the floor? I mean, I, I'm sorry that you find that unreasonable. I mean, I just think it's a common sense basic question that everybody, I don't care what your political persuasion may be, should want, should get an answer to. And we can't get an answer to that?

Well, as I said, help us get through this as quickly as possible and then we'll all know what's going on.

Well, let me just say we, we would have been helpful to get through this, all of this easily, if you just took what the Senate did in a bipartisan way. But you've chosen to go down a partisan pathway because you want to satisfy a group of wackos on the extreme right, and the hell with the American people. So no, forgive us, we're not going to go quietly here. We're going to fight and we're going to fight like hell. I yield back my time.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our first panel, Chairman Cole and Ranking Member DeLauro from the Committee on Appropriations. Always happy to see you.

Good to see you, Madam Chair.

Chairwoman... Your full statement will be submitted for the record and 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 Senate amendment to H.R. 7147, the Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act of 2026. This is now the fourth time I've appeared before you in recent weeks to discuss funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Let me briefly recap how we got to this point. In January, appropriations negotiators, both Republicans and Democrats from both the House and the Senate, reached a final agreement on our final six appropriations bills for year 2026. Thanks to our friends on the Rules Committee, we were able to fulfill requests from both House Democrats, who wanted a separate vote on the Homeland Security title, and from the Senate, who wanted us to send over the final six bills as one package. The House did its part, passed these six bills, and sent them to the Senate as one package. Sadly, over the intervening weekend, Senator Schumer and Senate Democrats decided that the deal that they had agreed to was no longer good enough. They broke their word and reneged on the deal. While they would pass the other five bills as they had previously accepted, they would now only support a short two-week CR for the Department of Homeland Security. Predictably, the two-week CR came and went without Senate Democrats agreeing to a full-year funding bill. And so, beginning on Valentine's Day of this year, the Department of Homeland Security entered a lapse in appropriations, or to use the term that everyone understands, a shutdown. This, of course, followed a previous shutdown last fall, again instigated by Senate Democrats. As a consequence, as of tomorrow, the Department of Homeland Security has been shuttered by Senate Democrats for 50 percent of the fiscal year, leaving DHS personnel and critical missions in limbo. Employees have been reporting to work without pay and causing chaos at the department charged with protecting the homeland. Indeed, in the last few weeks, we've witnessed the consequences of this decision. 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, have continued to work without guaranteed pay and without full operational resources. Airports across the country are feeling the brunt, with lines stretching outside the airport to clear security. Employees at the TSA are having to take radical action to make ends meet, such as donating plasma, even as they continue to show up to work without pay. By today, Senate Democrats will have denied over 80,000 American families more than $1 billion 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. While the state of affairs was acceptable to Senate Democrats, who were reportedly, quote, "very serene with the shutdown," as one Democratic senator said, it was not acceptable to House Republicans. And so we've now passed through the House the final negotiated full-year Homeland Security funding bill three different times. And to be clear, what we passed each time is the same funding bill that Senate Democrats agreed to before flip-flopping. The same agreed-upon funding levels, the same agreed-upon policy changes, the needed funding for body cameras for DHS law enforcement, all of it. Every last word was negotiated upon and agreed upon between the parties before Senator Schumer went back on his word. In the middle of the night, with the smell of jet fumes in the air, the Senate passed an amendment to H.R. 7147 and sent it back to the House, once again telling the House to take it or leave it because the Senate was leaving town. Madam Chair, we often hear from our constituents of how sick they are of bills that are written and passed in the dead of night. The Senate amendment that was sent to us early this morning is a case in point for why that is so. Instead of fulfilling the bicameral and bipartisan bargain that was struck months ago, the Senate amendment instead stripped out all funding for the U.S. Border Patrol and for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, effectively defunding these two agencies. If allowed to become law, this would prevent all border non-law enforcement personnel and all ICE non-law enforcement personnel from being paid and would defund day-to-day operations of both agencies. Madam Chair, this is completely unacceptable to House Republicans. We cannot and will not support any bill that defunds the defense of our national borders. While it may be news to the Senate to hear this, the Constitution gives both the House of Representatives and the Senate an equal say in this matter. And we will not pass an unacceptable bill simply because the Senate wants to leave town. And so I appear before you today in support of House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 7147, which will provide a continuing resolution for the Department of Homeland Security through May 22. This will end the pointless shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security, it will provide back pay for employees who have not been paid, and will ensure that TSA can return to full operational status at airports. And it will allow DHS to continue to defend our national borders against narcotraffickers, terrorists, and other evildoers, and will ensure that the homeland is protected. It doesn't selectively decide which parts of Homeland Security matter. Rather, 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 this bill. I thank each of you for your time. I urge all members to support this bill. I look forward to your questions.

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

Thank you very much, Chairwoman Foxx.

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

Thank you very much, Chairman Foxx, and thank you Ranking Member McGovern, thank you members of the committee and my friend Chairman Cole. I think I'm in the movie Groundhog Day. But nevertheless, we proceed. Just for the record, let us be very, very clear. ICE and CBP are 85 percent funded. They are funded. If there's concern about them doing their job, get them the hell out of the airport where they're doing nothing and getting paid while TSA workers are not getting paid and trying to do their job, and get them to where they can do their job. They are funded. I think we have to keep repeating that. They are not suffering an iota of economic insecurity. I have to be honest, I really am at a loss. Last night, the United States Senate unanimously passed a bill to end the shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security. A bill that was engineered by Majority Leader Thune. Senate Republicans support the bill. Senate Democrats support the bill. House Democrats support the bill. The White House, though you're never sure where they're going to come out at the outset, was supporting the bill. Don't know where they are now, but that's always a crapshoot. We never know what the hell is going on there. How often, how often do we get unanimous consent in this body, in this environment? My God, the earth should shake. You know, it's just an unbelievable moment. No one, they hotlined it, no one disagreed. Whoa. It's extraordinary. But all I have to say is unanimous vote comes to the House, House, Senate, report, that's the way the system works. It's the way the system works. But House Republicans, House Republicans alone have said no. What they have said is let's keep the shutdown going. Let us continue to withhold paychecks from TSA workers. It's okay if they sleep in their cars. It's okay if they're getting paid for plasma. It's okay if they're frightened to death about evictions, what they're going to do for their families and their kids. It's okay. Extend the long lines at airports, prolong the chaos and the uncertainty that this shutdown has caused. Leave Americans economically burdened and poorer. So what are we considering here today? An entirely different piece of legislation altogether. It is an almost two-month continuing resolution. One that does not have buy-in from anyone other than House Republicans. It has a zero chance of becoming law. Again, zero chance of becoming law. It serves no purpose other than to prolong this shutdown for almost two months, and a shutdown that has already gone on long enough. The Senate has gone home. They are not passing anything. They did their job, striking an agreement that passed unanimously. This shutdown rests squarely on the shoulders of the House Republican leadership. They were offered a bipartisan bill that the President indicated he would sign, and they still rejected it. This is no way to govern. But quite frankly, I don't believe that the House majority wants to govern. I've heard so much from so many of my Republican colleagues throughout this shutdown about how they cannot imagine how Democrats can look TSA agents in the eye as we go through security and how it is a disgrace and all of the rest of it. And here we are with a deal that everyone has agreed to and they are still saying no. TSA agents will know who is responsible to holding their paychecks up. I return the question to my colleagues of how will you look those agents in the eye as you fly home for spring break? Kicking the can down the road for 60 days is not a viable solution by any stretch of the imagination. My colleague and friend Chairman Cole and I have long agreed that continuing resolutions are not the way to govern. It is always better to do the hard work of legislating, of negotiating, of forging a compromise. The bill the Senate passed is a product of that process. It is a bipartisan solution that was arrived at after many long hours of negotiating, ultimately yes, between Democrats and Republicans, but as I said, a bill engineered by Senate Republicans and the majority leader. It is the only viable option before us. I want to be clear that Chairman Cole is a man of his word. My frustration today is with Speaker Johnson and with House leadership, who in my opinion are making a catastrophic mistake. This is an inexcusable failure of leadership. This is not how you get things done in this body. House Republican leadership are refusing to take yes for an answer, and the American people are going to continue paying the price for that. The White House apparently believes they have the authority to pay TSA workers. If they do, then every day for the past 40 plus days, they made a conscious decision not to pay them. And the TSA administrator not two days ago said the department made the decision not to pay TSA workers. They are picking and choosing which workers they think deserve to be paid. I think the public ought to decide which of us they think ought to be paid for the jobs that are being done here. Most staff at CBP and ICE and the Coast Guard and the Secret Service are already being paid, but TSA workers have been singled out, held hostage, pawns in a political game. And as the ranking member said, this is not a game, playing with people's lives. It is shameful, and these folks are somehow undeserving, that is shameful. And I am prepared to answer your questions. I thank you and I yield back.

Thank you, Ms. DeLauro. Chairman Cole, I agree with you that generally our colleagues have an aversion to passing bills, to voting for bills passed in the dark of the night or the dead of the night as you said. And I appreciate very much your giving us that little reminder about how Mr. Schumer and others went back on their word when we were negotiating the full appropriations bills and we were all ready to fund all of Homeland Security. I also find it a little interesting that Ranking Member DeLauro now is saying the ICE agents should be back out in the field when the Democrats have been screaming about taking them out of the field. But would you explain how the Senate amendment defunds Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Patrol? Because I think that has not been as clear to the American people as it should be.

Let me begin, Madam Chair, if I may, just by reading a portion of section four of the explanatory statement about the bill. Oh, sorry. Thank you very much. That I think sums it up pretty well and that, you know, this is what the authors' intent was in the bill. The contents printed under the heading United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Security Operations under the heading U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall have no force or effect for purposes of this act, and amounts specified in the final bill column under the subheading Border Security Operations under the heading U.S. Customs and Border Protection and under the heading U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Department of Homeland Security Act of 2026 table shall be zero dollars. Zero dollars. Now what does that mean? We're hearing that these other agencies have been funded. Parts of them have been funded, additional technology, finishing the wall, but the day-to-day operations aren't funded in those bills. So this moves you to zero. The other thing I would say about the legislation, if it's a great piece of legislation, nobody in the United States Senate read it. They were writing it at midnight last night. There were five senators on the floor when they passed by unanimous consent. No, you know, I will bet you over 90 senators have not read this bill. Over 90. And I will bet you their staff have not had a chance because most of them were at home and bed where they should have been as well. And then it's kicked over here in the dead of night with no discussion with anybody on our side of the chamber, maybe in either party, I could only speak for my own, I can certainly assure you there was none. I can tell you because I talked to a number of senators that they were unaware of this themselves. So that's no way to legislate. Again, we had an agreement with the Senate. It was an agreement they agreed to. We agreed to the language, it was compromise language. They didn't get everything we want, they wanted, we didn't get everything we wanted, but it was language they agreed to. They told us the form they wanted it in and said if it comes in that form, we will pass it. And that's what they got and then they broke their word. We've offered them three opportunities now to go back and do what they said they were going to do. What we got back was something I would not vote for, to tell you the truth, that said I was going to give zero money for border security and Homeland Security. Zero. On the idea that maybe it's funded, some of it is, some of it isn't. We do have the executive branch trying to do the right thing, but this is a preeminently a legislative matter. We should just do our job, keep our agreements, and pass it. And we have the opportunity to do that. The Senate bill doesn't do that at all. And, you know, frankly, anybody that thinks it got any serious consideration in the United States Senate, you know, I would like them to tell me where was the committee hearing on the bill or the amendment? Where was the discussion? Tell me the senators that were awake at 2:00 and 3:00 and 4:00 o'clock in the morning. I mean, that's not what happened. And that's no way to legislate for the greatest power on the planet and the oldest democracy in existence. It's a mockery of the legislative process and frankly it's not something anybody should be comfortable voting for.

Thank you very much from a great historian. Thank you for explaining the process. Mr. McGovern, you're recognized.

Mr. Cole, do you know when we're going to vote on this on the floor?

I do not. I would assume as quickly as possible but I don't have any specific information.

Was there a hearing on this CR? Is there a hearing on this bill that you just?

No, there was not. Because I don't think you need a hearing when you're saying we're going to just continue exactly what's happening.

Well, but what the Senate did basically is what we've been doing on and on and on and on with Ms. DeLauro's amendment that basically funds all lawful agencies within the Department of Homeland Security. I mean, it's been around for a long time. It's not a new phenomenon. So I just wanted to know that. And this idea that oh, we don't like bills that are passed in the middle of the night, I just remind all my colleagues that I think I remember correctly the big ugly bill was, you know, was passed at a time when it was prime time in Guam, but nobody seemed to have any problem with that whole effort. But Ms. DeLauro, I was not very good in arithmetic, but I just want to clarify for the record, when Chairman Cole keeps on talking about and Chairwoman Foxx about defunding ICE, I mean, was money funded for ICE in the big ugly bill?

My gosh. You've got $75 billion for ICE, $65 billion for CBP, and no one has suggested the legislation, the piece that I introduced said let's continue the negotiations with ICE and CBP. But that is within the appropriations portion of the bill that in fact we would not provide the money until there were, there was the overhaul. But let's fund everyone else. They have the money and they have a $10 billion slush fund. A $10 billion slush fund which they can use in any way they want to.

And in the Senate bill, is there a provision that claw backs the ICE and CBP money that was in the big ugly bill? And in the Senate bill is there a provision that claw backs the ICE and CBP money that was in the big ugly bill?

No.

No.

No, the money No. No, the money is there.

Okay. So again, just basic arithmetic, this has not been defunded. So I'm having trouble following that argument. Chairman Cole keeps on talking about the deal that Schumer and others seemed to have had on DHS. Am I correct that that was before ICE and CBP murdered two people? Two American citizens?

Yes. That's right.

Yeah. And I think we all agree that the murder of two Americans is a big deal. You know, should give us pause. Should ask us to want to review whether or not we're spending money wisely. I mean, isn't that the reason why there's been kind of a reconsideration of how we should approach the?

Exactly. Exactly right.

And, you know, Democrats have been asking for major reforms in ICE and CBP.

But it's not just Democrats. The major reforms have come from the American public. Absolutely. How about we not try to detain and deport American citizens? How about we not go to sensitive locations, schools, hospitals, medical facilities? How do we not have a warrant before we pick up somebody or kick their door down? How do we say don't wear a mask, let's be identified.

But I think it's important for people, the American people to understand like, you know, what my Republican friends think is controversial. Like, you know, having a judicial warrant before you can knock down somebody's door. I mean, I don't know, I thought you guys all cared about civil liberties. I thought, you know, I mean, I've talked to some of you on FISA and you're asking, some of you support warrants, but yet that's one of the things that we're asking for and yet that's a radical idea. Or before you get picked up and hauled away and separated from your family and put in a vehicle to go God knows where, that the person who's doing that has an obligation to tell you who they are and what they're doing. I mean, and that is one of the reforms that you all think is too radical. Or that we shouldn't deport U.S. citizens. Boy, that's a real radical idea. Right? I mean, those are some of the things that, you know, we've been trying to negotiate with this administration who has no interest in negotiating because they don't really give a damn about any of this stuff. I mean, I just don't. And I've been to detention centers. I don't know whether some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been to detention centers. I've seen detention centers that include full families that have been following all the rules, that have been doing everything right, and then all of a sudden get picked up without any explanation and they find themselves in a jail. I mean, like, really? That's what we're all think is okay? Ms. DeLauro, you know, if we were to bring the Senate bill to the floor that is similar to your bill, do you believe that Republicans would, any Republicans would support the bill?

I I really do. I think there would be bipartisan support because it is and and this is not self-serving, I believe it was a reasonable approach to dealing with what is a difficult problem where people had real concerns about ICE and CBP and they but no one really wants to hold hostage whether it is FEMA, Coast Guard, TSA, cybersecurity, etc. I also might add and I'm going to quote Senator Susan Collins, who was chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. This is her statement on the Senate vote to pass the Department of Homeland Security funding package. Passage of this package brings us closer to ending a reckless and harmful shutdown. Today's action moves us closer to ending the shutdown, which has caused chaos. It is moving it says this is the way we need to move forward.

And is Susan Collins a Republican?

Yes.

And do you believe that she's familiar with the bill that the Senate passed last night? Or do you agree with Chairman Cole that she probably didn't read it?

No, if I know and and I think the the Chairman would agree to this because all four corners have sat down a numerous times and Senator Collins, I am sure, has gone very thoroughly through what was out there.

I'll let Senator Collins speak for herself, but I spoke to her last night and she was not aware of this bill. She was not talked to about it.

Well, this is these are her words. I I have not made this up. This is today, 3/27/26. Washington, D.C. Senator Collins' statement on passage of DHS funding.

This is this year. It's this this day today. That's an interesting that's an interesting observation. And and does anyone dispute the fact that reports say that when this vote took place on the Senate floor last night, that the Republican Senate Majority Leader, John Thune, was on the floor?

And he doesn't know anything about what's in the bill? Give me a break.

And do we do we anybody dispute that? Would the gentleman yield? Yeah, happy to yield.

Well, not just Senator Thune, but Senator Schmitt was on the floor. Senator Moreno, Republican of Ohio, was presiding in the Senate. So this this fiction that somehow the Senate Republicans had no idea what they were doing, I yield back to the gentleman.

No, and that's a very good point because you remind us that the Republicans do control the Senate, right? Because they were presiding. And and I don't know whether, you know, Speaker Johnson, you know, has one of these devices. Like, you know, I mean, everybody has them now. I mean, and you can communicate with one another, and the House Majority Leader, or the I mean, the Republican leadership. I mean, I it's hard for me to believe that the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader don't talk. Or that Republicans don't talk to their Senate counterparts. I will tell you as a Democrat, I talk to my my counterparts in the Senate all the time. You know, I've even reached out to Senate Minority Leader Schumer on occasion. I talk to Senator Durbin. I I mean, I talk to them all the time about stuff that I'm concerned about. And the notion that the Republican House leadership was just caught off guard, that they had no idea that anything was happening, I mean, I mean, I said at the beginning that I think this leadership is as a House leadership is incompetent, but that even goes beyond incompetence. I just can't that that defies belief. That defies I mean, and that the White House somehow had no clue that this was going on and again we we have reports that Trump was saying I would I would sign this last night.

Can I just say this one thing? I was nervous because and this is a couple of days ago, Senator Cruz was all over this. I said, my God, Senator Cruz and I have very little in common. And we were agreeing on the same direction in which to go and so people understood and knew what was in this bill.

Yeah. I I would just close with this. You know what? I mean, we can hide behind process, we can hide behind, you know, all kinds of procedural rhetoric. And that and that's what ends up that's what what usually happens when my Republican friends don't want to talk about the real consequences behind what they're doing. What I care about are the people who are getting screwed. The people who are being jerked around. You know, the TSA agents who aren't getting paid, the Coast Guard, you know, the FEMA. You know, I care about FEMA. I said this on the House floor and my Republican friends say they care about FEMA, yet they said nothing when Kristi Noem wanted to zero out the agency and eliminate it. But that's that we'll save that for more discussion later. But at the end of the day, what really matters is people. And we have an opportunity to help people. We had an opportunity to do it in a bipartisan way. And I think if, you know, and I guess and I know it's the last thing, but let me ask Chairman Cole, would you have any objection if we were to allow for there to be a vote on what the Senate did last night?

That's not for me to say, that's for this committee to decide.

But do you have an opinion?

No.

Oh, boy. You sound like Speaker Johnson, he has an opinion on nothing. And I and I have to tell you, I mean, you know, if you believe that, you know, a a short-term CR that funds agencies that have done horrific things to the American people, you know, if that's the way you want to go, fine, vote for it. But to not allow members, Democrats and Republicans in the House, the opportunity to vote on the bipartisan product that came out of the Senate last night that will fund all of those agencies, I I just I just find that really undercutting not only kind of our the House of Representatives, but, you know, we're supposed to be a deliberative body here, but really it's it undercuts our democracy.

Oh, my preferred course is to fund the full agency for the full fiscal year.

Well, then you should bring that bill to the floor. You have.

We have. We've brought it repeatedly. We've passed it three or four times.

But you don't have the you don't have the votes to do it.

Well, we have we'll see if we have the votes today.

But you've done it a hundred times and, you know, you want to do it 101 times and now we're doing a short-term.

We have a majority, we have a majority, yes we do. We have a majority in both chambers, each side we've done it.

But you're not helping a damn person in this country who's getting screwed over by the incompetence in this House.

I'm not the one who voted to shut down the agency. You did.

Yeah, you I you know what? Yes.

The gentleman's time.

Right. Well, okay, he just did. Okay.

Well, you interrupted. Do you want to say one more anything else?

I said, I'm not the one who's voted to shut down the agency. I've voted to fund it every time.

Yeah. Yeah. And by the way, it is my time. I just want to okay. But I also want to I just want to say for the record, you are now. You are now. All of you are. By doing what you're doing. You know exactly what you're doing, you know exactly what this the result of this is going to be, you know exactly who's going to be hurt, and you continue to do it. So as I said at the beginning of my opening remarks, you all own this. I yield back.

Ms. Fischbach, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I just I I'm kind of surprised that this is a clean CR. This will this will make sure that folks are paid. This will be helping the people that Mr. McGovern is concerned that we are quote-unquote, I believe the word was screwing. And and but this will this will take care of that, will it not, Mr.?

Correct.

And so I think this makes sense. We we will then have six weeks to deal with things, to continue the negotiations, and there's some discrepancy about how it actually went down in the Senate and so we can figure that out, but but I am I just think this is the way that we are coming together to help those folks that aren't getting paid, that aren't the things aren't happening for. And I think we've been trying for several weeks to do something, but this makes sense. It is a simple continuing resolution with nothing else, but it will help those people that Mr. McGovern continues to say he is concerned about. And I don't have any questions because I think it is that self-explanatory that this is going on, unless you had something to add to that, but?

No, I think you summed it up perfectly. We pass this legislation, everything will be fully funded.

Yeah. And so with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.

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

Thank you. I'd first yield to the Ranking Member.

First, I just want to say the gentlelady talks about there's a discrepancy of what happened in the Senate last night. I don't know what the hell you're talking about. No discrepancy. The Senate by voice vote passed a product that is that we are talking about trying to bring to the floor. There's no discrepancy over what happened. You know, they passed something. They passed something in a bipartisan way. I mean, so there's no discrepancy over that. Yeah, and, you know, and the gentlelady talks about how, you know, a simple way to deal with this. I mean, you know what is really simple is bringing the same thing up that you know is going to fail over and over and over again. It is clear that there are Democrats in the House and in the Senate who will not support an unlawful agencies unless they are reformed. That is clear. You know that. You run everything. And if you want our votes, you need either either need to make these reforms or you need to remove them from the bill so that we can all vote to fund all these other agencies and departments. And you all know that. You all know that. The Senate Majority Leader, the Republican, knew that. And he brought this bill to the floor. He gets the schedule. By the way, when you're in charge, you bring things to the floor. I'm happy to yield to the gentlelady.

Are the reforms that you requested in the Senate bill? Yes or no?

No, they're not. No, they're. Okay, great. No, but you know what? But in the Senate bill, neither is one more dollar for the agencies that break the law. There's not one more dollar for ICE, not one more dollar for CBP. So yeah, I would like the reforms and we're we're happy to continue to negotiate with you on that, but the bottom line, but the bottom line is this notion that Republicans have no control. You set the agenda. You set the agenda. The Senate Republican Majority Leader brought this to the floor. Not Chuck Schumer, you know, not Jim McGovern, but your Republican Senate Majority Leader. And the deal is that we have a we the deal is that they have a they had a unanimous voice vote. And we have Republican senators issuing statements today saying what is going on. But this is this is insane what you people are doing. It's shameful. I mean, I'm embarrassed for this institution by what is going on here. And I'm so sick and tired of regular people getting screwed over and that's what's happening here. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, I yield back to her.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern. I've been fielding calls and texts and emails from my constituents all morning. Generally, they were really relieved to hear that the Senate had finally taken action to fund TSA and the Coast Guard and FEMA because that's what we've all been talking about for more than 40 days, that folks and and parts of these agencies were not funded, unlike ICE and Customs and Border Patrol, which actually are funded as the Ranking Member mentioned. So they were relieved to hear that there'd been Senate action and were looking forward to the House moving forward. So like them, I'm a little surprised to find ourselves in this alternative universe where House Republicans are refusing to take yes for an answer. We should be voting on the bipartisan legislation that passed the Senate that would reopen and fund TSA, FEMA, and the Coast Guard because we all know, all of us here know, that if that bill were put on the House floor, it would pass with a strong majority. I mean, it would pass. So I am not quite sure what this exercise is, but it appears that Speaker Johnson is playing politics in order to satisfy a small group of fringe extremists in the House Republican Conference.

Ms. Scanlon, yes, would you would you yield to a question?

I would be happy to yield to a question from the Chairwoman.

I think some of us are confused because Mr. McGovern just said that ICE and Border Patrol are getting not a penny, which confirmed what Mr. Cole said. Thank you. And yet you're saying?

I'd be happy to answer answer the question. So that was a brief remark taken out of context. I think we can we the easy answer of course is that they have the money from the big beautiful bill, which is the money that they are utilizing.

But they weren't funded in this bill.

Not in an appropriations bill, which is what this is about, but they have serious money, $75 billion, $65 billion in the big beautiful bill and a $10 billion slush fund. I was making a different point, so I'll reclaim my time for now. But just the point is that we could be voting on that bill. Speaker Johnson is playing some political games here to satisfy a small group of fringe extremists in the House Republican Conference. And in doing so, he's threatening the livelihood and well-being of millions of Americans. And he's doing so knowing that after the Senate unanimously passed this bill last night or this morning, they left town for two weeks. So in choosing to go down this path, the Speaker is making a deliberate choice to prolong this partial shutdown, knowing that the Senate has already rejected the bill he intends to put on the floor and that they aren't going to consider it for weeks. Every day, TSA employees, some Coast Guard service members, natural disaster first responders are going without pay, going without the resources they need to do their jobs. And we know, we've heard that some of these dedicated public servants have been forced to sleep in their cars, go without food because their paychecks are being withheld. Hundreds have had no choice but to put their families first and leave TSA altogether to find other work, but that hurts all of us as well. So Madam Chair, this shutdown has extended for more than 40 days. Very few Americans can go that long without a paycheck, and even fewer can understand how or why congressional Republicans have chosen not to act when there's a real opportunity to solve this problem and to do the right thing. Why are we wasting everyone's time? Why are we continuing to hang TSA workers and other federal employees out to dry on this pointless, pointless partisan exercise? For weeks, Republicans have withheld this funding to try to force Democrats to give more money, even more money, billions more to a rogue agency that has cost American lives. So I would urge our Republican colleagues to reject this insanity and join Democrats in passing the Senate legislation. There is one point I was particularly interested in, Ranking Member DeLauro. We have heard repeatedly that there was some kind of reneging on a deal. And we've heard that, oh, it's very simple to just fund the government, but our Republican colleagues keep glossing over the fact that the turning point in this funding discussion was when American citizens were killed on American streets by masked and armed federal agents, and this administration has refused to put any guardrails around that behavior. So it's not as though things were just parking along with no changes. There was an outrageous assault on American values and American citizens that must be dealt with. So I would appreciate your observations on that.

On January 7th, Renee Nicole Good was murdered in Minneapolis. On January 24th, Alex Preddy was murdered in Minneapolis. American citizens murdered. Now, if that doesn't speak to making some changes in an agency and both agencies involved because, and I will just say, the commander Bovino was, he's the one who, you know, was killed Preddy and he was let go. Things have happened. It was not a static situation. It was a fluid situation, which is why given the contention and the sensitivity around ICE and CBP, for my part, in introducing, which was on February 11th, 45 days ago, I introduced this bill which said, we have a serious issue which everyone is concerned about. Put it aside and continue to negotiate because it's going to take a long time to sort it out and that it had to have protections. The protections were never a part of what the bill was about, but about the future funding of those agencies. But let's free these people who are being hammered and pilloried and not being paid when they're doing the work that they have. That was the scene. Events, events, if you can't move with events, my God, we are not stuck in concrete here. We have to be sensitive to what happened, the murder of two American citizens.

Well, and as there's a couple of us here who are members of the Judiciary Committee, and since that time, we have had before us the head of the Department of Justice, the head of, the former head of the Department of Homeland Security, and there has been no action from those departments to rein in, to investigate, to prosecute that lawless behavior by federal agents on our streets. So that has increased our concern about how we put guardrails around this paramilitary force that has been deployed to American streets. Look, no one on this side of the aisle wants to withhold pay from TSA agents. That's why we've been trying to push forward the legislative proposal that you suggested and that the Senate unanimously adopted last night. But we now have admissions from the White House and from administrators there that there has been a choice by this administration not to pay TSA agents. Fortunately, I understand that, you know, maybe while we've been here, the President has signed an order directing that TSA agents be paid going forward. But this is, it's just outrageous that a simple bipartisan solution that solves a problem for the American people is being rejected by Speaker Johnson and some of the fringe extremists in his group. I thank you for all of your work on this, and I yield back.

Thank you, Ms. Scanlon. Mr. Roy, before I recognize you, I would like to get a clarification from Chairman Cole. Ms. Scanlon said Coast Guard service members are not being paid. My understanding is that is incorrect.

I think that is incorrect, just as the President was able to pull a rabbit out of a hat during the last year's shutdown, keep the military paid. They found a way to pay the personnel, but not the support personnel, not the civilian employees. So it's one of these areas, and it's clearly not the preferred way. I mean, there ought to be passed legislation, appropriations bills to do that.

Uniformed personnel are being paid.

I know there are form letters going around because I've had constituents contact me, and I think it's important that we make it clear that our service members are being paid.

Right, but just to clarify, not everybody in the Coast Guard is being paid.

No, it's the uniformed personnel are.

Mr. Cole said that. He stated it very clearly. Mr. Roy, you're recognized.

I thank the Chairwoman. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Cole, is it true that the United States House of Representatives Republicans have sent over to the United States Senate multiple times full funding for the Department of Homeland Security, including all operations?

I assume you mean United States Senate, and yes, we have.

And in sending it over to the United States Senate, is it not true that the 53 Republicans of the Senate have multiple times voted for full funding for the Department of Homeland Security?

I believe that's the case.

So therefore, is it not true that there are precisely seven human beings in the entire world that are holding up funding for the men and women who are serving our country in Border Patrol, in ICE, in FEMA, in TSA, and every other aspect of the Department of Homeland Security? Seven individuals necessary, seven Democrats in the Senate necessary to get to 60 votes.

May only be five. I believe at least one, I think two Democrats have voted, so it's a pretty substantial sort of mid-50s majority to fund the government.

So to repeat, we've had some Democrats interested in continuing to do the job, 53 Republicans, so we've had five, six, seven Democrats necessary in order to actually do the job of funding the important function of the Department of Homeland Security. Is that correct?

That's correct.

So let's just be very clear about who is holding up any funding necessary for the people in this country to have a secure country when we've had multiple terrorist attacks since this funding dispute began, since we've had conflict in Iran, since we've had issues at our border. And I would note, for example, a CBP support employee saying, quote, "The Senate bill paid TSA but thousands of CBP and ICE professional staff will not be paid. The last paid workday for me was February 13th. Now Senate on paid vacation until April 13th, that is guaranteed for two months no pay. Very likely we won't be paid until May if Johnson lets this bill pass." ICE civilian employee, quote, "I have a huge favor. When you guys report on the fact that ICE is funded through OBB funds, can you please make it known that support staff, i.e., mission support, OPA, etc., is not getting paid." Is that true, Mr. Cole?

That's absolutely true. It's one of the reasons why you should do the complete bill instead of trying to pick and choose because you always miss somebody, there's somebody being paid in another way, and it's just not, I mean, part of the essence of this problem is nobody reads an appropriations bill and likes everything in it. And if you get to pick and choose what you like, no appropriations bill would ever be passed. You pass the full bill, you balance it off, and that's the appropriate way to do it. Substantial majorities, bipartisan majorities in each chamber have done that. This is really a Senate rule that has held up complete funding of the government.

Would I be correct when I observe that when the Ranking Member discussed 85 percent of ICE and Border Patrol operations being funded or something to that effect, that the vast majority or all of that is coming through OBB funds?

Again, I wouldn't presume to speak for my friend the Ranking Member, but that would be my understanding that that's where the majority of that money's coming from.

So to the extent that there is funding going to the men and women in Border Patrol and ICE today to carry out their job, that funding is entirely or predominantly coming through OBB to the best of our knowledge.

That's correct, and it wasn't what it was designed to do originally. It was meant to use better technology, finishing the border wall, things of that nature.

How many Democrats voted for the OBB?

None.

None. So to be very clear, the funds that are going for Border Patrol and ICE operations was not supported by Democrats. Democrats today refuse to fund through the normal appropriations process any funding for ICE or Border Patrol to be able to carry out the functions of defending the United States of America. And to be clear, that since that lapse of funding, we've had material terrorist attacks on our soil, we've had the murder of Sheridan Gorman by a person who was here, who came in here illegally in 2023 under the previous administration, who is a criminal, who was released, and who murdered and shot a student in Chicago. And this stuff continues to operate because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle flat out refuse to do the job of funding the operations necessary to secure the United States of America. I support the Speaker in making sure that we do our job right now to send back to the Senate a bill that will fully fund these operations so that we can get busy defending this country when we need to do it and make sure that the people on the streets are safe and secure. I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Roy.

Madam Chair. For clarification.

Yes, sir.

I I want to know how many Republican senators voted against the bill that we're asking to be considered today in lieu of the continuing resolution? How many how many Republican senators objected to basically the bill that Mr. DeLauro... None. None.

Madam Madam Chair, was there a roll call vote in the Senate or was this conducted in the middle of the night by voice vote?

This was passed at around...

By voice in the middle of the night. Passed by voice.

You control the Senate. Anyone could have dissented. You control the agenda in the Senate. And the person who's holding up people is the Speaker of the House.

Five Democrats refused to actually do the job for the American people.

Yeah, and Americans are dying because you guys refuse to secure the country. So stop the bullshit.

You do not have the floor, Mr. McGovern. I've been pretty tolerant.

So have we. So have we. Based on what's going on here today.

Mr. McGovern, you don't have the right to make that decision. You don't have the right to make a decision that you've been tolerant. We're following regular order here, and that's what I'm going to do. Follow regular order. I out of courtesy introduced you to ask ask a question, but I'm not going to tolerate this kind of an outburst. I will not. I will not.

Speak to both sides. Speaking of outbursts. I hope you make that clear to the other side. Please.

Mr. Neguse, you are recognized. Go for it.

I thank the Chairwoman. Whoa. Perhaps I'll start where you all have left off. For whatever reason, and I think I know why, my Republican colleagues are very much living in a fantasy land. And somehow trying to make the case to the American people that Democrats control the United States Senate. It's absurd. John Thune is the Republican Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate. Engineer the bill. Yesterday, the Republican majority in the United States Senate passed a bill. Not a single U.S. Senator objected. Not one. Senator Bernie Moreno, Republican of Ohio, presided over the vote. Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri, the former Attorney General of the state of Missouri, that my friend from Texas Chip Roy talked so glowingly of in the past. He was on the floor when the bill passed. Senator Collins. John Thune asked for unanimous consent on this bill. Not a single Senator objected. So I don't really understand this Republican argument. I suspect when we get to Mr. Scott, I'm counting on Mr. Scott because I think he'll be intellectually honest in what he will say is, I disagree with those Republican Senators, not to speak for you, but they should have objected. Perhaps some member on the other side of the aisle will make that case, but as of yet, instead, we're stuck with these abstract attacks on the Senate as though these are not members of your own party. Chairman Cole. It was actually today. Chairman Cole, I'm you're going to have an opportunity, Mr. Scott. Chairman Cole, Chairwoman Foxx described the Senate's action, this bill. I wrote it down because I found it very interesting. She said it was unwise and quote, "unconditional surrender." Do you agree?

I agree it was unwise.

Not about the unconditional surrender part?

You know, I'm not going to get into quibbling over words. I've been asked, yes, I think it was I think it was the wrong thing to do and the wrong way to do it.

Well, here's the question, I think, not for you, but for whoever may be watching these proceedings. I think someone, maybe Jake Sherman, a reporter can go ask Ted Cruz whether this bill was unconditional surrender. Go ask Mike Lee whether it was unconditional surrender. I hope the Chairwoman, when we conclude with this hearing, that she will call her Senators from the great state of North Carolina and ask Senator Budd whether or not this was unconditional surrender and if it was, why he made the decision not to object. I hope we get an answer to that question. Because the rest of this is just noise. The Senators, in my view, did the right thing. They passed a bill that funds TSA, that funds the Coast Guard, that ends this crisis. And we have the opportunity to do the same. The only reason we're not, just to be clear, is because one person, the Speaker of the House, was here three years ago and watched his predecessor lose his job and his gavel the last time a Republican Speaker dared to put a bipartisan bill on the floor that would pass with a huge majority vote. He's not in Congress anymore. We all know that. That's the reason that we're engaged in this theater. And I find it to be repugnant because again, as the Ranking Member has articulated, real harm is coming to people. These TSA agents who've been working for weeks without pay. Now, Chairman Cole, you I wrote something else down during your opening statement. You said quote, that constituents are tired of bills passing in the dead of night. Remember saying that?

Correct.

Okay. Do you remember where you were on Thursday, July 3rd in the middle of the night?

No, I don't.

I remember. Because we were both on the floor of the House as Republicans passed in the dead of night tax breaks for the richest Americans. Let me read you a few headlines. I don't I didn't ask you a question, Chairman Cole. Sleep-deprived lawmakers stay up all night to pass the big beautiful bill. Republicans advance Trump's big beautiful bill in unusual late-night vote. Dead of night, Dems accuse GOP of cowardice over late-night votes on Trump's big beautiful budget bill. Intentionally hiding, GOP tries to sneak through Medicaid cuts in the dead of night. This was not like a decade ago. This was 18 months ago. I remember these votes as I'm sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do. So I you know, thou doth protest a little too much. I get it, I understand why you're opposed on the merits to this proposal, Mr. Chairman, but the Speaker's comments in his press conference, dead of night votes and outrageous how the Senate could have done so and all the rest is just it's a little bit too much for me.

May I respond?

I know your response, so I'm going to jump onto the...

No, actually you don't know my response.

I think you'll make that in any event. I have limited time, I have one more question.

No, I in this committee you don't have limited time.

Well, under you, Mr. Chairman, we pine for the days under Chairman Cole, of course that was true. That's no longer the case. I haven't been my experience in this committee. I think the Chair is enormously generous with time. Things have changed here. Regardless of who the Chair is, by the way. It's unfortunate. I agree with you. I want to read you one more thing. Sure. This is a tweet from the House Freedom Caucus from about two hours ago, I guess. Says quote, "Why on earth would we hand them exactly what they want by keeping the deportation wing unfunded? We hold the leverage. Don't surrender it." What leverage are they referring to, Mr. Cole?

I suspect they first we have the majority in the House, which we do. That's why we've passed funding the government three or four times. And by the way, all but one of those bills you overwhelmingly or not overwhelmingly, but you agreed that was bipartisan.

The leverage is the majority of the House. The majority is not Mr. Cole. I don't think that you would make a statement like this because I think you know what they're referring to. The leverage are ultimately the hardworking TSA agents, the folks in the various sub-agencies in the cybersecurity and Coast Guard and all the rest. The Freedom Caucus is making very clear that if we pass the Senate bill tonight, their leverage, meaning the hardworking TSA agents who would ultimately not get paid, dissipates. And that is why they convinced the Speaker...

That would not be my interpretation.

Well, I I I'll look forward to your statement saying that we have that you hold the leverage. I don't think that I would imagine that you would use those words. I suspect you would not because we all know what they're really getting at. In any event, I digress. I would just simply say this. We're going to have an opportunity tonight. For the Republican members on the conference call earlier who apparently bemoaned this proposal by the Speaker, this plan that you all have conjured up. For those who I think Chairman McGovern said Ranking Member McGovern said some Republican members supposedly called it stupid and all the rest, they're going to have a chance to do the right thing. Because if we defeat the previous question on the floor, the Senate bill will get a vote. And I have no doubt, no doubt that if the Senate bill gets a vote, it will pass by an overwhelming margin. So all we need, all we need are a handful of Republicans. I'm not talking a lot. Five, six, maybe four House Republicans to defeat the previous question and TSA agents can get paid tonight. I hope they do the right thing. I yield back, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Neguse. I want to make a quick comment. We passed the Working Families Tax Cut Act at 7:30 in the morning, if I remember right. It wasn't in the dead of night. I believe it was at 7:30 in the morning. Okay. So you scheduled a rules hearing for 2:00 AM. You have the audacity to... 1:00 AM, 1:00 AM, sorry. What are we talking about? They called the vote. Yeah. Madam Chair, Madam Chair, Madam Chair, Madam Chair. Okay. I know we're giving you guys a lot to laugh about, but I want to say Democrats always want us to flex and defend Article I, but that seems to end as we cross the rotunda or a bill is rushed from over at that side. Ms. Houchin, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will want to yield some time to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith.

Thank you very much, Ms. Houchin. I have to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, I am vexed and offended when words are put into the mouths into my mouth that are not accurate. I am a proud member of the Freedom Caucus. And I know that the leverage is votes on the floor, not the TSA workers. This place is about voting and voting in in the way you feel is right and appropriate. And when the Freedom Caucus says that we have the leverage, what they're talking about is we have a block of votes in the United States House of Representatives and we use those votes to try to move this nation in a direction that we believe is the right direction in which to go. I know my colleagues don't agree with that and that's fine. You don't have to agree with that, but don't imply that when we say we have the leverage that we're using hardworking TSA workers as that leverage. No, it's the leverage of a vote on the floor of the House and the leverage of the vote here in the Rules Committee. I yield back to Ms. Houchin.

Do you have a majority of votes? Because a majority of votes would pass this.

Thank you. Mr. McGovern, I did not yield time to you.

I didn't know you were yielding. I thought it was just talking.

Ms. Houchin. Thank you. Not Mr. McGovern. I've asked you not to interrupt. I appreciate it, Madam Chair, but I just want to make one point. No. Mr. McGovern, this is not your time. You're out of the time. I'm sorry. No, you do not have the time, Mr. McGovern. Sorry.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Cole, I would like to give you time to respond to the gentleman's characterization that the Working Families Tax Cuts Act was a tax giveaway for the rich.

It was a what?

The gentleman from Colorado... Wait, let me listen to the question. Yes, would you... The gentleman from Colorado characterized the Working Families Tax Cuts Act as a tax giveaway for the rich. I wanted to give you an opportunity to respond.

Well, it certainly was not that. I don't know very many rich people that rely on tips to get their pay. I don't know very many rich people that do overtime. I don't know very many people that get Social Security tax rebates because that's all they have to live on, and that's an effort to help move them in the right direction. So no, I would not characterize it as that. I think it's an incredibly complex, sweeping piece of legislation. And I'll add, there's a big difference between voting on something you've been debating for months and voting on something that was not only voted on in the dark, it was written in the dark. It was written within hours and presented. So I don't consider them a comparison at all. I understand the effort to get the bill done by the Fourth of July, which was an exceptional achievement. But the idea that it wasn't thoroughly discussed, debated, go through committees, move back and forth. As a matter of fact, that was the second time the House had dealt with it. It had voted it over the first time, the Senate had changed it, and then we had to deal with that and move the bill. So again, I think it's an apples and oranges comparison.

Chairman Cole, does the child tax credit only benefit rich Americans?

No, obviously not.

Does the small business pass-through deduction only benefit rich Americans?

Obviously not.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so let's just be clear. The government is not shut down because of Republicans. The government is shut down because Democrats in the Senate have not voted to fund it.

The Department of Homeland Security. I want to be... because I do want to give my Democratic... look, we got 11 bills done. And this House got all 12 bills done. And we sent the Senate the bill in the form and the manner it asked for to pass it with an agreement with Senate Democrats they were going to pass it. They changed. So you know, but again, I particularly want to commend the ranking member here. A lot of Democrats helped pass these bills. That's why they're almost all, I mean they are bipartisan, they're bicameral. Even the ones that were contested had some Democratic votes. So again, it's a bipartisan achievement and we're very lucky. And I compliment my friends on the other side of the aisle because they were a huge part of this. We could be sitting here in a total government shutdown, the middle of a war. And that did not happen because Democrats and Republicans worked together. More pressure on Democrats in my opinion to do that, particularly my friend. And I will never forget that. That was an exceptional act of political courage and I think working through regular order and give-and-take negotiation where we both ended up with bills that we would have written differently if we were king of the world or queen of the world. But we're not. And we worked together. So again, but in this case, no question, and that's not House Democrats. It is Senate Democrats who broke their word.

Thank you, and thank you for that clarification. So the Department of Homeland Security is not being funded because of Democrat votes in the Senate. Correct. We've heard comment today about there's zero chance that what we're doing here will become law, but there's also zero chance in the House that the Senate bill is going to become law. We've heard comments that this is no way to govern, but is it any way to govern partially funding the federal agency responsible for our national security at a time when we face unprecedented risks and the Biden administration let in thousands of known terrorists into the country?

In my opinion, it's not the appropriate way to govern.

And not just known terrorists were let into the country under the Biden administration, there were also at least two million or more gotaways, people we don't even know who they are, where they came from or their status or as whether they're on the terrorist watchlist or not.

Correct. I mean, I've been mystified by people don't want to fund the Border Patrol of all agencies. Probably been the most successful agency, you know, in history. I would have never believed they could turn around the situation on the border as rapidly as they did. And it shows how adept their management was before the arrival of President Trump versus after because they've accomplished what was unbelievable. We've had no known illegal entries into the country in months. Why do you want to not fund that agency that has delivered that to you?

And just recently, ICE arrested a criminal illegal alien from Uzbekistan wanted in his origin country for belonging to a terrorist organization. ICE arrested an illegal alien from Honduras and a leader of MS-13 known as Fantasma who was wanted in his home country for killing four people. ICE arrested an illegal alien wanted in his origin country of India for connection with terrorist activities that included planning one more than one dozen grenade attacks on police officials. ICE arrested a criminal illegal alien and MS-13 leader from El Salvador. He faces an Interpol red notice from El Salvador for drug trafficking and conspiracy to commit murder. Just a few months ago, ICE agents arrested more than 150 illegal alien sex offenders during a major enforcement surge across the state of Florida. The operation targeted child predators, rapists, violent criminal illegal aliens with convictions including sexual assault of minors, rape, lewd conduct, child exploitation, battery, and attempted homicide. In total, more than 230 criminal illegal aliens including 150 sexual predators were arrested and off our streets thanks to ICE. All of these operations will be negatively impacted by this defund effort by Democrats. And let me be clear, the people doing these jobs are the people the Democrats don't want to pay, and they are American citizens with families too. The Democrats are the ones that are picking which employees should be paid. The Democrats are singling out, holding hostage, and using the American people as pawns for a false premise that we're somehow voting on this DHS... they're voting against the DHS funding because they want reforms, yet in the Senate bill there are zero reforms that they asked for. But now that the bill sets this total amount for spending on these agencies that are so important to our national security, setting those at zero, they don't care about ICE and Border Patrol. They don't care about the people doing these very difficult jobs because they want border chaos and crime in the streets. Otherwise, they would have secured the border under the Biden administration. But regular people, this is a comment made by one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, he said regular people are getting screwed. Regular people are getting screwed, like the families of American citizens who have been killed by illegal immigrants. Like Laken Riley, a nursing student from Augusta University who was killed on February 22, 2024, while jogging on the University of Georgia campus. Her killer was a Venezuelan national who entered the country illegally in 2022. Like the family of Jocelyn Nungaray, age 12, who was sexually assaulted and strangled to death on June 16, 2024, by two Venezuelan nationals. Like the family of Rachel Morin, a mother of five who was raped and murdered while jogging on a popular trail in Maryland by an undocumented immigrant from El Salvador. Like the family of Luis Lopez, age 15, a teenager shot and killed in Kentucky in 2025 while attempting to protect his mother from an attempted rape by an illegal immigrant from Mexico. Like the family of Megan Boss, found dead in Illinois in April of 2025. Her body was discovered in a storage container. The suspect was an undocumented illegal immigrant from Mexico. Like the family of Ivory Smith, age seven, who was killed in a car crash by a Venezuelan national in Texas in 2024. Like the family of Christopher Babcock, age 62, a husband killed in a fatal hit-and-run in Morristown, New Jersey, in March of 2026 by a Mexican national who'd been released into the country in 2024. Like the family of Hallie Hegelson, age 18, and Brady Heiling, age 19, both killed in a 2025 car crash in Wisconsin by a Honduran national. The family of Melissa Powell, age 47, and her son Ryerdon, 16, killed in a 2024 car crash in Colorado caused by an undocumented immigrant from Honduras. Like the family of Karen Diamond, who died in June of 2025 following a Molotov cocktail attack at a pro-Israel event in Colorado. The suspect was an Egyptian national living on U.S. soil on an expired visa. Like the family of Aurelio Zunio Orbez, a taxi cab driver in New York who was strangled to death in December of 2025 by a Guatemalan national over a fare dispute. And the family of an 11-year-old girl in Georgia who was raped in early 2026 by an undocumented immigrant who also held her 10-year-old sister at knifepoint. And finally, the family of Brad Castner, a competitive four-wheeler racing champion from Holton, Indiana, in my district, who was killed on March 26, 2024, in a head-on collision near Seymour, Indiana, while on his way to work. The driver of the other vehicle was a 26-year-old undocumented immigrant with a history of driving without a license. These are the people that ICE are fighting for. These are the people that they're doing very difficult jobs and they deserve to be paid too. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.

They're being paid. They're being paid. Facts are facts. Facts are facts.

Ms. DeLauro. Ms. Leger Fernandez, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I think that what is really clear about what we're doing today has already been... the points have already been made. The Senate unanimously passed a bill that would fund TSA, fully fund TSA, fully fund the Coast Guard, fully fund FEMA, make sure that all of that work is done. And there is a decision made in the House to not bring it to the floor. So everybody on this panel who votes for this continuing resolution rule is basically going to be voting to keep all of that shut down. And one of your own members said in your caucus, if we're to be believed since none of our calls or conferences are ever private, that the shutdown's going to be on Republicans. And indeed it will be. And you will be voting for that because you know that the Senate's gone. You know that this will keep things closed. And I want to remind everybody that we've already gone through this. Last... a few days ago, three days ago, I read a representative... the Representative Jack's words on the floor where he said that this doesn't have anything to do about funding for CBP or ICE because they've already been funded under the big beautiful bill. I asked Chairman Cole, do you agree with that? And he said, yes, they have been substantially funded. So this isn't about funding what ICE might be doing. It is about keeping TSA without pay and all of those other agencies without pay. That's what you are doing. That is what you are doing. And I'm going to also quote from the chair. I asked him, if we passed Rosa DeLauro's bill, which was introduced 44 days ago, this isn't something that is new. How long ago, am I correct, was it 44 days?

45 days.

Sorry, it's been 45 days. This is not a dead in the night we haven't seen before. If we could fund TSA, FEMA, and Coast Guard immediately, is there support for that? Chairman Cole said, I don't know. I don't know that it would pass the Senate. If you're asking me if it can pass the House, I certainly believe it can, close quote. So that's the issue. We know that if you brought this bill to the floor, there would be your Republican colleagues who care enough about what's happening to their citizens, to their constituents, that they'd vote for this. That is what we're raising. But I want to say, I love, I don't know if you've noticed, but they're no longer saying the big beautiful bill. Right? It's no longer the big beautiful bill. That was the title of it. But Americans were so upset about how that big beautiful bill transferred money to the wealthy and the well-off and the billionaires and the biggest corporations that Republicans changed the name of it because people hated the fact that the big beautiful bill did all those really bad things. It was big, but it was big bad, right? It was big bad. And so they had to change it. And the reality is those tax cuts for tips, no taxes on tips, it's temporary. Ranking Member, are the tax cuts for the wealthy, are they temporary?

No, those are permanent. $4.5 trillion without the blink of an eye. And it's okay, the $1 trillion in the cuts to Medicaid. Whoa.

Right. And then the thing is, is Americans don't like none of what we are asking for would address ICE arresting those who have engaged in unlawful activity. Our 10 items are about should they be breaking down your door without a warrant? Should they be deporting citizens? Should they be arresting citizens? Another conversation I had with Chairman Cole, he doesn't think they should be detaining Native Americans. We agree on that. They shouldn't be detaining citizens. But I'm going to yield a few minutes to our Ranking Member.

No, I just want to because I want to respond to Ms. Houchin who left after she gave her, read her speech. But when she talked about the big beautiful bill and how great it was for regular people, according to JCT, people who make over $1 million a year will get their pockets lined. On average, these millionaires will have an additional $96,400 per year or $264 per day. And pennies for everybody else. For those earning less than $50,000 per year, the average benefit is $247 or 68 cents per day. You know, a laughable sum that won't even begin to cover the gaps from Republican deep cuts to essential programs and as a result of Trump's tariff tax. And I just also want to say, you know, I'm listening to my colleagues and look, I think we just we don't share the same values. I heard the gentlelady talk about, you know, why we need to continue to fund ICE without any checks, without any reforms. But, you know, we're expressing our concern here because we remember Renee Good and Alex Pretti, who got shot at point-blank by federal agents of the United States government. And we are moved to fight for reforms because we talk to U.S. citizens who are unjustly detained, people who have had their front doors broken down by ICE agents without a warrant, without a judicial warrant. I mean, people who have been mistreated, children who have been mistreated. That we don't believe that that's what the United States of America is about. And we believe we can do better. And the idea that we have, you want to talk about how we move forward, the Senate gave us a way and you're just blowing it. You're blowing it because what? The Freedom Caucus or whatever is using their leverage not for votes, but to deny members of the House the ability to vote on things. You know, that's just not the way this place is supposed to run. I yield back.

Thank you. And I would also point out that, you know, I find it incredibly hypocritical when we start listing issues with regards to sexual violence and sexual assaults given this administration's record. And it's not just the Epstein files and that they have refused to release half of those Epstein files. And we know who's in those Epstein's files over and over and over again and that there was a 13-year-old who was raped and beaten. Right? But at least 33 of the pardons that Trump issued following January 6 had other criminal charges. We've had some of those pardoned be convicted afterwards for egregious pedophilia and rape of children. Six for child sex crimes, two fatal reckless driving, and two rapes. But none of the reforms that we're going for would address ICE doing its job with regards to those who are engaged in unlawful activity. What we don't want them doing is beating up people because they look brown or they're Native American, maybe look Latino. That's what we say is wrong. Ranking Member DeLauro, isn't that what we are fighting for?

That's absolutely, I mean, that is what the overhaul is about. The reality, we all mourn all of the cases that have been brought up, mourn the tragedy of loss of life. But there's loss of life in terms of, you know, Renee Good and Alex Pretti. There's no one, they were immediately classified as terrorists, you know, in a nanosecond without any understanding of what happened. We all mourn the loss of life. And to go after those who have perpetrated these crimes and deport them, do what needs to be done. But we know the evidence is there's so much of it that talks about the inequities that have been applied to American citizens, to children, to people who speak a different language, to people whose color of their skin is different, just based on somebody just plucked off the street, sent to a detention camp. Families don't know where they are. That's real. We're not making that up in the same way I don't believe that Ms. Houchin is making up what she talked about. That's not right. But what's happening here is not right, which is why we need to address that. And that is what is absent here, the willingness to address the transgressions that are being made by these agencies, which we have an obligation and a moral responsibility to deal with. And that same moral responsibility to say we are going to make sure that TSA people and Coast Guard and FEMA and cybersecurity, those issues need to be addressed. That is what we are doing. That is what we had hoped would come forward that came from the Senate in a unanimous way and that we could move forward to getting this done and then focus on the various differences that we have on these other issues. And we know that you can hammer out differences in this institution. We have done that before. We did it with 11 appropriations bills. We can do this if there is the will and the goodwill to say we can't allow some of these things to happen. I appreciate it.

And that's why if we take off these areas where there isn't any debate and then let you guys go and negotiate, negotiate the four corners. And once again, I'm going to say it again because these are the words I'm going to quote the words of Representative Jack on the floor. He said, open quote, this debate is not about funding ICE or CBP. Those agencies were already fully funded through H.R. 1, the one big beautiful bill act, close quote. So I'm going to anticipate we're now going to hear, oh no, no, but we have to do it. But they were funded. They have the money, $50 billion, $70 billion, $140 billion. They have the money. Before we give them more money, let's make sure that they are not violating basic constitutional rights, that they are following the same procedures that my sheriffs, my police are following in New Mexico. And I asked last week whether Chairman Cole's sheriffs and officers were following basic procedures of, you know, warrants and wearing masks and I asked you. Everybody expects that. But today, what we are voting on today is whether you are going to go home and tell people on your line, I voted to fund TSA, FEMA, and Coast Guard. That's the vote today, not whatever happened three weeks ago. That's the vote today and you're going to vote for it. And I hope we get four Republicans who have the courage to stand up for their constituents, for their TSA agents, and vote with us on the motion to move the previous question because if we get that, we will vote on the Senate bill. There is an opportunity, Republicans, reach out to us, vote with us, join us in fully funding FEMA, Coast Guard, cybersecurity. You can do it. You can do it today. You can vote with us today. Where the money isn't there is in appropriations. The money in a reconciliation has not been dealt with. With that, if there is no other, I am the last Democrat. Do you want to?

Yeah, you've got one, two, three, four, five Republicans that still have to speak and I don't know why we would cut off. I was just Ms. DeLauro. I had asked her a question. I will ask her a final question. Ranking Member DeLauro, do you have a quick summary that you want to share with us?

Look, I'll just say the issue is the money through the Appropriations Committee. I don't approve of, I voted against the reconciliation bill, the big beautiful, whatever the hell you want to call it. But that is not being challenged. And in that bill, there is substantial amount of money, 75 ICE, 65 CBP, $10 billion in the slush fund. They have plenty of money to do what they want to do and to exercise the jurisdiction that they have, etc. And get out of the airports, go do your job, and let's get these other folks paid in the meantime. And with that, Madam Chair.

That was quite an altar call which she made. Thank you very much. Mr. Langworthy.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am not going to belabor this hearing anymore because I'm pretty sure anyone watching at home, it sounds about like the teacher on Charlie Brown at this point. But, you know, to listen to our colleagues trying to define the terms of debate and say that, you know, they're on the side of the angels when just yesterday they withheld their votes for the critical funding of these departments, I think is very hypocritical. Chairman Cole, do you have any responses to any of what we've just heard?

[Laughter.] Surely does. Probably better delivered over a cigar and with a stiff bourbon. So come down and see me sometime. But look, look, this is, we obviously have a different view on this. I hold to my position that the appropriate thing to do is fund the government and fully fund it and not to pick and choose which agencies you like. I don't see how you can ever write appropriations bills if it's done that way. And I think most of the additional funding that is available and that has been has been diverted from something else. That's the point. It was not there for this purpose. There was always an assumption the day-to-day operations of these agencies would be funded through regular order. These were things like extras, like the border wall or technology or a lot of things like that. But regardless, it's just better to work through the regular order. We've passed it here. The Democrats in the Senate, we have a majority in the Senate, people seem to lose that fact, a bipartisan majority. And the only thing standing in the way, and I'm never critical of this, look, I think filibuster's none of my business, I'd run for the United States Senate if I cared about it. It does impact what happens. And so, you know, a minority in both houses are deliberately stopping the day-to-day operation of government. A minority. And the only reason they couldn't get away with it in this house because we're a majority rule. Senate has a different approach. That's their rule and the Republicans feel very strongly about that. They think it protects minority rights. I would say this has been an abuse of minority power consistently throughout the appropriations process by the United States Senate. And why? Because when Senator Schumer did the right thing in the FY 24 bill and accepted a CR rather than the shutdown, he just got the political stuffings beaten out of him by the Democrats, led by House Democrats, I must say. And so now we see a very different behavior. And I think we see one that is not constructive, that led to the longest shutdown in American history and produced no result. If there was any results, it had to be political. That must be what my friends celebrate because it didn't change one thing. And now we're seeing the same thing play out here again. So, you know, I regret that, but I'm proud that we got 95 percent of the government funded and that was done with my friend's cooperation here at this table and and other many other Democrats as well. Most of us were not. I think that's what we should do here. I don't think this is an appropriate use of leverage. And I also would just add parenthetically, I don't think smearing an entire group of people, 95, 98, 99 percent of whom are federal law enforcement officials trying to do the right thing, is ever the right thing to do. I don't think comparing American law enforcement, as I've heard some people do, to the Gestapo or the SS is ever the right thing to do. And if mistakes were made, my goodness, the president has changed leadership at the department. He's negotiated seriously, made numerous changes and what have you. It seems to me it doesn't matter what he says, they simply won't accept yes. It's never, ever enough. And this is more about politics than it is about change. That's my view. I know other people have a different view. I accept that and respect that. Yield back.

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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to bring this back to the subject matter at hand and which is H.R. 7147. I mean, that's what we're discussing, is it not, Mr. Cole? And and on January 22nd of this year, the House voted 220 to 207 to pass that measure with seven Democrats voting yes and one Republican voting no, according to the the call logs. There have since then been multiple votes in the Senate. 52 to 47, so the majority voted in favor of the piece of legislation coming to the floor where it would no doubt pass if the vote were allowed to come to the floor in the Senate. 50 to 45, 51 to 45, 51 to 46, 47 to 37. And then most recently, which was yesterday, 53 to 47. So the majority of the senators voted yes on the same piece of legislation that had passed the House 220 to 207, at least procedurally to bring the vote to the floor. So if we want to talk about procedure and about how democracy is supposed to work, the majority of the people are are in in the House and the Senate are in favor of passing H.R. 7147. Is that a fair statement, Mr. Cole?

Yes, it is.

Now, there were there were four members on the floor last night plus Mr. Marino, who was presiding. Now, I'll give him a little bit of a pass because he's presiding and typically the presiding officer doesn't offer objections or motions, they simply rule over the procedure. But the the other four members, Eric Schmitt, John Thune, Brian Schatz, and Andy Kim. Interestingly enough, Andy Kim is the one I know best and I like Andy, I think he's an honest person. I disagree with him politically on a lot of things, but I want to read you what Andy Kim said at 3:00 AM. And and let me back up. The bill, it this was not yesterday morning, this was this morning. In my understanding, Mr. Cole, is that the language was not actually introduced until after midnight today, which would be this morning. Correct?

I think that is correct.

And the and so somewhere between midnight, because it says it was introduced on the 27th, and 2:00 AM, it was somewhere in the 2:10 AM range at the, do we know exactly what time the non-vote happened? 2:10, 2:30?

I think it was 2:20, I think.

2:20, is that what you said, ma'am? Okay, I'll I'll accept that. Some somewhere in that range. But the but the language was not actually introduced on the 26th, it was introduced on the 27th. What and then less than two and a half hours later, it was adopted. There was no roll call vote on it. There was no roll call vote from the Senate. Now, if there had been a roll call vote, I would be more willing to have a discussion on on procedure and other things. But let me let me read what Mr. Kim said. Just leaving the Capitol now at 3:00 AM as I wanted to be on the Senate floor through final passage of the vote to end the shutdown. As we promised, there was no funding for ICE without the reforms Americans demanded. TSA and our airports fully funded. TSA and our airports fully funded, zero for ICE. So zero funding for ICE. So this piece of legislation strips all of the funding for ICE out. It also strips the funding for Customs and Border Patrol. Is that is that an accurate statement, Mr. Cole?

I believe that is an accurate statement.

And and that is not what, but that and that is not what the majority of the members of Congress want. Is that also an accurate statement, Mr. Cole?

That would be my my assessment as well.

The majority of the members of Congress in the House, 220 to 207, have voted to fund DHS including ICE and Customs and Border Patrol. Will the gentleman yield? In just a second, I will give you a second, Ms. DeLauro, out of respect for you, I will give you a second. But the majority of members of the House, 220 to 207, voted to fund, voted to pass H.R. 7147, which is what we're talking about here. The majority of the members of the Senate want to pass it. But Senator Schumer won't allow the vote to come to the floor. And so we're left with the option of sending a continuing resolution. President Trump has said he's going to fund, going to make sure TSA agents get paid and he should. But I just want to, you know, for the record, for the American citizens to know, the vast majority of the members of Congress have voted for 7147 or voted to allow it to come to the Senate. And it is the Democrats on procedure that are stopping the bill from moving forward where it would fund ICE and Customs and Border Patrol and there was an agreement before we sent it across to them and then they turned around and went back on the agreement in the Senate.

Senate Democrats, that's correct.

Yes, Senate Democrats. And Senate Republicans absolutely capitulated last night. I don't want to make any bones about it. This idea that we can fund TSA and Border Patrol through reconciliation, if we had done reconciliation first, you could make that argument, but no Senate Republican should be making the argument that we could do something through reconciliation that has not already been done.

And I would say predicting that is a high risk endeavor. So yeah, I don't think relying on something that hasn't happened to replace funding that you're taking away is something you can count on.

Ma'am, I'm I'm a minute and 15 seconds past. If if you can answer in 30 seconds, I'll I'll yield to you.

I'll be very happy to do that. Again, the the funding for ICE and CBP, and I'll get back to CBP in a moment, there is that's right, there is that was removed. There is no removal or no difference, there was no attack on the reconciliation bill that already passed that provided for billions. Now, let me just tell you about...

But you removed the ordinary funding.

Oh, we removed the appropriations funding as we said until until, yeah, until there was until they were worked out in terms of where we're going on ICE. Now, CBP, I just let me correct the record for you because I think you would like to know this. There's $11 billion in that bill for CBP and that is to deal with the inspection of imported goods. There's the money for duties, taxes and other fees, the seizing dollars for seizing pounds of illicit drugs, fentanyl, currency coming into our country. It is about taking care of the 1.21 million people coming through air, land, and seaports of entry, intercepting shipments produced with forced labor. So there is $11 billion in the Senate bill for CBP. Just so that you know and understand that. I'm not making it up.

I'm I'm not questioning your integrity, ma'am. I'm just telling you the vast the majority of the members of Congress have voted for 7147 with Customs and Border Patrol and ICE funded. I yield back.

Thank you. And Ms. DeLauro, thank you for giving us the specifics that have been funded there. Mr. Griffith, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I greatly appreciate it and I intend to vote in favor of what we're doing here in the Rules Committee and then later on the floor. It is interesting to me that in and it was foreseen in the past. We get into these huge fights, we've had several in this committee today, Madam Chair, about what the Senate is or isn't going to do. And in Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice and Procedure and for many years in the rules of this House, one was not to mention the actions of the Senate or the other body, the Senate had the same rule on the House actions in debate. And this is the very reason. Because we have a bicameral legislature, two houses. And the purpose of that is that each house is to make an independent decision. So arguing that we should do something because the Senate did something violates the very tenets of why we have two houses. If we wanted to be like Indonesia, where we had two houses but on the major issues to vote they came together to vote together on the big issues, then we should go to an Indonesian hybrid model or we should go and just have a unicameral legislature. But we have a bicameral legislature and I'm making an independent decision, notwithstanding whatever the Senate may have done in the dark of night or otherwise, and I can talk about how we debated in this committee for more than for almost 24 hours on the bill they talked about from last July. But I'm making an independent decision. And I think that looking at the facts before me as a member of the House and exercising the precepts of Jefferson's Manual that I will vote according to my conscience and according to what this House I think ought to be doing and not worry about whatever the Senate may or may not have done. I yield back.

Would the gentleman yield?

Gentleman yields.

One quick question. So then you agree with Chairman Cole when he said, and I put an asterisk beside it, the House and Senate have an equal say in legislation.

Absolutely. Absolutely an equal say and we're supposed to look at it a little bit differently. We're not supposed to walk monolithically one with the other. We're supposed to have different viewpoint and tonight we have a different viewpoint.

And do you remember my mentioning to you the other day that the House, the Senate is called the upper body only because they were on the second floor in New York.

Yes, ma'am. And Madam Chairman, if I might, I would say that you at one point said something about, you know, me being the historian. That was a fact I did not know. And so I was educated by the chairwoman in regard to the history of the so-called upper body. I always wondered how because as the representatives closest to the people, I've always felt like we were the superior body.

Amen. Agreed. That's one thing we all agree on. We all agree on that.

Gentleman, would he be in favor of different viewpoints being represented in the rule or is it just his view that can be brought to the floor and everybody else's is cut out? It's a question.

I'm not sure I don't understand and I don't think he's different.

I understand the question but I didn't yield I didn't yield my time for a question.

Oh I thought you did. The question was whether or not that the rule will represent different viewpoints or whether it will be only his viewpoint that will be represented in the rule.

And and I can answer Madam Chair even though I did not yield time to the gentleman to ask me a question but I'm happy to answer the question nonetheless and the answer is is that the rule represents the will of the majority. If I'm in the majority today then the rule will reflect my will. If I'm in the minority tomorrow the rule will not reflect my will. So it's not about my will it's about the principles of our democratic republic which rely on majoritarian rule and tonight I believe we're going to have the majority.

Well Madam Chair if I could just I mean the gentleman claims he's a historian. If you look at the history of the of the United States House of Representatives it hasn't always been my way of the highway. We have had situations where other people's viewpoints even in the minority have been allowed to have been debated and voted on. So I mean I I don't believe this absolutism that you just outlined is what this represents.

It is it is the tenet of our our I would say Madam Chairman that it is the tenet of our our basic government that we have majoritarian rule. There are times when the majority determines that it is appropriate to do things where you let members have a minority report or they get their time on the floor which is absolutely appropriate and fine but it is a majority rule body and that's the way we've been set up since the the beginning of the nation and and that's why I stand on those principles because it is what has led our country to be the greatest country on earth.

I'm glad I didn't learn history from you.

Thank thank you Mr. Griffith. Mr. Jack you're recognized.

Thank you Chairwoman and Chairman Cole I agree with you. It's obviously very political with what we're dealing and I think that Leader Schumer is very afraid of his base and that's why we continue to find ourselves in the positions that we do but just in closing this out I would ask you you know some members of this committee tried to frame this vote or frame a vote on the ordering the previous question. I would welcome for you framing for the audience and the thousands of people watching online what is the vote this afternoon this evening when we take the vote and and if you're voting against this continuing resolution what are you voting against?

Well if you're voting against the continuing resolution you're voting to shut down the government or these agencies that are affected by this continuing resolution. A number of agencies have already been fully funded and not contested here but specifically Department of Homeland Security. If you vote against this you're voting not to fund it. You're voting to shut it down. I think that's very unwise. You can have complaints you can have differences but we all know 95 percent of what this agency does is non-controversial is non-partisan is protecting American citizens. And and in an agency this large is everybody an angel? Probably not. But are almost everybody really dedicated patriots who make a great sacrifice for this country and put themselves at risk for this country? Absolutely so. And if we have a bad actor we make a mistake we do an investigation we make a correction we don't shut down a whole agency. And we certainly don't shut it down at the height of international danger where we're involved in military activity overseas against a known sponsor the largest sponsor state terrorism in 50 years. And we know there are people that come in this country. Ms. Houchin gave a long list of people where you know Americans had been damaged by the policies pursued by the last administration let a lot of people in here and without adequate vetting or screening and then gets in the way of trying to apprehend those people and get them out of the country. So again I I don't doubt anybody's sincerity in this debate whatever their position is but it is the point and several of you have made it. Look a majority of both chambers have voted repeatedly to fund the government. This is about a minority in the House and a majority a minority in the Senate obstructing the majority in both chambers. They can only do that. Constitution doesn't say you get to do this. The law doesn't say but Senate rules do. And I and again I respect Senate rules they have the right to to structure their chamber. But I will say to solve your problem and dump it over here in the middle of the night you know is a strange procedure and then leave town before anybody can react to it. Not something I would be proud of if I were a United States Senator. I don't think it's the right way to to operate whether you're Republican or Democrat. And I think it was a deliberate act to exclude this chamber from its constitutional prerogatives and authority and inappropriately done but you know others would see it differently and that's fair enough. Yield back.

And I think it's fair to say too right this is a temporary extension 60 days CR. A vote against this is also a vote against talks. It's a vote against negotiation.

I think it's like an eight week CR.

Eight weeks CR. It's but it's a vote against talks and negotiation and deliberation is it not?

I think that is true. And you know I I would have hoped we would take another extension. It's not often we quite often have three four five day extensions as something is worked through. We should stay and work this through. And and both chambers should do that in my opinion although again we've done our job. When you've passed it and sent it over there repeatedly and then you wait for what comes back. And nothing came back quite a few times and now this has come back and the other body sent it back without even the patience to wait and see how this body would react to it. How it would regard it. That's wrong. That's no way to govern. And I think there was a I think both parties on the other side were equally guilty of this because they both had to cooperate to make it happen.

Madam Chair I yield back.

Madam Chair can I correct can I just make a quick comment about correcting the record? I wish Ms. Houchin were here. This is very simple. I've been here for a long time and I've been here through shutdowns and I think Ms. Houchin said that we don't you know do something like carving out of a particular function etc. during this time. I can very readily recall in a shutdown where we found that there were unless we had our food inspectors going into our meat and poultry plants every day that we couldn't produce food. Therefore they were carved out. The same was true with the air traffic controllers so forth. The same has been true with the military and the same has been true when when the Coast Guard which is part of DHS when we felt that they were being harmed that they would necessarily be organized with defense so that they could be paid. So it is this is not something that is brand new. And I think it just important for the history of the institution to to understand that.

Well I think what you've just described is people being opted in not people being opted out. So thank you very much Ms. DeLauro and thank you Mr. Jack. Is there anyone else seeking to testify on the Senate amendment to H.R. 7147? Seeing none this closes the hearing portion of our meeting and I thank our two witnesses for being here.

Thank you Madam Chair. I just heard Mr. Jack say that we're voting tonight. Is that accurate?

I was about to make an announcement Mr. McGovern. If you would well dead of night. The whip has the whip has just announced that we could have votes as early as 8:00 p.m. but please stay tuned to additional updates.

So it could be middle of the night. And when would we be on the floor? Because I want to be ready.

Well can we proceed and then we'll get there quicker if you'll allow us to proceed. Okay let's go. The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentlewoman from Minnesota Mrs. Fischbach.

Thank you Madam Chair. The rule provides that the House shall be considered to have taken from the speaker's table H.R. 7147 with the Senate amendment thereto and to have concurred in the Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the text of the Rules Committee print 119-21.

Thank you very much Mrs. Fischbach. You have now heard the motion is there any discussion or amendment to the rule?

So just so just a clarification so if I'm reading this rule correctly when we pass the rule this will be deemed passed?

No we are we are

So so there's no there's a debate on the rule but no debate on this on this thing?

Correct.

All right talk about you know procedures. But anyway I don't want to get into that because anything the House Republicans do is just perfect and is above reproach. I mean give me a break. I mean this is

Okay Mr. McGovern.

I have an amendment. I move the committee

Mr. McGovern. Since we seem to have selective memory let me remind you that during the 117th Congress House Democrats deemed 29 items total including two budget resolutions. We understand that this is a tool the majority that should be used only when necessary. We've had extensive time to debate our differences on funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Pardon me. It's time we stop holding the over 100,000 DHS workers' paychecks hostage. Let's let's expeditiously pass this continuing resolution so our homeland defenders can get immediately paid and Congress has more time to come to an acceptable agreement that will not jeopardize keeping our board that will not jeopardize keeping our borders secure and our nation safe.

I appreciate that, Madam Chair, but I have a little whiplash. I think I need a neck brace from listening to you guys who were complaining about the fact that the Senate didn't have a record vote on final passage of what they sent to us, and we're going to vote on a rule to deem something passed and not have a record vote on the final passage of this continuing resolution. But anyway, you're in charge. You can do whatever the hell you want to do. And I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee strike all after concurred in the Senate amendment so that the rule hereby concurs in the Senate amendment without an amendment and sends the bipartisan Senate bill to the President's desk. Madam Chair, this morning, the Senate unanimously passed compromise legislation that would fund all the law-abiding agencies under the Department of Homeland Security. Not a single senator objected. Not a single Republican senator objected. There were Republican senators on the floor. The Senate is controlled by Republicans. This could not have been voted on without the Senate Majority Leader paving the way for it to be voted on, and he's a Republican. This bipartisan solution would make sure that TSA employees are paid, FEMA employees are paid, CISA employees are paid, and our Coast Guard is paid. And if Speaker Johnson would just put the damn bill on the floor of the House for an up-or-down vote, we all know it would pass. We could end the shutdown today, end the long wait times, end the chaos across the country's, our nation's airports, and make sure that hardworking federal employees can finally, finally, finally receive their long-overdue paychecks. And I'm sure if this was allowed to receive a vote on the floor, many, many, many, many Republicans would support it, maybe even a couple on this panel. That's what this motion does. It allows for a vote on the compromise bill that just passed unanimously in a bipartisan way through the United States Senate. And instead of a vote on your partisan two-month CR that we already know will not become law. And it is crazy to me that any so-called reasonable or moderate Republican, if there are any left, would go along with this extremist plan by Speaker Johnson that would keep all of DHS shut down, including TSA and FEMA. We know this is a two-month CR, this two-month CR is a stunt. It is a non-starter. It will not become law. And look, I know some of my Republican colleagues want to stop the games and stop the endless partisan politics and just pay these federal workers. And I know that because many of you have told me that in private. Earlier this week, when I offered a motion specifically on paying TSA agents, Congressman Langworthy and Congresswoman Houchin voted with Democrats to do that. But the rest of the Republicans on the other side of the aisle blocked that bill from even getting a vote on the House floor. Now is the time to stand up against far-right extremism and take the deal. You know, let's have a vote on the Senate bill. Let's actually do something to help people rather than to screw them over. And so I urge a yes vote on my motion, and I yield back my time.

Is there further discussion or debate on Mr. McGovern's motion? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say no.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. The amendment's not agreed to.

That sounded close. I'd like a roll call, please.

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

Mrs. Fischbach.

No.

Mrs. Fischbach votes no. Mr. Norman. Mr. Roy. Mrs. Houchin.

No.

Mr. Roy, no. 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.

Aye.

[Coughing.] Excuse me. Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernandez.

Aye.

Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye. Madam Chair.

No.

Madam Chair, no.

The clerk will report the total.

Four ayes, eight nos.

The amendment is not agreed to. Is there any further discussion or debate? Hearing none, no further discussion, the question's on the motion from the gentlewoman from Minnesota. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

No.

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

Ask for a roll call.

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

Mrs. Fischbach.

Yes.

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

Mr. Roy.

Aye.

Mr. Roy, aye. 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.

No.

Mr. Neguse, no. Ms. Leger Fernandez.

No.

Ms. Leger Fernandez, no. Madam Chair.

Aye.

Madam Chair, aye.

The clerk will report the total.

Eight ayes, four nays.

The ayes have it. The motion to report is agreed to. Representative Fischbach will manage the rule for the majority.

I will.

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