Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7744) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1095 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), 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 may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, last night the Committee on Rules met and granted a rule providing for consideration of one measure. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7744 under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member on the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees. Additionally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, nearly 3 weeks ago, on February 13, my Democrat colleagues irresponsibly and vindictively shut down the Department of Homeland Security, crippling the capabilities of the very Department charged with protecting the American people.

Leading up to that moment, I brought forth a rule that allowed the House to concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 7148, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2026, legislation that funded the remainder of the Federal Government through the end of the fiscal year with the exception of the Department of Homeland Security.

Despite previously agreeing to a bipartisan and bicameral approach to fund the Department of Homeland Security through the end of the fiscal year, including provisions for both funding and enhanced oversight, Democrats reversed course at the last minute and have since held this critical funding hostage, directly putting the safety and security of the American people at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I return today to give my Democrat colleagues the opportunity to reverse course on this dangerous lapse in leadership and move legislation forward that provides full funding for the personnel, training, and technology necessary to protect our homeland and keep our communities safe, secure, and resilient.

The Department of Homeland Security oversees agencies responsible for aviation security, border protection, cyber defense, disaster response, maritime security, and counterterrorism missions that directly impact the safety of millions of Americans every single day.

Simply put, a ``yes'' vote on today's rule is a vote to consider legislation that will fully fund the Department of Homeland Security, ensuring that the agencies tasked with keeping the American people safe, from counterterrorism to cybersecurity, to disaster response, are not weakened at a moment when threats are rapidly increasing.

A ``yes'' vote on today's rule is a vote to stand with the men and women on the frontlines of our national security, from coastguardsmen to GSA officers, to cyber defenders, law enforcement personnel, and emergency responders who are now working every day without pay to keep our country safe.

A ``yes'' vote on today's rule is a vote to consider legislation to end this Democrat shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security and restore the resources necessary to defend the American people.

Mr. Speaker, the need to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security becomes even clearer when we consider the serious global threats facing our country today. For nearly 50 years, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the number one state sponsor of terrorism, has called our great country the ``Great Satan'' and indoctrinated generations of its people with the chants of ``Death to America,'' making clear its commitment to our destruction.

Despite repeated attempts at diplomacy, the regime has relentlessly pursued a nuclear weapon, developed its ballistic missile program, and funded proxy terrorist organizations across the world, all while its own people suffer under corruption, repression, and economic collapse.

This past Saturday, President Donald J. Trump kept his promise, decisively authorizing Operation Epic Fury, a large-scale kinetic military operation targeting key regime military infrastructure and leadership responsible for incessant aggression and attacks against the United States and our allies.

This moment did not occur in isolation. It was the result of decades of sustained hostility by the Iranian regime toward the United States, just as the maniacal Iranian regime was reaching the nuclear weapon threshold.

To the American people, the timeline is clear.

In November 1979, Iranian students, backed by the regime, stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held hostage 66 brave Americans for 444 days as they beat them and subjected them to mock executions and other forms of torture.

In October 1993, Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy, killed 241 American military servicemembers, including 220 marines and 21 other service personnel in a truck bombing at a Marine compound in Beirut.

In June 1996, Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists killed 19 U.S. airmen and wounded nearly 500 others in a truck bombing at a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia.

Between 2003 and 2011, Iranian proxies killed at least 603 American troops in Iraq, roughly one out of every six American combat deaths in that war.

In January 2016, Iranian forces seized two U.S. Navy boats and detained 10 U.S. sailors who were held at gunpoint, forced to kneel with their hands behind their heads, and filmed for propaganda being released 15 hours later.

More recently, on October 7, 2023, Iran-backed Hamas terrorists murdered 46 Americans and kidnapped 12 Americans in addition.

Between October 2023 and November 2024, Iran and its proxies carried out more than 180 attacks on U.S. forces in the region, killing American servicemembers and wounding American service personnel.

In July 2024, an Iranian national linked to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps attempted to assassinate then-candidate for President, Donald J. Trump, forcing his Presidential campaign, which I remember being a part of it, to charter decoy planes to avoid the threat.

In recent weeks, Iranian representatives continued to lie and negotiate in bad faith, stalling peace talks as they prepared offensive military threats against American forces.

This pattern of aggression makes crystal clear that these are not isolated incidents. They instead represent a sustained and deliberate campaign by the Iranian regime to target the United States and undermine our national security.

This is precisely why decisive action by our Commander in Chief, President Donald J. Trump, was necessary. By destroying Iran's military capabilities, its missile capabilities, dismantling its naval strength, and ensuring that this regime can never obtain a nuclear weapon, President Trump and his administration have acted to protect the American people and defend our national interests. This level of action is only possible because of the strength of the United States military.

During his first term, President Donald J. Trump rebuilt our military to a level many thought would never be possible. Through historic investments, a renewed focus on modernization, and the restoration of military readiness, he ensured that today we possess the strongest and most capable military humanity has ever seen. It is that peace through strength, rebuilt and restored, that made decisive operations like Operation Epic Fury possible, demonstrating to our adversaries that the United States has both the capability and the resolve to act swiftly, effectively, and without hesitation to protect the citizens of our country.

Mr. Speaker, during this operation, six Americans bravely sacrificed their lives to keep our homeland safe. May we forever remember and honor their legacy of selfless service to these United States of America.

The threats facing our country today do not stop at distant battlefields. They can reach our networks, our borders, and our communities here at home.

While Iran's aggression is often discussed in terms of conflict in the Middle East, we must not forget that the regime and its proxies also pose a direct threat to the American homeland. Our Homeland Security and Intelligence agencies have warned that Iran and its affiliates maintain the capability to conduct cyberattacks against our utility services, direct espionage campaigns within our borders, and potentially inspire or direct violence within the United States, targeting critical infrastructure, financial systems, and other central networks on which millions of Americans rely.

That is why President Trump's Department of Homeland Security plays such a vital role in coordinating intelligence, strengthening cyber defenses, securing transportation systems, and protecting the American homeland from emerging threats.

Mr. Speaker, border security is homeland security. At a time when hostile regimes and terrorist networks continue to threaten the United States, we cannot ignore the risks posed by an unsecure border and inadequate vetting of individuals entering our country. Ensuring that terrorists, traffickers, and foreign operatives cannot exploit weakness in our immigration system is a fundamental responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security.

While security at our southern border has drastically improved and more than 600,000 criminal aliens have been deported under President Trump's administration, millions of unvetted, illegal immigrants who entered our country during 4 years of the porous open border under the Biden administration still remain in the United States today.

Among these illegal immigrants are members of violent transnational gangs, some of which have ties to Iranian-backed terror networks who threaten the safety of American communities. At a time of heightened global tensions and increasing threats, the presence of even one dangerous individual within our borders poses a serious risk to America.

If we look at results here at home today, we have seen real progress in safety and security under President Trump, proof that his approach works and can be trusted abroad.

Under President Trump's leadership, fentanyl deaths fell by 34 percent in 2025, as trafficking across our southern border was cut in half. Violent crime has declined nationwide, with homicides experiencing one of the largest single-year drops on record. In cities where enhanced enforcement has taken place, the results have been even more dramatic. Murders here in Washington, D.C., have dropped 60 percent. Chicago saw its lowest number of murders since 1965. Memphis saw 200 fewer murders and a 40 percent decline in shootings. New Orleans' homicide rate reached its lowest level in 50 years.

Mr. Speaker, these outcomes exemplify what strong leadership and commitment to law and order can achieve, but maintaining that progress requires a fully functional Homeland Security apparatus.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one thing clear for the record and for everyone who is watching today: Despite what some of my Democrat colleagues may be telling their constituents, as they fear primary challenges from the left, 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, which was enacted last year.

This debate is about the rest of the Department of Homeland Security, the agencies responsible for counterterrorism, cybersecurity, disaster response, aviation security, maritime security, and other critical missions that protect the American homeland.

By refusing to fund the remainder of the Department of Homeland Security, my Democratic colleagues have left critical Homeland Security missions vulnerable at a time when threats against our country are increasing. The consequences of that decision are already being felt.

Due to the Democrats' Homeland Security shutdown, our country's cyber defenses remain weakened, leaving critical infrastructure like hospitals, water systems, and energy grids more vulnerable to attacks from adversaries like Iran.

Due to the Democrats' Homeland Security shutdown, our Coast Guard faces disruptions to essential missions, like search and rescue, port security, and drug interdiction, while servicemembers in harm's way are left without the full support and pay that they deserve.

Due to Democrats' Homeland Security shutdown, TSA officers who service airports like Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, as well as other airports across our country, are forced to work without pay, hurting morale, straining staffing, and increasing the risk of security gaps, delays, and disruptions in our airports.

Due to the Democrats' Homeland Security shutdown, FEMA is stretched to its limits, jeopardizing disaster response, recovery efforts, and preparedness as severe weather threatens communities across the country.

Passage of the resolution today allows the House of Representatives to consider, debate, and pass legislation that ends this Democrat shutdown and fully funds the Department of Homeland Security, ensuring that agencies charged with protecting the American people are equipped with the resources necessary to carry out their critical missions without disruption.

Mr. Speaker, protecting the American people should never be a partisan issue. Regardless of party, every Member of Congress has a responsibility to ensure the agencies tasked with defending our homeland have the resources they need to do their jobs.

It should really be that simple.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on House Resolution 1095 because it allows this House of Representatives to carry out its most fundamental duties: to govern, to safeguard the American people, and to confront the serious threats facing our country today with strength, clarity, and resolve.

A ``yes'' vote today allows us to end the Democrats' Homeland Security shutdown and protects our homeland.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was half hoping the gentlewoman from New Mexico was going to rise to thank us for giving her an opportunity to rectify the wrong she inflicted upon the Department of Homeland Security 3 weeks ago when they neglected to fund it, but based on her comments, it doesn't seem to be the case.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Garbarino), who is a rising star in our Conference and the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine), a member of our freshman class, one of the best- educated members of our Conference, and a champion debater.

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

Mr. Speaker, just to respond briefly, first and foremost, if the gentleman had listened to my opening remarks, as he suggested he did, he would know that we noted that we, in fact, funded CBP and ICE last year.

This is about funding the Coast Guard and TSA. This is what today's vote is about.

That is why we hear the consternation from the other side. It is because they take bad vote after bad vote after bad vote. We are giving them a chance to rectify that today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Fong), a friend before we both were elected to Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is disappointing that the gentleman from Maryland refers to funding our Border Patrol and funding those who keep our borders safe as poison pills. That is his prerogative, not mine.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Mrs. Biggs), a member of our freshman class, one of the highest ranking female military officers in the history of the House of Representatives, a combat veteran, and a lieutenant colonel.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Kennedy), a member of our freshman class who traveled earlier this year to Central America to review the threats to our national security that these transnational gangs posed.

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, the rule I have presented today allows the House of Representatives to carry out its responsibilities and to govern in an orderly and responsible manner for the American people.

As a reminder, a ``yes'' vote on this rule enables us to consider legislation that will fully end the Democratic shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security and allows us in this body to restore funding for the agencies responsible for protecting the American people.

A ``yes'' vote on this rule ensures that the men and women serving on the front lines of our homeland security, from coastguardsmen and TSA officers to cyber defenders, law enforcement personnel, and emergency responders, have the resources and support that they need to carry out their critical missions.

A ``yes'' vote on this rule strengthens the security of the American homeland by restoring funding for the agencies responsible for counterterrorism, cybersecurity, aviation security, disaster response, and maritime security, at a time when threats to our country are increasing.

As I made clear earlier, a ``yes'' vote on this rule ensures that the rest of the Department of Homeland Security can continue its vital work, even as ICE and CBP have already been funded through H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Finally, a ``yes'' vote on this rule allows the House to fulfill its most basic responsibility to govern and to ensure the safety of the American people is never used as a political bargaining chip.

Mr. Speaker, the consequences of leaving the Department of Homeland Security unfunded are too serious to ignore. This rule allows the House to act to restore full funding and to ensure that the agencies tasked with protecting the American people can carry out their missions without further disruption.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows:

An Amendment To H. Res. 1095 Offered By Ms. Leger Fernandez of New

Mexico

Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the

following:

That immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 7744) making appropriations for the Department of

Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30,

2026, and for other purposes. All points of order against

consideration of the bill are waived. An amendment in the

nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 7481,

as introduced, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as

amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order

against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,

as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final

passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of

debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or

their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX and clause 8 of rule XX

shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 7744.

Sec. 3. The Clerk shall transmit to the Senate a message

that the House has passed H.R. 7744 no later than three

calendar days after passage.

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, six Americans are dead, and bombs are falling on our consulates and bases and allies because Trump has started what he has now said could be a, in his words, forever war. This is the same President who said: ``I am not going to start wars. I am going to end them.''

This is a President who has said America First means no more wars. This is a President who has betrayed--he has betrayed those people who voted for him expecting him to keep us out of wars.

He started this war as a matter of choice because he wanted to. We have heard over and over again that there was no imminent threat, which is the legal criteria. There was no congressional authorization.

Trump betrayed his own commitments, his own voters. Trump betrayed them and betrayed those Republicans who thought he was going to keep us out of war, so you would think that Republicans who control this House would bring us back into a session so we could address this war, so we could discuss: Is it legitimate? What can we do? How do we exercise our Article I power?

Why don't you all want to exercise the power that was given to you by your voters? That is not what we are doing today. Instead, we are here on a rule that has one bill, and that bill is so important. That is the only thing we are going to cover. But guess what. We already did it.

This is a rerun of a bad movie. It is a rerun because there is nothing in this bill that is not already in the bill that, as the gentleman pointed out, was already passed.

The only thing that has changed from when we last passed this very same bill a few weeks ago was that ICE and CBP have killed, arrested, detained, and terrorized more American citizens.

When we last passed this bill, Alex Pretti was alive. Alex Pretti had not been killed. Alex Pretti's Second Amendment rights were still being honored. That is what has changed. What has changed is more people have died in ICE custody.

What has changed is it has gotten only worse. We have seen ICE officials have to walk back their lies about their encounters with citizens who they have shot and beat up and arrested. That is the only thing we have seen since this bill was last passed.

The reality is that the only way to get DHS funded all together in a single bill is for the White House, Senate, and House to come to an agreement. They are in negotiations to do that, but this is the kind of thing where even though negotiations are going on, the House just wants to do the same thing over and over again.

Do you know what, do you remember that quote of when you do the same thing over and over again with the same results, it is actually a little bit of madness?

I put up this letter because, while House Republicans kind of don't understand where Americans are, this 7-year-old named Connor does. Connor sent me this letter where he says: ICE, no money. He put a whole bunch of zeros after it. He doesn't realize they get a lot more than the $1 billion that he set out here. As my colleagues noted, they are already fully funded. They have all that money from H.R. 1.

What Democrats have suggested is, since they already acknowledge--he said it on the floor--that they are fully funded, why don't we just pass a bill that funds FEMA, that funds Coast Guard, that funds these critical agencies over which there is no debate, no controversy, and no need for negotiations?

They rejected that amendment last night because if they really cared about funding these critical agencies, they would say let's fund them, and let's take up the issues of how we make sure that ICE and CBP protect Americans.

Not only is Connor worried, but a parent told me when I was back home that her child asked her two questions as they drove home from school one day. One question was: Mom, are elves real? The second question was: Mom, what do I do if ICE comes for me? What do I do if ICE comes for you?

This is a little Latina student, a citizen, somebody whose family has been in this country for generations, but they are terrified because if you look Latino, you are at risk.

They are unwilling to put any protections in to protect our families. They are unwilling to put any protections in to say: Don't go into our schools. Don't go into our hospitals. Don't go into our churches. Preserve the places where people should be able to go to feel safe.

For example, in Clovis, New Mexico, ICE broke a car window at a health clinic, a health clinic, and dragged the father away. The mother had to run into the health clinic to make sure that there were no glass shards on the baby's skin because that window had been shattered.

This is the kind of activity that they are condoning. That baby was lucky because we know that there are babies like 2-month-old Juan Nicholas in Texas who was sick in detention with bronchitis and almost near death and who was deported across the border without any money, without any people who he would know.

Thank heavens the goodness of the American people helped that baby out.

I could tell story after story that should make anybody who has a heart, conscience, or moral values based on any of our faith traditions cry and say: This is not an America we believe in.

At least 3,800 children under age 18, including 20 infants, were held in detention under the Trump administration in 2025 alone.

The cruelty continues far beyond those thousands of kids, and it is not just that they killed--they killed--citizen Alex Pretti and citizen Renee Good. This is a pattern and practice of ICE hurting our communities and violating the Constitution. Americans who believe in law and order, respect for constitutional rights, and who don't want government overreach should be and are, indeed, outraged.

However, today, Republicans are, once again, demanding more money for the Department of Homeland Security's ICE and CBP which they acknowledge has already been fully funded. In fact, we know that $150 billion of

the money that we already sent to DHS remains available to them. However, now, as we heard, they are trying to justify funding DHS by pointing to a war that this President started without a clear strategy and without the support of the American people.

Trump's chaos is everywhere. Trump's chaos comes with a price. It is Americans who pay that price. There is chaos abroad, chaos Congress did not authorize, and chaos at home.

Let's be clear about what is happening. While families are worried about rising costs and while servicemembers' lives are at risk, Republicans want to write another blank check to an agency that is already operating with historic, unprecedented funding.

How much is this chaos costing us?

That is the question we should be asking. We know just one piece of this war: The three F-15 aircraft shot down cost $300 million.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what that $300 million could do?

It could fund 23 years of the Gabriella Miller Kids First Pediatric Research Program, 3 years of childhood cancer and birth defects for just those three F-15s that they put at risk. It would fund the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline for 1 year to connect Americans with lifesaving services and a compassionate counselor. Three of those planes would pay for another year of the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, a fund that Trump wanted to zero out. He wanted to zero out this fund.

Think about it, Mr. Speaker.

What do those CDFIs mean?

They are your credit unions, the places where you get your loans for your cars and for your appliances or to help with your home. That is what he is willing to do because everything comes at a cost, and they are willing to pay money for this war of choice. That money could be better spent at home bringing down the cost of living for Americans.

We know that 60 percent of Americans support redirecting ICE funding to Medicaid because people want healthcare and stability, not raids, abuse, and chaos.

Republicans keep burning money. They keep burning money. They have that $4 trillion debt from their big, beautiful bill. We know the last time a Republican took us into war in the Middle East it cost trillions in our deficit. They are doing it again.

There they go. They are at it again.

What Democrats are asking for before we send more ICE funding is what all law enforcement uses: mandatory body cameras and judicial warrants before you break down somebody's door.

Every law enforcement in America does that.

Why can't they?

Democrats ask for no masks.

What law enforcement officers go around in masks except for theirs?

Democrats want no targeting of schools, hospitals, houses of worship, or polling places.

These are sensible, community-driven policies.

We are also asking that ICE follow the same constitutional principles that every other law enforcement agency follows.

Mr. Speaker, you can't just beat up, shoot, and kill people. It is not just Democrats saying this. Catholic bishops from border States and beyond are pleading with Congress to restore protections at places of worship, schools, and healthcare facilities so families can seek care, learn, and pray without fear.

If Republicans truly cared about security, then they would support these kinds of reforms.

Mr. Speaker, why don't you want to let people pray without fear, I ask?

Trump wanted the Department of War so he could wage war. Now he wants a reckless ICE to have dangerous amounts of money. However, Americans don't have to choose between national security and safety and constitutional protections. We can have all three. It just takes courage. It takes courage over chaos, not blank checks and not endless wars.

It is time to restore accountability before we write another blank check with a lot more zeros than poor Connor can even imagine.

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

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

Now that we are on the point of thank-yous, my colleague suggested that I get up and thank them for bringing this bill again.

I do think it is a waste of House resources doing the same thing over again.

However, I do thank the gentleman because we are able to make the point again to the American people about how bad ICE is. The American people agree with us that what ICE is doing is not American. It is not American to kill us point-blank--murders--for doing nothing more than using a phone to video what they are doing.

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, 2026, a bill which fully funds law-abiding agencies under the Department of Homeland Security and not the unlawful actions of ICE and CBP. That is because we agree that we need to fund FEMA, TSA, and the Coast Guard. There is no reason to have these important agencies tied to the funding for Trump's ICE cruelty agenda.

Indeed, Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro introduced a bill to fund FEMA, TSA, and the Coast Guard. Last night, at Rules, I tried to make her bill in order so the House could vote on it, so the House could say, yes, we believe in these agencies, and we want to fund them. Every single Republican in the committee voted against it.

Let's be honest about who is voting against funding for the Coast Guard, for TSA, and for these agencies. It is Republicans. Republicans voted against it last night, but we are going to ask Republicans once again: Will they vote to fund the Coast Guard, FEMA, and TSA? We will ask whether they will vote for that because we are going to give them another opportunity to do that. We are going to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and the sponsor of this bill, to discuss our proposal further.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we can get DHS open if Republicans would vote to return this bill so that we could, indeed, fund FEMA, the Coast Guard, and the other agencies.

Let's talk a little bit about FEMA because what we are seeing this President do is use this moment to make life more miserable for Americans. FEMA has $4 billion in Disaster Relief Fund. Even though it has that money, DHS is shutting down assistance to victims. It is doing that even though it has the money.

This is just like what Trump did last time where he had the money for nutrition assistance to fund SNAP and he said no. I would prefer that children go hungry, even though I have the money in the bank.

This shouldn't be surprising given Secretary Noem's record. She has put roadblock after roadblock to actually let FEMA do work. She says anything over $100,000 has to come to my office. That didn't stop her from giving away several millions of dollars in ad funding to somebody related to her because this is, indeed, a corrupt administration. There is corruption at the highest level, and we see that over and over again.

When we talk about U.S. citizens harmed, let's talk about U.S. citizens harmed by our own agency.

Marimar Martinez was a teaching assistant. She was shot five times by a Border Patrol agent in October. She was in a car. That agent said, bragging: ``I fired five rounds, and she had seven holes.'' He had to recant their allegations that she had done anything wrong.

George Retes, a former Army infantryman and disabled veteran, pulled out of his car telling ICE: I am a veteran. I am a citizen. He then spent time in detention. He came to the House and was a guest for the State of the Union Address. We got to meet him.

Peter Yazzie, a Navajo Nation, our first Americans, and Laguna Pueblo member, was detained by ICE members. He told them: I am a Native American. I have my Certificate of Indian Blood. He was detained, arrested, abused in that moment.

Jose Roberto ``Beto'' Ramirez, 20-year-old member of the Ojibwe Nation, was yanked from the passenger's seat of his aunt's car, slammed on the hood, handcuffed, and held in custody.

Aliya Rahman is a disabled social activist. She had her windows broken, pulled out by force, and experienced shooting pain.

These are citizens. These are citizens, and they don't seem to care. It is something when you can't control the horrible actions.

We condemn the terrorism. We condemn the Ayatollah. We condemn all of that. We don't control them, but we sure should control our own agents and our own agencies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) to discuss more about this bill and what all this means. He has led and inspired us in so many different times, and I look forward to listening to him.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record this MSN article titled: ``Kash Patel's latest firings ousted agents with expertise in Iran.''

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

Mr. Speaker, we also know the Trump administration, in addition to getting rid of those with expertise in Iran, also appointed a 22-year- old to head DHS' counterterrorism office.

When we talk about making America less safe, it is the Trump administration that is making America less safe. It is the Trump administration, by going to war in Iran after promising he

would not do that, that is making America less safe.

We can also talk about how he is also betraying not just his promise of no foreign intervention and wars, but he is betraying his promise to lower costs because now we are seeing gas prices surge. Americans know this.

It is this administration. It is the Trump administration that is making their gas prices go up. It is his tariffs that are making their gas prices go up. He is costing Americans money, and he is making their world less safe.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to include in the Record the February 2026 PBS News article titled: ``Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans say ICE has gone too far in immigration crackdown.''

Mr. Speaker, we just heard from another Republican saying that ICE is already fully funded. So what they should do is take up the Democratic proposal to fund the other agencies. They have acknowledged it over and over again today.

All that we need to do to fund the TSA, Coast Guard, and FEMA is to take up our proposal. They are refusing to do so. When they refuse to do so, they are causing the shutdown because I must say it again: What Democrats are asking is simply that ICE follow the Constitution.

Not only are Republicans inflicting harm on FEMA, TSA, and others, but they are refusing to follow the Constitution. They are refusing to have their law enforcement comply with law enforcement everywhere.

That is why Democrats are saying ``no.'' We are with Americans when we say that this terror that ICE has inflicted on Americans has to stop.

We are also saying that Congress should do its job and step in and say that we insist that they not violate our Constitution. We should step in and do our job of saying that we insist that Congress discuss and decide whether we should enter into a costly war in the Middle East, which is what they are allowing to go forward.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill, vote against the rule, and vote for the Democratic proposal to fund FEMA and the Coast Guard.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1095, I call up the bill (H.R. 7744) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, 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 material on the measure under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here once again on the House floor amidst a partial government shutdown. The bill before us isn't new. In fact, we debated this very same bill just 2 months ago. It reflects the bipartisan, bicameral agreement that Senate Democrats, at the last minute, failed to honor.

Shutting down the Department of Homeland Security over a partisan fight hasn't changed the stakes, but maybe, knowing how critical it is to keep the homeland safe at this heightened moment, Democrats will side with reason and protecting the Nation.

No matter the question, shutdowns are never the answer. I know my colleagues think that by shutting down the government, they are somehow punishing Donald Trump for winning the election, but President Trump is not the one feeling the pain of a shutdown.

They are punishing the TSA agents, who are working hard to keep their communities safe. They are punishing FEMA employees, who are trying to help Americans who are fighting through these winter storms. They are punishing the cybersecurity analysts at CISA, who are combating constant threats to our infrastructure and electric grid.

Hundreds of thousands of Federal employees in critical national security positions are being forced to work without pay. Their jobs leave no room for error, but they are being asked to continue that critical work with the added stress of not knowing when they will receive their next paycheck and not knowing if they will be able to put gas in their cars or food on their table.

A few weeks ago, we heard from TSA Acting Director McNeill at an Appropriations Committee hearing. She talked about the impact of the longest shutdown in history, which was also initiated by Democrats. She told us about agents sleeping in their cars in the airport parking lot rather than spending money on gas to drive home because they couldn't afford it, and officers who sold their blood and plasma or took second jobs with what little spare time they had just to have money to feed their families.

These hardworking families are just now barely recovered from the previous shutdown antics, and they are once again in the same confusing and undeserved position.

Closing down or shortchanging Federal agencies is irrational and irresponsible. This isn't something that anyone should be proud of.

It breaks my heart to hear of these stories. We know that shutdowns cause pain and uncertainty for the Nation. Personally, I would find it unconscionable if my vote was the reason that someone was sleeping in their car or if my vote was the reason that someone couldn't pay their mortgage this month. This isn't a game. These are real people and real lives.

In addition to the astoundingly negative human impact that this shutdown is having on men and women who work for DHS, it is directly impacting our ability to keep Americans safe during heightened national security threats.

In-person trainings at the National Fire Academy, the National Emergency Training Center, the Center for Domestic Preparedness, and the National Disaster and Emergency Management University have been canceled.

The FEMA Disaster Relief Fund has a low balance, and the account will continue to be drained without new appropriations. Wait times through our Nation's airports are already increasing as staffing strains hit the TSA workforce. There will be no new national flood insurance policies processed, impacting Americans who are buying homes.

CISA operates at limited capacity, with the majority of the workforce furloughed. Meanwhile, Iranian, Russian, and Chinese cyber actors continue targeting U.S. networks and critical infrastructure.

While Coast Guard servicemembers received their most recent check, civilian personnel are working without pay.

Homeland Security investigators, who investigate wide-ranging illicit activity, like drugs and weapons smuggling, as well as human trafficking, are not moving forward.

These limitations on our national security capabilities should concern us all. There is no reason to vote against this critical funding for our Department of Homeland Security at such an important time for our country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' to end this shutdown and to keep our Nation safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei), my very good friend and chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim), my very good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Mackenzie), my very good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I advise my friend I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my very good friend, the ranking member, for participating in debate and for working with us to get most of the government open.

Quite frankly, I want to--not correct my good friend from Maryland who spoke earlier, but just provide some context. When we were in negotiations over this bill--we are in the majority in each Chamber--we asked the minority what did they need.

My friend, the ranking member, told me what she needed, and we compromised on almost every bill, all but one. She said that this is the form in which I would like to receive it and would maximize the chances of funding most of the government.

She followed her word to the letter, and we got most of those bills through. We actually got all of those bills through because we did it.

By the same token, I asked our friends, the Senate Democrats: What do you need in terms of this to be able to pass the legislation? It doesn't mean you have to agree with everything in it. It is a compromise bill.

So they told us what they needed. They wanted a package, not a separate vote, and they got exactly what they asked for and exactly what they had agreed to. Nobody got everything they wanted, but this is a compromise bill. You give it to us in this form, and we can pass it.

They didn't.

Now, the reality is a majority of each Chamber is in favor of this legislation. They were in favor of the other five bills which, thankfully, were enacted, or we would be in the middle of a complete government shutdown now.

The majority of both Chambers have voted for this bill. This is a case of the minority deciding to hold the majority hostage. No legislative majority is ever going to agree to that. My friends would not agree to that.

I was here when we were debating the repeal of ObamaCare. We adopted a similar strategy to what Senate Democrats are pursuing today, and note I said Senate Democrats. It didn't work. I didn't think it was very smart. We brought whole sections of the government out to reauthorize. We could say exactly what our friends are saying today: Well, gosh, we are not for shutting down the Department of Defense. We are not for this. You should vote for that.

They didn't vote for any of it because they said they weren't going to be blackmailed. They also said that it was nonsensical to pick and choose which of the different agencies and particular departments we would keep open. They were right about that. They are now pursuing exactly what Republicans did and exactly what they condemned so vociferously and, I would say, correctly at the time.

This is legislative blackmail, and the people who are being hurt are the people who have nothing to do with this dispute. They are doing their jobs, the people at FEMA, the people at TSA, elements of the Coast Guard, the civilian elements of the Coast Guard, and the whole range of things I went through in my opening statement. There is simply no justification for it.

There are negotiations going on on these various matters dealing with Homeland Security. Some of them were in the bill. Body cameras are an excellent Democratic suggestion. Nine times out of 10, I think body cameras show the law enforcement official is almost always in the right, but on the 10th time, we certainly want to know when they are not so we can correct that problem. That is a good idea. That was a Democratic suggestion that we incorporated in the bill.

Let's have de-escalation training to lower tension. That is a good idea, and that is in the bill. There were other things we tried to get in the bill that, frankly, probably, ought to be done just by operation that we weren't able to succeed. We have to have a bill that can pass both Chambers and be signed by the President.

Now, government and appropriations, more than any other part, is a give-and-take process, and we negotiated almost everything very openly and honestly. We negotiated this bill openly and honestly. It was Senate Democrats who, after agreeing to one thing--which, by the way, is exactly what happened in the first government shutdown.

We should look at that. How did that end up?

It lasted 43 days. It was the longest government shutdown in history.

Did Democrats achieve any of their objectives? No.

Now, they think they scored political points.

They think it made them more popular, but did they substantively achieve anything? No.

Right now, there are negotiations going on, largely involving the administration and Senate Democrats. That is fine. I understand there are some changes being made there. We ought to allow that process to continue. We should not shut down the government.

This bill is substantially the same--as the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Amodei, said--as what we saw on this floor 2 months ago, but the situation is fundamentally different. We are in even more dangerous times.

We can debate about that ad infinitum, but I don't think we should be debating as to whether our Homeland Security apparatus should be up, paid, operational, vigilant, and alert. This is the time, of all times, that should happen.

I think some of my friends on the other side--not all of them, but some of them--will have changed their minds because circumstances are different. Frankly, we want to give them the opportunity to go ahead and vote that way if they have changed their minds. If they haven't, that is fine. They can go ahead and keep the Department shut down, but it is at odds with everything they have stood for and preached for many, many, many years.

In the end, I don't think it is helpful in moving the country forward or solving problems. I have never favored shutdowns. I have never argued for them. I have always argued against them, whether my party did it--and we have certainly done it--or the other side. The same thing is true now.

Mr. Speaker, I think if we reflect, we should, in a bipartisan way, do what we did 2 months ago and pass this bill. Hopefully, the Senate will have the opportunity to do the same thing.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill. Let us face facts. The bill we are considering today has no chance of becoming law. It has already failed once. It will fail again.

Republican leadership is aware of this, but they still have chosen to waste our time on political theater, while President Trump's aimless, endless, and costly war with Iran puts American lives in danger.

Whether it is from crises abroad or masked agents at home, President Trump and Republicans are putting Americans at risk. Democrats are fighting to keep our communities safe, both from foreign adversaries and out-of-control Federal agents.

If the Republicans are actually serious about the threat that President Trump's war with Iran has caused, then they should move quickly to bring up my bill, which they rejected, which would fund FEMA, TSA, the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, Federal Law

Enforcement Training Centers, the Science and Technology Directorate, the Office of Inspector General, Federal Protective Services, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, while setting funding for ICE and Customs and Border Protection aside as negotiations on those issues continues.

There is broad agreement on funding for these agencies. There is no controversy over funding disaster relief, aviation security, or making sure the men and women of the Coast Guard and the Secret Service are paid. What there is a significant controversy over, however, is how ICE and Customs and Border Protection have beaten, detained, harassed, and even killed law-abiding U.S. citizens with zero accountability.

I ask my colleagues across the aisle: Why not allow funding for the parts of Homeland Security over which we have no disagreements to pass? Allow the Disaster Relief Fund to be replenished. Allow TSA and Secret Service agents to be paid. Allow the Coast Guard to support its servicemembers and ensure our cybersecurity measures are in place while we continue to negotiate the reforms to ICE and Customs and Border Protection that the vast majority of Americans want to see enacted.

Republicans have called these reforms radical and unreasonable. I ask which reforms specifically they feel are out of line. Let me tell you where there is a broad support for these. Do they oppose prohibiting the detention or the deportation of U.S. citizens? Are they opposed to that? Are they opposed to requiring agents to get a warrant from a judge before kicking in someone's door? Are they opposed to removing masks, requiring badges and identification on uniforms? Are they opposed to prohibiting operations at sensitive locations, like schools, medical facilities, and houses of worship? Are they opposed to allowing independent investigations into wrongdoing? Are they opposed to ending racial profiling and ending roving patrols?

Those are the discussions that are underway. Let us continue to do that.

Are they really willing to block funding for the rest of the Department of Homeland Security because they believe so strongly that these armed Federal agents marauding our streets, armed and terrorizing our communities, should be allowed to hide their faces as they patrol our streets? Do they believe that that is the case?

Mr. Speaker, these reforms are fundamental. They are the same standards that law enforcement all across this country abide by. They protect our communities. They protect law enforcement. They protect our basic constitutional rights.

I encourage my Republican colleagues not to let their opposition to these necessary and overwhelmingly popular reforms stand in the way of funding the rest of the Department of Homeland Security, especially now as President Trump's war with Iran has put Americans at risk.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Defense.

Ms. McCollum. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill fails to address the dangerous and illegal activities from DHS agents in Minnesota that we have witnessed since Operation Metro Surge began, and they are still going on.

Our neighbors were racially profiled and detained without cause. Peaceful demonstrators were threatened and harassed, and continue to be. American citizens were assaulted and kidnapped from their homes and even killed in our streets.

Democrats are calling for commonsense reforms that protect our communities and our rights. We want ICE and Border Patrol agents to follow the same rules as our local law enforcement: Identify yourself, use your body camera, get a real judicial warrant when you enter a home, and establish a policy clearly for use of force.

When DHS agents engage in illegal or dangerous behavior, we want independent investigations to hold them accountable.

I will not vote for more funding for ICE or CBP until this Congress includes those reforms, period. Republicans should allow a vote on Ranking Member DeLauro's bill that would separate ICE, Border Patrol, and Secretary Noem's office while we negotiate real reforms. It would fund the law-abiding components of DHS, like the Coast Guard, FEMA, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, known as CISA.

CISA works to protect our critical infrastructure, our emergency communications, and our election systems. In Minnesota, we learned that the hard way when St. Paul suffered a major cyberattack last summer. It took us weeks to recover.

I am puzzled why Republicans in this bill would cut $268 million from CISA. We should be increasing money for cybersecurity, not reducing it, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Subramanyam).

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, about who is playing politics, his words are really disingenuous.

Fund my bill. Let's pay these Federal employees. Let's pay them all. That is what they deserve. They are working hard.

If you want to protect the American citizens, protect them from ICE, fund the alternative and pay people who are working hard.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished ranking member of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican bill today has no chance. I have said this before, and I will say it again: It has no chance of becoming law. It failed before, and it will fail again.

On the other hand, my bill to re-fund FEMA, TSA, cybersecurity, the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, and other law-abiding components of the Department of Homeland Security while negotiations continue on ICE and CBP is the most viable path forward. It is the best way to respond to those hardworking Federal employees in those agencies.

If Republicans are serious about funding the vast majority of the Department of Homeland Security as President Trump's open-ended war with Iran puts Americans at risk, then they must bring it up for a vote immediately.

For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules had permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to the bill. My amendment would have replaced the text of

the doomed Republican proposal with the text of my bill to fund the parts of the Department of Homeland Security over which there is no disagreement.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close as well, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot today about the Federal workers who are impacted by this lapse in funding. I have to say I am surprised to hear so many of my Republican colleagues suddenly express such ardent concern for the fate of Federal workers.

Where was this concern when President Trump and Elon Musk decimated the Federal workforce last year?

Where was the concern when they drove away close to 1,000 Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency employees? That is one- third of the staff out of our Nation's leading cybersecurity agency.

Where was the outrage when President Trump proposed slashing funding for that same agency by $500 million? That was part of the President's budget, and there was not a peep from my Republican colleagues.

Where were they when the Trump administration appointed a 22-year-old intern to head a key Department of Homeland Security's counterterrorism office?

I have no patience for the crocodile tears being shed by anyone who sat by as President Trump and Kristi Noem tried to eliminate FEMA entirely, people who said not a word when the White House hollowed out whole agencies without the consent of the Congress. They were silent when all of these things happened. Now, all of a sudden, they are ardent defenders of cybersecurity and others. It is nothing more, as I said, than political theater.

This kind of selective sympathy often betrays a partisan agenda. If Republicans were serious, then this week we could have funded every agency under the Department of Homeland Security except for ICE and for CBP. I will not vote for another dime for these agencies until we get the reforms that the American people want in stopping these agencies from terrorizing our communities.

By the way, we could have funded every agency under DHS except for ICE and CBP. By the way, my colleagues are sitting on $140 billion from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Let's dip into those dollars and pay for these Federal employees.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues: Vote ``no'' on what is a cynical attempt to extract more funding for lawless agencies because of a crisis that the President has created without an imminent threat.

I call on the Republican leadership to stop blocking my bill to fund the parts of the Department of Homeland Security upon which we all agree, and let's continue negotiating on the parts that we do not agree on.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today angry. I rise angry by the stunning disparity between the priorities of the two parties.

This week, Republicans' number one priority is to reopen the Department of Homeland Security because our homeland is under threat, whereas Democrats' number one priority, as we will see this afternoon, is to stop and protect those who would endanger our homeland.

The U.S. Coast Guard is actively in operations in Bahrain, protecting the United States, and every one of those brave individuals is not being paid. Not only that, but the DHS Office of Counterterrorism and Homeland Threats is not being paid to look after those who would threaten us in the United States.

What has changed in the last 3 weeks? Let me give you some examples. Today is March 4. Two days ago in Michigan, Islamic scholar and expert in Islam Hassanain Rajabali said the following about the killing of Khamenei: Why do we keep hearing our leaders--this is someone in America referring to Khamenei as ``our leader''--why are we hearing our leaders are being killed and the other side does not? It will come. Don't worry. ``Mahdi will cut tentacles of Rothschilds.''

We need Homeland Security to protect us from this guy.

On February 28, someone who came to Michigan in 1991, who got two degrees at American universities, Dearborn Heights Imam--a religious leader running a mosque--Mohammad Ali Elahi eulogized Khamenei: He would have loved to end his life this way--being killed by the most wretched hands on Earth--speaking about the United States. Even Democrats believe Khamenei was a bad guy. Nothing is greater than martyrdom after 86 years of service.

We need DHS to be funded to protect us from this guy.

Third example: A taxpayer-funded government employee working at Henry Ford Community College in Dearborn, Ali Akbar Shdid: Trump made a huge mistake by killing our leader--again, ``our leader'' being Khamenei. He continued: We are going to continue on his path. We are going to hold his blood and ideology and teach it to our children.

We are paying for this. We need DHS to protect us from this guy. That is just Michigan.

State number two, California: February 28, someone who came from Iraq to the United States in 1994, another Muslim scholar, an expert in Islam, Dr. Sayed Moustafa Qazwini, a Ph.D.: I pray to exit life as a martyr. Like Khamenei, may Allah be pleased with him, not in bed, home, or hospital.

DHS needs to protect us from him.

Mr. Speaker, down the road in Virginia, a mosque in Manassas honoring what they call, again, our leader, Khamenei, extending condolences and glad tidings on his martyrdom.

By the way, these are not being captured with a hidden microphone. They are proudly broadcasting this.

In New York, Zohran Mamdani, February 20, attended a mosque with known ties to Iran and sat there as the imam prayed for the Mahdi to kill the infidels by his sword. We need DHS open to protect us from that.

This is personal for me. In Austin, a Muslim terrorist, who never should have been in this country, just killed three people, and I will talk about him in a bit.

He retweeted, commented on one of my tweets, upset about my criticism of the kind of terrorism that he so engaged in. I didn't find it. So lest any Member of Congress think these threats are not real, if they can do it to me, they can do it to any one of you.

I will close with this. We hear the names of the two who died in Minnesota, but how do we not say the names of Ryder Harrington, Savitha Shan, and Jorge Pederson, who were killed by that man in Austin.

We need the Department of Homeland Security open to protect us from them. How many Americans are going to die while the Department of Homeland Security is closed? We swore an oath to protect Americans, not to protect terrorists. We need to get the Department of Homeland Security open so that we can live up to that obligation.