Defending American Property Abroad Act of 2026

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Oh, my God, Mr. Speaker, it is pretty unbelievable that this is what House Republicans are spending time on right now. Wow. I mean, every time I think they can't do any worse, my Republican friends always defy expectations.

People are standing in long lines at airports. Flights are delayed. Travelers are confused, and they are frustrated. TSA officers are stretched thin, exhausted, being jerked around because Republicans cannot govern responsibly even though they control everything.

Now, let me set the record straight from the outset. Democrats are ready

to fund the people and agencies that actually protect the public: TSA, FEMA, and the Coast Guard. We agree they need full funding, and I think there are more than a few Republicans who would join with us in that.

Just last night in the Rules Committee, two Republican Members, including the gentlewoman from Indiana, voted with Democrats on a motion to fund the TSA. I thank her for doing that, but that vote failed because Republicans voted against making it in order. Clearly, there has to be some bipartisan appetite to try to get this thing resolved.

I mean, take for instance Senate Majority Leader John Thune, the Republican who offered a deal to fund the Department outside of ICE which, by the way, already has years of funding due to the Republicans' big, ugly bill. You know the big, ugly bill, the bill that gave millionaires and billionaires tax cuts, that cut SNAP by $200 billion, that cut Medicaid by a trillion dollars. They actually snuck in more funding for ICE and CBP in that.

The Republican-manufactured crisis could have been over, but that deal was shot down by Trump who said, in Republican Senator John Kennedy's words: ``No deals with the Democrats.'' He continued: ``It would have worked. We could have had TSA paid by the end of the week, but the President said, `no deal'.''

What is wrong with him? What is going on here? Let's be clear about what happened over the past few days. The Republican President tanked a deal offered by the Republican Senate Majority Leader to get us out of this crisis. This is the worst kind of politics, and it is why people are sick and tired of this Republican Congress.

TSA agents continue to go unpaid, and FEMA and the Coast Guard continue to go without funding, all because President Trump decided to throw another temper tantrum. But Democrats are not in charge. Republicans control the House. I wish they didn't, but they do. Republicans control the Senate. I wish they didn't, but they do. Republicans control the White House. It is a disaster for America that a Republican controls the White House, but it is the reality.

If they wanted to solve this, they could solve it.

Now Trump is causing further chaos by sending ICE into airports. ICE agents are not trained to do TSA's job. Sending immigration agents into airports does not fix a staffing crisis. It makes things more chaotic, more intimidating, more ridiculous.

Passing the same DHS bill today--for a third time--is a gigantic waste of time. Now, there is a clear solution to this crisis, but it means my Republican colleagues need to stand up to Trump for once in their lives.

In addition to failing to fund the Department of Homeland Security, this rule does a whole lot of nothing when it comes to helping regular people. It includes a nonbinding resolution to say that Congress supports DHS. Boy, that is just what TSA agents want, a nonbinding resolution to say: Hi, how you doing? I mean, that will pay the bills. Give me a break.

Also included are a bill about a single port in Mexico and another bill about graffiti in D.C. I mean, are you kidding me? Are they serious when they bring this stuff to the floor? I hate to tell you, but costs are up and anxiety is up. The country is in trouble, and the President's recklessness abroad is making an already difficult economic picture even more dangerous for working families here at home.

Donald Trump has dragged this country into another stupid, illegal war in the Middle East, and there is no doubt about it, working people are going to pay the price. Gas prices are already up $1 a gallon because of this nonsense. For what? For what?

Yesterday, Trump was bragging that we ``won.'' We won what? Reuters reported at the same time that his administration was preparing to send thousands more U.S. troops into the region. I mean, that is not a strategy. That is not strength. That is a President pretending the war is over while taking steps to drag us in deeper.

Let's not forget the dishonesty here. Last Friday, Trump acted like further bombing might be held off because substantial talks were happening. Talks with whom? Iran has denied there were direct negotiations. They say talks hadn't even begun.

Once again, this administration says whatever it thinks the markets want to hear, whatever it thinks the public wants to hear, and the truth comes later, if it comes at all.

That is what is so infuriating about all of this. These guys, they don't care that regular people are hurting. They don't care that families are barely keeping their heads above water. They don't care that parents are worried about prices or that military families are worried about where their sons and daughters are being sent and why. These guys don't care that TSA officers have been left hanging while Republicans play games with basic funding.

Let me say this as clearly as I possibly can: Republicans own this. They own this. They have the power of agenda-setting. They could fix this in a nanosecond. If they put a bill on the floor today to fund TSA or FEMA or any of the law-abiding agencies, it would pass the House and it would pass the Senate. But that is not what the House leadership is doing. It is a choice, and Republicans own it.

I do want to just say one other thing, Mr. Speaker. I mean, when the gentlewoman and other Republicans talk about how much they care about our Federal workforce, I have got to tell you, it rings hollow. Where on Earth have Republicans been for the past year and a half when Donald Trump has repeatedly gone after hardworking Federal employees? Where have they been?

Trump has said Federal workers are ``destroying this country.'' He called them ``crooked'' and ``dishonest.'' Russell Vought, Trump's own Director of Management and Budget, said he wanted Federal workers ``to be traumatically affected. When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work, because they are increasingly viewed as the villains.'' That is this administration.

Where have my Republicans been defending Federal workers? These are hardworking Americans, Mr. Speaker. They help ensure that we have clean water. They help our veterans get healthcare. They help older adults access the Social Security benefits that they have earned. They help small businesses thrive. They have been treated like garbage by this administration, and nobody on the other side bothers to stand up for these Federal workers.

On day one of this administration, Trump and his DOGE goons laid out their plan to tear apart our Federal workforce. They went on a witch hunt, carrying out mass terminations across government and cruelly forcing longtime, upstanding Federal employees out of their jobs.

Republicans in this Chamber cheered that on, even though it caused harm to everyday Americans, people that they represented. Where was everybody? Where the hell were they all?

Where were my Republican colleagues--and this is rich--when Kristi Noem said she was going to get rid of FEMA, abolish FEMA? They are on the floor today saying we have got to pay our FEMA workers. Where were they when Kristi Noem was saying we should abolish the entire agency? How about when Trump abruptly fired 400 DHS employees at the beginning of 2025? Where were they all? Where have they been as Trump is tearing apart the U.S. Department of Agriculture, shuttering offices, forcing longtime staff out of their jobs to the detriment of our farmers, hungry families, and food supply?

I mean, House Republicans are supporting this nonsense, this theater that we are dealing with here today on the House floor.

Let me be clear: I want TSA workers to get their paychecks. I want FEMA fully operational. That is why I have been on record for weeks trying to reopen these agencies. That is why Democrats have continuously forced votes on reopening all of these lawful agencies and departments.

Please, don't pretend that Republicans have always been on the side of Federal workers. Trump has made their lives unbearable through the chaos he has inflicted upon them, and Republicans in this Chamber haven't done a damn thing to stop him.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I feel like my head is about to explode with all this nonsense that is being thrown out here.

Let's just state for the record that ICE has years of funding because of the big, ugly bill, tens of billions of dollars that they put in that bill, again, the bill that gave millionaires and billionaires tax cuts and that screwed over poor people by cutting SNAP by $200 billion. They cut Medicaid by a trillion dollars in that bill where they snuck in tens of billions of dollars.

The gentleman doesn't respond. He left. That is fine. I get it, but that is just the reality. I don't know what the hell he is talking about.

To the extent that maybe there was an informal agreement on how to proceed, there might have been, but that was before ICE murdered U.S. citizens, before they murdered U.S. citizens.

I am sorry that people on the other side don't think that that is outrageous or terrible or awful, but we do. We do, our constituents do, and I know your constituents do.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 7481, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2026, sponsored by Ranking Member DeLauro, a bill which only funds law-abiding agencies under the Department of Homeland Security and not the unlawful actions of ICE and

Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and the sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, we want disaster relief more than anybody. We have been fighting for that. We have been fighting to protect FEMA.

Again, where were the Republicans when Kristi Noem and this administration were leading the effort to actually eliminate FEMA and get rid of everybody? I mean, where were you?

The gentlewoman says we need to fund unlawful agencies like ICE and CBP to protect American citizens? I mean, are you kidding me? I mean, was that real? I can't believe I heard that.

ICE has gassed schools. It has detained off-duty police officers. It shot and murdered two American citizens. I mean, that is your idea of protecting the American people?

ICE right now has more money in their bank account than most of the world's militaries spend in a year. I will say that one more time: ICE already has more money in their bank account than most of the world's militaries spend in a year. Yet, they are asking that we give them more.

The reforms that the gentlewoman talks about, give me a break. I mean, we have raised issues about masks. We believe that you ought to have judicial warrants before you break down somebody's door. We believe that ICE agents ought to identify themselves and the agencies that they are with. We don't believe you should be able to deport U.S. citizens. We want those written into the law. I don't think any of those ideas are radical.

Yet, the gentlewoman talks about reforms? I mean, come on.

Again, we have an opportunity right now to fund all of the lawful agencies. Your beloved ICE and CBP unfortunately still have tens of billions of dollars that you guys gave them in the big, ugly bill. They still have money.

We can fund everything right now, and we can support our TSA agents and FEMA, the Coast Guard, and everybody that we believe we all say we want to help. We can do that right this second, and, yet, that is not happening.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman just admitted the sad reality that ICE and CBP have billions of dollars already. I guess it doesn't bother her that two Americans were killed and murdered or that we have seen the excesses of ICE and CBP time and time again breaking into people's homes without judicial warrants. I am sorry that the gentlewoman feels that it is somehow a radical idea to ask somebody who may detain you who they are and who they are with. I don't know why that is such a radical idea.

What we are saying is: Why do you want to give them billions of dollars more? ICE already has more money than most countries spend on their militaries in a year, and you want to give them more money?

Here is the deal. What we are doing here in the House is a joke. I mean, it is embarrassing. I am embarrassed for this House and for this institution because my friends know full well that this is not going to pass in the Senate.

They know how we get to ``yes,'' and that is to exempt ICE and CBP from this bill. Everything else gets funded. If you want Democratic votes, that is what you need to do.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans control everything. They control the House, the Senate, and the White House. I love it. They are in control of everything, and they blame everything on Democrats, on somebody else. They take no responsibility.

I am really surprised that the gentlewoman hasn't blamed Joe Biden yet in her speech, which my Republican friends always do. I think they will go back to Bill Clinton in the not-too-distant future because they always find people to blame, but they take no responsibility.

If you are in charge, you have the responsibility not only to set the agenda but also to lead. That is what the American people are asking for: some leadership, some truth, and some honesty. We are not getting any of that.

Mr. Speaker, I will talk about something different right now. I realize that I may sound like a broken record talking each week about the dysfunction of this Republican-led Congress, but, unfortunately, for you and for my colleagues across the aisle and for the American people, it just seems to be getting worse and worse as this Republican majority keeps setting one terrible precedent after another.

Mr. Speaker, this rule that we are talking about right now blocks privileged floor consideration of resolutions of inquiry for the rest of the Congress. Why? It is because they don't want Democrats to have any tools to shine the light on the corruption of this lawless administration.

I know one thing. I don't want to hear any complaining from Republicans the next time we are in charge if this privilege that they are killing today never comes back.

Last fall, Republicans gave us the longest government funding lapse in American history. This week, they have managed to give us the second longest lapse, as well. What an accomplishment.

Last year, this Republican-led Congress held the fewest votes in the first session of Congress in decades. Republicans wonder why nearly 70 percent of the American people don't trust Congress. Give me a break. This place is not working for them.

Last night, I offered a motion to add a bill, cosponsored by the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Houchin), to pay the TSA. While she supported my motion, her Republican colleagues voted that motion down. We can't even debate or vote on that on the floor today.

The gentlewoman's support of this rule, despite that embarrassment, I think, is yet another piece of evidence that rank-and-file Republicans have given up all of their power. This rule contains another four closed rules, which means no amendments can be offered, bringing their total to a new all-time record of 125 closed rules this Congress.

By the way, it is not just Democratic amendments that get rejected. It is the majority of Republican amendments that get rejected.

Mr. Speaker, that is more than 85 percent of all rules brought to the House floor: no amendments, no debate, no real democracy. In fact, Rules Committee Republicans have not allowed a single amendment to be debated on the House floor in more than 2 months, but rank-and-file Republicans keep voting for the rules that block their own amendments. I don't get that, but anyway.

Republicans have not allowed a single Democratic amendment in 3\1/2\ months, and it has been more than 6 months since the last bipartisan amendment was debated on the floor.

Let's stop pretending that this is the people's House because it is certainly not functioning like the people's House. Republicans are ruining this Chamber, turning it into a rubberstamp for whatever Donald Trump wants whenever he wants it. Their vision for this body is the Russian Duma, a legislative body in name only. That is disgraceful. That is dangerous. Frankly, it is a threat to our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from MS NOW titled: ``It's already a record-setting Congress-- for all the wrong reasons.''

Mr. Speaker, the final thing I am going to say before I reserve is that the amendment that Ms. DeLauro just talked about was blocked in the Rules Committee last night, as well.

I just say to my Republican colleagues that if they don't want to support a bill that funds only the lawful agencies within DHS, that is fine. They can vote ``no'' on it, but they won't even allow it to be brought up as an amendment. They won't even allow us to have a debate and to deliberate on it. They blocked it.

If they are so right on all of this, then they shouldn't be afraid to allow other points of view to be brought to the floor. That is what this place is supposed to be about. We are supposed to be a deliberative body, and my Republican colleagues are ruining that. They are ruining that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I know that I have a little bit of a Massachusetts accent, and so sometimes I may be hard to understand for the gentlewoman. I didn't say that ICE agents raided schools. I said that they gassed students. They gassed schools.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a news story titled: ``Witnesses say agents arrest Minneapolis school staff, tear gas students; DHS claims no tear gas was used.''

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, this is what it comes down to: The American people need help, and this Republican majority has nothing to offer them.

People are worried about affording groceries. They are worried about gas prices. They are worried about what this war means for their family budgets, their jobs, their kids, and their future.

Military families are worried about their loved ones being sent into danger with no clear mission and no clear plan.

TSA officers have been forced to live with uncertainty while doing one of the toughest jobs in public service. Even Republican Senator John Kennedy admitted on FOX News that we could have TSA paid by the end of the week, but President Donald Trump has said no deal.

Instead of fixing problems, Republicans waste time. They recycle the same old bills. They posture. They distract. They try to change the subject, and, yes, cruelty is part of it, too. When people are hurting, and leaders see the pain and still choose chaos and still choose stunts like this, still choose political games over actually helping anybody, that is not just incompetence. It is callousness, and it is cruelty.

One day, Trump says one thing. The next day, his administration does the opposite--more troops, more escalation, more confusion--and regular people are left to absorb the consequences.

They do not care that this war could send the cost of living even higher. They don't care that supply chains are getting hit. They don't care that their farmers are getting screwed over. They do not care that working families are one more price spike away from disaster. The American people want to stop being jerked around.

The reality is that Republicans do not care. If they cared, we would be debating bills to lower costs; we would be demanding answers about this war; we would make sure that we paid people who keep this country safe; and they would be acting with urgency and seriousness.

That is not what we are getting. Instead, we are getting a Republican majority that is deeply incompetent, deeply unserious, and far too comfortable with making ordinary people pay the price for its failures.

The American people deserve better, and I think I understand why Republicans are working overtime to make it harder for people to vote before November. I understand the SAVE Act because the State legislative district that includes Mar-a-Lago flipped blue last night.

The American people are sick of this. They are not going to put up with this.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and on this rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1131 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 1131, providing for the House's consideration of four pieces of legislation.

First, the rule provides for H.R. 8029, the Pay Our Homeland Defenders Act, to be considered under a closed rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

Second, the rule provides for H. Res. 1128, expressing support of the House of Representatives for the Department of Homeland Security, to be considered under a closed rule. It provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security or their respective designees.

Third, the rule provides for H.R. 7084, the Defending American Property Abroad Act to be considered under a closed rule. It also provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

Last, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5103, the Make the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful Act of 2026, under a closed rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.

At a fundamental level, this rule addresses our core responsibilities: maintaining public safety at home, defending American interests abroad, and ensuring the continuity of essential national security operations.

The underlying bills represent a consistent theme: America First. This White House and Republicans in Congress have never wavered from that ideal.

Let me begin with the Department of Homeland Security funding bill. We are now more than 1 month into the Democrats' shutdown of one of the most critical Departments in the Federal Government, the second longest shutdown in history. The consequences are real, and they are growing.

During the State of the Union Address, President Trump challenged Members of Congress to stand if they support the principle that the first duty of American Government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens. The majority of Democrats remained seated.

Let's be clear about what the Democrat shutdown means for the American people. It means Democrats are putting the interests of illegal aliens over our own citizens, and they, unbelievably, do this again and again. It is clear their policies are wildly unpopular, with not even 66 percent support from Democratic voters. It is no wonder they want illegal aliens to count in the Census and vote.

House and Senate Democrats have voted seven times--seven times-- against funding DHS, and already the shutdown has resulted in $2.5 billion in economic losses.

Across the country, essential workers are continuing to report for duty without pay. These individuals are responsible for airport security, disaster response, cybersecurity, and a range of other missions that affect public safety. At the same time, other employees have been furloughed, delaying important work and placing additional strain on those who remain on the job.

In total, over 100,000 DHS employees, including TSA officers at our airports, Coast Guard personnel, and FEMA staff, have been directly impacted by the Democrats' shutdown. That is roughly $1 billion in unpaid wages every month, and thousands of DHS personnel who, thanks to the Democrats, have worked with no pay for 49 percent of this fiscal year.

The ripple effects extend far beyond the workforce itself. Travelers are encountering longer and longer wait times, with some airports reporting 4- to 6-hour lines to clear security. Staffing shortages are becoming more and more pronounced. Experienced personnel are leaving, including 450 TSA agents, and replacing them is neither quick nor easy.

Meanwhile, agencies tasked with responding to emergencies are being forced to scale back planning and recovery efforts. All of this is happening while uncertainty continues, with no clear resolution in sight.

The burden of the Democrats' stunt continues to fall on Federal employees and the American public. That is not how critical national security functions should be managed.

Regardless of political differences, there should be a shared understanding that maintaining the operations of agencies responsible for protecting this country is essential. That includes our border security and our ICE agents. Delays and disruptions of these functions carry real risks--risks to efficiency, to morale, and, most importantly, to safety.

It is irresponsible and easily reversed. Democrats should vote to fully fund DHS when they have the opportunity to do so for the eighth time this week.

This rule also provides for consideration of a resolution expressing support for the Department of Homeland Security, led by my good friend from Pennsylvania, Congressman Ryan Mackenzie.

Now more than ever, we need to stand with the men and women carrying out the mission of DHS. While our military is engaged abroad, Democrats have shut down the agency responsible for securing the homeland, and Americans are less safe because of it. Ending this shutdown and passing this resolution makes clear we stand with those who protect this country, not the politics that undermine them.

I turn now to the Defending American Property Abroad Act. For generations, the United States has stood for the principle based in liberty that individuals and businesses should be able to invest, operate, and compete under the protection of clear and predictable rules. Respect for private property is essential to that system. It is what allows markets to function, innovation to thrive, and economic relationships to grow. However, those principles are not always honored beyond our borders.

There have been repeated instances where American companies have seen their assets seized or undermined in ways that are inconsistent with international commitments. When that happens without consequence, it doesn't just harm a single business. It sends a signal that these agreements can be ignored. When there are no meaningful consequences, the problem grows.

Existing agreements establish expectations, but expectations alone are not enough. They must be backed by credible enforcement.

This legislation is designed to fill that gap, and I thank Representative Pfluger for his work on it. It creates a more structured and timely way for the United States to respond when American-owned property is treated unfairly abroad. It strengthens our ability to deter such actions before they happen and to respond more effectively when they do.

It also reinforces the basic idea that access to the benefits of economic engagement with the United States comes with responsibilities. If foreign actors expect to participate in our markets, then they must also respect the rules that govern fair treatment of American businesses.

Failing to respond when these standards are violated doesn't preserve stability. It undermines it. This bill represents a measured and necessary step toward protecting American interests and reinforcing the integrity of the global economic system.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to the Make the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful Act. Washington, D.C., is where Americans come to connect with their history, where visitors from around the world come to understand our values, and where we, as elected Representatives, carry out the work of the people.

Because of that, the condition and safety of our Capital matters, not just to those who live there, but to the country as a whole. Yet, for too long, too many people have experienced a different reality when they visit Washington. Concerns about public safety, disorder in public spaces, and the condition of key landmarks became more and more visible and pressing.

When we take public safety seriously and stop being soft on crime, we see results. After President Trump deployed the National Guard, crime dropped significantly. In the first 30 days alone, total crime fell by roughly 18 percent compared to the same period the year before. Violent crime dropped by nearly 50 percent. Carjackings fell by more than 80 percent.

Those trends have continued. This year, thanks to President Trump, violent crime is down more than 30 percent; robberies have been cut by more than one-half; and homicides are down sharply compared to last year. That is what happens when we support law enforcement and restore order.

Addressing these challenges requires more than temporary measures. It requires a sustained, coordinated effort that brings together relevant agencies and ensures that responsibility doesn't fall through the cracks.

That is what this bill is intended to do.

Public safety should not be a partisan issue. The majority of Americans want safer streets, cleaner public spaces, and a Capital that reflects the strength and beauty of this country, especially on her 250th birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I will remind my colleague that they can stop all of this pain at our airports by voting this week for our bill, the Pay Our Homeland Defenders Act.

Let us remind the American people that the Democrats have voted seven times against funding TSA. Seven times they have had an opportunity to fund TSA, and seven times they have voted against funding TSA.

This causes the second longest shutdown in history. 100,000 DHS workers are going without pay, 450 TSA agents have quit, and 49 percent of the fiscal year 2026 TSA agents have worked without pay. Seven times the Democrats have voted against funding TSA. They have an eighth opportunity to fund it this week. I hope they will vote in favor of the Pay Our Homeland Defenders Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Haridopolos).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I will remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that they, too, can vote to fully fund DHS. They have an eighth opportunity to do that today. They have declined funding DHS seven previous times.

I remind my colleagues that there are real reforms in this bill that were negotiated with the other side: reforms including mandates for body cameras and de-escalation training for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection personnel. They are asking us to not fund ICE and to not fund CBP. That is just not something that we are going to do.

They are choosing, again and again, illegal aliens over American citizens.

I understand that they have put forward this idea that we could piecemeal funding for DHS, but we are just not going to do that. It is a critical time and public safety is a factor, but also so is protecting our American citizens from violent criminal aliens and removing them from the country after Joe Biden and the Democrats let them in with a wide-open southern border.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, apparently the only people the Democrats want to mandate that they not wear masks is ICE and CBP.

These are very challenging times, but the gentleman from Massachusetts said it himself: We have already funded ICE and CBP in the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act, which makes their vote against fully funding DHS as an entire Department entirely performative. They are not standing on anything. This is political theater, and the American people are suffering from it.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleagues again they will have an eighth opportunity to vote in favor of funding our TSA agents, FEMA, Coast Guard, and cybersecurity. They will have an eighth opportunity to do that this week. I hope they will vote in favor of the Pay Our Homeland Defenders Act when it comes to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I will clarify a few things. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) made a claim about ICE raids in schools. Contrary to fear-mongering by the media and sanctuary politicians, ICE does not target schools or children. Media is force-feeding the public stories, causing people to be scared, but there are no raids occurring at schools and no raids targeting schools.

My colleagues across the aisle also want to decry the tolling of days for resolutions of inquiry, but when the roles were reversed, they seemed completely content with then-Speaker Pelosi's iron grip on floor procedure. For over 600 days in the 116th and 117th Congresses, resolutions of inquiry were blocked from coming to the floor by the Democratic majority.

In fact, every Democratic member of the Rules Committee voted to extend such provisions, despite protests from Republicans. While they may contend that this was during the COVID pandemic, the reality is that committees were working and operating for quite some time. We have operated this Congress without the use of resolutions of inquiry, and it has had no impact on the minority's ability to conduct oversight of the administration.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. As was done under the Democratic majority, we will utilize this tool as necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I note that the Department of Homeland Security is composed of several agencies, not just TSA, not just FEMA, not just the Coast Guard, and not just ICE and CBP.

When my colleagues on the left are defunding or not funding, refusing to fund the Department of Homeland Security, they are refusing to fund the agency in its entirety, which includes U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency protecting our critical infrastructure from cyber and physical threats, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Secret Service, Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers, and the Federal Protective Service to protect our Federal buildings and our employees.

Those are just some of the things under the Department of Homeland Security. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is true, we don't want to partially fund the Department of Homeland Security. We want to fully fund every part of it. That is why we are not going to do this in piecemeal. The people who are working at the Department of Homeland Security, whether they are working for ICE to try to rid this country of criminal illegal aliens, or they are working for TSA to protect our airports, or they are engaging in protections for the cybersecurity of our homeland, they deserve to be paid for their work.

I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will again, this week, have the opportunity to vote an eighth time to fully fund DHS, and I hope they will join us on behalf of all of the Federal workers that work under that agency.

Mr. Speaker, these four bills that we are going to consider in the rule have a common thread. They protect Americans at home and abroad. They stand behind the personnel who keep this country safe. They enforce agreements we have made and defend the values we have built. They reflect a simple principle: the United States Government exists to serve the American people.

I look forward to moving these bills out of the House this week, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 7084, the Defending American Property Abroad Act of 2026.

As we have seen with recent vessel boardings and border operations, the Coast Guard has broad authority to enforce American laws on the water.

The Coast Guard routinely interdicts drugs and migrants, enforces fisheries laws, and ensures the safety of property and life at sea.

In fiscal year 2025, the Coast Guard set record breaking numbers. The service seized over 510,000 pounds of cocaine in the maritime domain, over triple its yearly average.

Even more impressively, the Coast Guard saved over 2,200 lives and over $40 million of property by running over 6,700 search and rescue cases. They do all this while protecting global fish stocks and by enforcing domestic and international fisheries laws.

H.R. 7084 does not help the Coast Guard address violations of the law at sea. Instead, the bill inserts the Coast Guard into what is a property dispute between a U.S. company and the Mexican Government that, if anything, will only add to the Coast Guard's burden.

The Coast Guard is already strained in its ability to effectively conduct its missions.

Just last week, the Vice Commandant testified before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that the Coast Guard is a $20 billion organization operating on a $13 billion budget.

H.R. 7084 prohibits vessels, commercial shipping or cruise vessels, from entering or operating in U.S. waters if that vessel made a port of call at a port that was nationalized or expropriated by another company from a U.S. citizen or company.

Now, requiring the service to identify and prohibit vessels from entering U.S. waters due to an international property dispute further strains the service's resources.

This legislation is meant to only apply to one port in Mexico, but it is written so broadly it could encompass disputes in other countries and with other companies both today and in the future.

Now, Congress has many pressing issues that we should be considering today. The President himself has promised less war and lower prices. Instead, the American public is getting more war and higher prices.

I wish we were taking time today to discuss those lower costs for my constituents.

I wish we were taking time today to discuss those lower costs for my constituents. Instead, we are interjecting Congress into an international land dispute.

Now, I want to be really clear. I am sympathetic to the plight of this particular U.S. company involved in this dispute. This legislation doesn't solve their problem. That solution can be found, and opportunities are available through diplomacy and even trade agreements but not really legislation.

For those reasons I will be voting ``no'' on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Figures).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Again, I just reiterate, the bill before us today does not resolve this dispute between the Mexican Government and an American company. There are tools available and that continue to be available to resolve that. It gives the Coast Guard more work on top of all the work our U.S. Coast Guard is already doing.

I had an amendment in the Rules Committee. They rejected an amendment that would have required the President to consider potential costs before exercising the authorities granted in this bill. That Rules Committee amendment was rejected.

Arbitration, treaties, trade agreements, these mechanisms exist to solve international disputes. These are appropriate venues for this dispute and not legislation. For those reasons, I will be voting ``no.''

In conclusion, I do want to note something. These 13 to 14 bills that came before this body earlier this week from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee--those were on suspension. This one was not. But it needs to be said that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee works extremely well. We see ourselves as an island of partnership in a sea of partisanship in the U.S. Congress.

Even though this bill may not fit that bill, the Committee works that way because of one person, and that one person is Representative Sam Graves.

This morning, it was announced that Sam will not be running for reelection.

I wanted to take this brief moment as part of my time in closing to just note that we are going to be losing a fierce advocate for infrastructure investment and for transportation safety with his announcement that he will not run again.

Sam and I have served together nearly 26 years. We came in together. In recent years, we have developed a partnership that overrode the partisanship in Congress. This body has dealt with the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization, a Coast Guard reauthorization, a Water Resources Development Act reauthorization, and a lot of other things. We have passed a FEMA act that reforms FEMA. We have yet to get that to the floor. We certainly want to see that get to the floor.

Importantly, we are working right now on a bill to reauthorize the surface transportation authorization to fix roads, bridges, highways, transit, rail, and some other things. We are working on that right now. That work continues to progress, all because of the work of Representative Sam Graves.

Although the House is losing Sam, his home is regaining him back in Tarkio, Missouri, at some point at the end of this year. His family is getting him back. I have always said that Sam likes three things in life: his grandkids, vintage aircraft, and Congress, and in that order.

I thank Sam Graves for his friendship and his partnership and helping us to continue to do the work of this Committee to bring bills to the floor that we can debate in a manner that is respectful of the body that we all get to serve in.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1131, I call up the bill (H.R. 7084) to amend title 46, United States Code, with respect to the types of vessels that may enter or operate in navigable waters of the United States or transfer cargo in any port or place under the jurisdiction of the

United States, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 7084.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7084, the Defending American Property Abroad Act of 2026.

This bill provides the President with the authority to effectively address an unlawful taking of a United States citizen-owned port, harbor, or marine terminal by another government in the Western Hemisphere.

United States companies operate maritime facilities throughout North and South America. Their investments must be protected.

It is essential that the United States President be able to act quickly and decisively in response to another government expropriating or nationalizing a United States citizen-owned port, harbor, or marine terminal.

This bill establishes a new, narrowly constructed authority for a President to impose a consequence on a foreign government that illegally takes a maritime facility.

Sanctions are an accepted tool used in diplomacy and economic statecraft. The authorities that H.R. 7084 establishes are completely complementary to similar authorities that Congress has already granted the President.

Nothing in this bill precludes or preempts any other option for dispute resolution. It simply gives the President another meaningful, targeted tool that can encourage negotiations and resolution.

The Defending American Property Abroad Act builds on sanctions, legislation previously passed over the past six decades, and provides the President with one or more options in a continuum for protecting overseas American investments.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this legislation and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), the bill's sponsor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McGuire).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Strong).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

In closing, passage of H.R. 7084 gives the President the authority to effectively address the illegal taking of a United States citizen-owned port, harbor, or marine terminal throughout the Western Hemisphere.

American companies are the source of more investments in the Western Hemisphere nations than investors from any other country.

Infrastructure projects in the Americas, especially port infrastructure projects, represent significant potential business opportunities for American companies.

Protecting overseas U.S. investments is an important policy objective. This bill creates an appropriate cost and consequence for stealing property from an American-owned business.

The Defending American Property Abroad Act of 2026 is consistent with other authorities Congress has given the President to act against the illegal taking of American businesses and investments.

Mr. Speaker, I am a former sheriff from Mississippi. Where I come from, when you take something that doesn't belong to you, that is stealing, and you have broken the law. If you break the law, there are consequences.

This bill ensures there are consequences for foreign countries that steal from our companies. Simply put, this legislation is common sense.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 7084, the Defending American Property Abroad Act. I thank Chairman Graves for his support.

Let's be clear, American companies operating abroad should not have to fear arbitrary government actions that undermine their property rights, but right now, that is exactly what is happening. When countries violate trade agreements and illegally seize assets from U.S. companies, it puts American job security, economic security, and, quite frankly, our national security at risk.

H.R. 7084 ensures there are enforceable consequences for those actions. Specifically, it strengthens U.S. maritime security law to address these unlawful seizures. Through existing Coast Guard authorities, it also authorizes the President to deny entry into U.S. ports for vessels that operate through expropriated American-owned port infrastructure in Western Hemisphere countries with U.S. free trade agreements.

We know this is not just a hypothetical example. For years, the Mexican Government has targeted the U.S.-based Vulcan Materials Company.

In 1986, Vulcan Materials Company built the only deepwater port in Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula, and for decades this operation supplied crushed limestone to critical infrastructure projects across the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts, roads, bridges, housing, and energy facilities in States represented by Members on both sides of the aisle.

But starting in May of 2022, the Mexican Government launched an endless pressure campaign against Vulcan Materials and sent the military to forcibly shut down its operations.

In 2023, they invaded and occupied the property again just to hand it to a private Mexican competitor.

In 2024, they declared the port and a quarry adjacent to it a ``naturally protected area'' to complete the expropriation, and now Mexico is weaponizing its tax authority, pursuing billions in retroactive dollars in claims to seize what remains.

Meanwhile, Mexico has allowed a dozen unpermitted quarries in the same exact region for Mexican companies to operate freely. Let me say that again. Mexico used its military to forcibly shut down an American company and created false environmental claims to do so. That is a direct violation of the USMCA.

We did not resort to legislation as a first option. In fact, for 4 years, the United States has pursued every available diplomatic tool, congressional letters, administration engagement, and bilateral pressure, and none of that worked.

This represents a coordinated multifront campaign by Mexico against an American company that undermines our diplomatic progress and threatens all U.S. investment in Mexico.

Now, my colleagues may ask: Why is this bill the right response? First, it is surgical. It targets expropriated port infrastructure only. It will not disrupt current, legitimate shipping operations. Second, it includes clear off-ramps. If the foreign government returns the property, provides fair compensation, and resolves the dispute, then the restrictions are lifted. Lastly, it includes exceptions for emergencies and maritime safety.

I am proud to have worked in a bipartisan way with Representatives Carbajal and Sewell and Chairman Graves' committee staff on this legislation.

This isn't just about one company. We cannot allow a foreign government to steal American property and face zero consequences.

This is an opportunity for us to protect American investment abroad, to protect American companies, and to protect our own communities. If you are an American company operating abroad, we have vowed to protect you, and this legislation does just that.

I urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 7084.