H.Res. 1131

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, pursuant to House Resolution 1131, I call up the bill (H. Res. 1128) expressing the support of the House of Representatives for the Department of Homeland Security, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H. Res. 1128.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1128, Expressing the Support of the House of Representatives for the Department of Homeland Security.

As we meet today, tens of thousands of Federal workers serving on the front lines of our national security are going unpaid. For over 40 days, the men and women we count on to protect passengers, secure our critical infrastructure, and step up during disasters have gone unpaid.

For the third time in 6 months, politics is getting in the way of critical American workers, the pay that they have earned. The impact of these political games isn't theoretical. It is causing real-world impacts each and every day.

Over 50,000 Federal employees are going without paychecks just at TSA alone. Hundreds of employees have quit. Call-out rates are in the double digits, and those who are able to go to work are stuck managing some of the longest lines that we have seen at U.S. airports.

All of this is happening at a time when our Nation is preparing to host major events while experiencing heightened national security risks.

We have to do better.

Today, this House will have an opportunity to vote on my resolution, H. Res. 1128, affirming the importance of DHS, the necessity of funding its agencies and employees, the risks of defunding our security apparatus, and our gratitude to the men and women who are working every day to protect this Nation.

The House has already passed the appropriations bill to fully fund DHS twice, both times with bipartisan support.

Now, it is time for us to speak with one voice putting aside politics to thank the members of the Coast Guard, FEMA, TSA, and more, who are continuing to do their jobs and keep us safe, despite many now going nearly a month and a half without a paycheck.

Saying ``yes'' to funding does not mean saying ``no'' to reform. There are concerns that need to be addressed with respect to certain ICE and CBP operations, and when there are opportunities for positive reform we should work together to achieve it.

That is why the DHS funding bill passed twice by this House already features significant new measures aimed at reducing tensions and improving transparency, including new funding for body cameras, de- escalation training, and the DHS Office of Inspector General.

Despite this, in the face of grave terror threats against our Nation, some are choosing to politicize our national security and hold paychecks hostage until all of their demands are met.

Let me be clear. Conversations about commonsense reforms at DHS operations are underway. They were underway before this shutdown. They continue to go on, and we will not stop until we get the reforms that the American people are looking for.

I look forward to continuing to engage on this issue and working together to achieve a system of immigration enforcement that meets the needs and standards of the American people.

Defunding our security apparatus, robbing workers of their paychecks, and creating chaos at our airports across this country does not bring us any closer to achieving those goals. It is time to put the politics aside and get serious about our national security.

In the meantime, the American people are waiting. Throughout this shutdown, we have seen powerful examples of our communities stepping in to provide for neighbors and those who are impacted. In my district in Pennsylvania's Lehigh Valley, we have seen residents coming forward to donate everything, like food and diapers, to our dedicated TSA agents at our local airport. They are continuing to do their jobs every single day, even as the bills pile up and savings are stretched thin.

To the TSA staff at the ABE airport and to all those impacted workers in my district and throughout the country who are continuing to work, I say: Thank you. I also thank all of those who stepped up to provide support for them and their families.

Here is the reality: We shouldn't have to count on local communities to provide for our Federal workers. That is the job of our elected Representatives. That is why I and so many in this Chamber have voted to provide full funding for DHS.

Tens of thousands of Federal workers are doing their jobs. We, in a bipartisan fashion, have already done that here in the House of Representatives, but we need bipartisan buy-in from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to make it a reality. We need bipartisan support in the Senate to get Democrats to go along with this full funding of DHS to make sure that this makes its way to the President's desk and gets signed into law.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution thanking these workers and recognizing the critical nature of the work that they do to protect our communities and our country, and calling for the Department of Homeland Security to receive full funding--full funding-- for its needs to keep our community safe.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, what we just heard was not, in fact, the whole story. The previous speaker mentioned that he wanted to tell the whole story. Well, I think it is important that we get all the facts on the record.

What the gentleman left out was that he, himself, voted twice against funding for DHS. This resolution is not in lieu of the opportunity to vote for funding. We are going to give you another opportunity, but you are going to vote ``no'' again. That is the whole story.

The Democrats in this House want to stand in the way of keeping America safe. The Democrats in the Senate want to change the rules of the game. What they choose to do is they go out there and demand all kinds of unrealistic conditions that would actually hamstring DHS, keep our country less safe, and are totally unworkable in practice.

We, as Republicans, have offered full funding. We have offered partial funding with reforms. We have said here is the way that we can make this system not only better but keep America safe while making these reasonable commonsense reforms.

What did they do? They dismissed them out of hand.

He said Donald Trump, our President, our duly elected President, has shot down these opposition proposals. That is not the case. The Senate, the Congress are the ones that are going to advance these pieces of legislation to the President's desk.

The Senate has put forward those proposals to Democratic colleagues, and what did they do? They are the ones who rejected the latest offer. We have extended the olive branch, we have extended our hand and said: Come together, work with us, fully fund the Department of Homeland Security.

They will never fund ICE because of their radical left. They are beholden to the fringe in their party that will do everything to protect and promote illegal immigrants over the interests of American citizens. However, it should be noted that ICE actually does some very critical work in our local community.

There is Homeland Security Investigations, HSI. What does that do as a part of ICE? They go out and protect people against human trafficking, drug trafficking, drug smuggling. That is what you are opposed to? It is ludicrous.

Mr. Speaker, we have to fully fund ICE. The previous gentleman said that this resolution doesn't do enough. I agree. I agree. The resolution is a way to thank and recognize DHS and all of its employees for the great work they do to keep us safe. We should agree on that.

We should also agree on getting funding to fully fund the operations of DHS. You voted against it twice. You are going to vote against it again, and you are going to leave the American people less safe. That is the full story.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Guest).

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

I appreciate the spirited debate, but it is important when you are debating somebody to call out their half-truths and their deflections. The half-truth that this gentleman speaks of is that Republicans control the House, Senate, and White House, and so that gives us total ability to pass whatever we want. That is not the case.

We know that in the Senate you need 60 votes to get something passed in policy, so you do need bipartisan support to actually get something passed into law and help the American people.

We are asking, Mr. Speaker, for our Democrat colleagues to come along and join us in fully funding the operations of DHS.

Now, the deflection comes when he tells you all about the important and critical training and the ways that DHS operates.

We are talking not only in this resolution but also in an appropriations bill that is going to follow about fully funding the operations of ICE.

The gentleman tries to obfuscate, tries to change the conversation. The bottom line is that that funding for DHS was voted on twice in this House already. We voted for it in a bipartisan fashion, and we are going to give all Members of this body the ability to vote on it for a third time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Van Epps).

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

Mr. Speaker, it is so critically important that we fund and fully fund the Department of Homeland Security. The best way to do that is in a bipartisan fashion. That is why this House of Representatives has already voted twice with bipartisan support to advance that legislation over to the Senate.

The previous speaker, his wishful thinking, his off-the-wall Rube Goldberg proposal, saying that Republicans in the House are somehow opposing his scheme, it is just simply unrealistic. The American people don't buy it because there is not something before us that has the bipartisan support of over 218 votes to pass. That is not what he is proposing. What we have is the pragmatic, commonsense solution that has the bipartisan support to pass twice. Join us in that effort. Join us, please. Please. I don't understand, Mr. Speaker--

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all this discussion, again. We have to do what is best for the American people. We already have something that is advanced. We are going to continue that conversation. In addition to that, we can continue to thank and recognize all of our workers at DHS.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Evans).

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague who just spoke can stick around to hear this. It is important that we are on the same page.

My esteemed colleague was here years ago during 9/11. The reason why we established the Department of Homeland Security, as the gentleman knows, is to break down silos. What Democrats are advocating for is building up walls, siloing off parts of our Department of Homeland Security, and leaving our country less safe.

That was the whole point of having a unified Department of Homeland Security. The previous speaker knows that history, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman knows that full well. Everybody who was here after 9/11 knows that full well.

To go back on that and try to break down these silos and say that we want to fund everything, but we want to defund Federal law enforcement, that is an affront to our national security. That is an affront to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that we need to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security. We have that resolution on the floor. We are going to offer it up again. We are going to give them a third opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am so grateful that my colleague stuck around to hear that it is a disastrous idea to build silos in the Department of Homeland Security and to defund Federal law enforcement. That is absolutely accurate,

and we need it on the record that those statements were damaging to what our national security apparatus does every single day to keep us safe.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Fong).

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I appreciate the spirited debate with my colleagues, especially the past speaker. We appreciate his experience. He has been a Member of this body since even before I was born. I am 43 years old now. He has been a Member of this Chamber for longer than that. He was elected in 1981, and we appreciate his experience and knowledge that he brings to this debate. Yet, when somebody is wrong, regardless of their age or experience, it is our obligation to recognize that and call that out.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).

Mr. Speaker, may I as to the time remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, again, Republicans are offering this resolution to thank our great men and women of the Department of Homeland Security for all of their work during this Democratic shutdown, where they are not receiving funding and their paychecks to support them and their families.

Republicans have this resolution and also the resolution for appropriating all of the funding, and those are both going to come before the full House. I encourage all of my colleagues to support it. We have had bipartisan support for the appropriations in the past, and, hopefully, we will get that again this time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this conversation has been rewarding and enlightening for the American people.

I have heard half-truths, deflections, and obfuscations from the other side throughout our conversation today. I have also heard fearmongering.

What we need are pragmatic, commonsense solutions that have bipartisan support. That is what we have with the DHS funding appropriations that Congress has already passed through the House that we are going to have an opportunity to vote on again. It is a chance to give the American people the results that they are looking for. It is not a conversation. It is fact.

Mr. Speaker, it has been great to hear the other side put themselves on the record for not fully funding parts of the Department of Homeland Security, for building up silos, for advocacy about defunding law enforcement. That is what we have heard here today. It is shocking, but I think it is enlightening for the American people to see that contrast and have it on full display.

I wish that we had more than an hour to have this debate. I think this is something that every American should see: Republicans coming together to support national security, to fund our workers, and to give our workers, the American people, the paychecks they deserve for the work that they are doing. However, Mr. Speaker, the other side stands in objection as an obstacle to this commonsense solution every single day.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I thank the other side for putting this contrast on full display for the American people, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I couldn't agree with my colleague more that we should fund and fully fund the Department of Homeland Security today. That is why we are going to have the opportunity for every Member to vote ``yes'' on that resolution to fully fund it.

We are also going to have the opportunity in addition to that funding to

give our Members the opportunity to vote in full support of the men and women at the Department of Homeland Security and all the great work they do every single day. I would encourage a ``yes'' vote on both of those resolutions, certainly on the one that is being debated here before us, H. Res. 1128.

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

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

Before I make my remarks on the bill, I would like to take a moment to praise the work of one of our staff who is leaving the committee next week.

Jocelyn Hunn is a trailblazer. In 1983, she became the second woman to ever work as a professional staff member for the House Appropriations Committee.

In her career, she fought to preserve our natural and cultural resources, ensure access to clean air and water, and provide services to all Americans to advance their well-being and help them to achieve a better life.

Jocelyn is retiring from a career in government service on Tuesday. The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee and the entire House of Representatives owe her a debt of gratitude for her tireless work, and that began more than four decades ago.

I wish my friend Godspeed. It has been a pleasure to work with her. It really has.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this twice-doomed legislation.

Madam Speaker, what is the definition of insanity?

It is doing the same thing over and over and over again, expecting a different result. This is not a serious effort. It is just more political theater.

Here is the truth: The President has given up on funding DHS. He said earlier this week that any deal Congress makes, ``I am pretty much not happy with it.'' Then, he said to Republicans: Don't make a deal with the Democrats.

Does that sound like someone who wants to end this crisis and pay TSA workers?

Madam Speaker, the Congress is on its own. The only way we are getting out of this logjam is if we work together to exercise our power of the purse.

The talks in the Senate have all but fallen apart. The President is refusing to get behind anything. Tomorrow will mark the second full paycheck that TSA workers and others across DHS will miss.

I might just make a note here, because I think it is important to say something about this. In fact, at this moment, 85 percent of ICE and CBP are being paid; Secret Service, 75 percent; and Coast Guard, 85 percent.

TSA workers are being paid zero, but the TSA Administrator confirmed yesterday that the Department made the decision not to pay TSA workers. The Department made that decision, I am sure in concert with the President of the United States, that these are folks who are expendable. We don't have to pay them. Let's pay the others and leave them on their own.

Again, this is not someone or some Department that cares about TSA workers.

I have put forward a proposal that I honestly believe is a reasonable middle ground between the two sides of this discussion. Democrats do not want to provide more funding for ICE or CBP without legally binding policy changes that protect our communities. Republicans are opposed to many of these changes and want to fund ICE and CBP without any new protections.

Neither side disagrees over funding for TSA, FEMA, the Coast Guard, or other parts of DHS. What we are caught up on is whether or not we can deal with ICE and CBP separately, or if we have to fund everything all at once. I do not believe that it must be all or nothing.

My proposal, which I introduced over 1 month ago, funds the parts of DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, that we all agree on. It funds TSA so that these workers can get paid--they can pay their bills, they can stop sleeping in their cars, and they can avoid evictions--and so that we can put an end to the long lines at airport security.

It funds FEMA so that we can replenish the Disaster Relief Fund and ensure that our communities are prepared for the next natural disaster.

It fully funds cybersecurity so that we are equipped to prevent or respond to any threat that comes our way.

It separates out the funding for ICE and CBP for the time being, just for the time being, so that we can negotiate on that issue without holding the rest of the Department hostage.

I have been listening to the debates over this impasse. I believe some of my Republican colleagues are under the impression that my proposal is designed to permanently shutter ICE and CBP. That is not true. That is not the case. We will have to pass a bill to fund those agencies, and we will do so when we have come together on an agreement that establishes reasonable protections against abuse, reasonable protections, I might add, that the vast majority of Americans support.

We cannot have masked, armed Federal agents roaming our communities, breaking down doors with no warrants, arresting people with no explanation, and, yes, even murdering Americans in the streets.

In the meantime, there is no reason to keep the rest of the Department shut down.

Madam Speaker, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.

My amendment would have replaced the text of the doomed Republican proposal with the text of my bill to fund the parts of DHS over which there is no disagreement.

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

Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, let me just make a couple of quick points here.

I think I said earlier it was the TSA Administrator yesterday who confirmed that the Department made the decision not to pay TSA workers.

In addition to that, the Department of Homeland Security has a $10 billion slush fund that comes from the Republicans' big, beautiful bill. They could dip into that slush fund to pay TSA screeners if the Trump administration chose to do so.

By the way, this is the same account that former Secretary Noem used to buy two luxury jets for her use and to rent a horse for $20,000 so she could ride atop it in her ads. If she can do that, then the new Secretary could use this $10 billion slush fund to pay TSA screeners. They have chosen not to do it. They are not shedding any tears for those workers.

It is false. It is politics. It is a cudgel, and they are using them and playing them for political reasons. Again, they choose not to pay them, and so it falls to us. Yes, it falls to us.

Everyone in this room wants to pay TSA employees and Coast Guard and FEMA. My bill does that. It actually does it. The bill before us does not do this.

Let's be reasonable. We have done this before when parts of the government were closed and we thought that some should open. We did it for food inspectors because our food should be inspected so that people can get access to it. We have done it for military pay. Why aren't we doing it for TSA employees? We could do that today.

Do you know what. We don't need a discharge petition. We need a Speaker of the House to take this bill and bring it to the floor, and I would bet you dollars to doughnuts that, in fact, we would have overwhelming support from Democrats and Republicans in passing it. Then TSA, FEMA, the Coast Guard, Cybersecurity, and Secret Service can get paid for the jobs that they are doing.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the distinguished Democratic whip.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the distinguished Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear: ICE and CBP are being paid. TSA is not. That is what President Trump and the Republicans have decided.

I am delighted to hear about this newfound concern that my Republican colleagues have about wanting to fund these agencies. I think it is very clear: Where were they when the administration proposed eliminating FEMA entirely? Where were they when the President proposed cutting cybersecurity by $500 million? Where were they when the President unilaterally eliminated collective bargaining rights for TSA workers? They were silent, not one word.

Spare me, spare all of us, and spare the American people these crocodile tears which you shed about people that you cut. Republicans cut a thousand people. Republicans allowed Elon Musk to cut a thousand people from cybersecurity and then sat around saying nothing. So, again, spare us all.

Now, let me just say this to you: The chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee said a little while ago that what the Democrats were offering were radical and unachievable reforms.

Let's take a look at the radical and unachievable reforms: arrest warrant requirements; prohibit the detention and detainment of U.S. citizens; Fourth Amendment protections; search and seizure protections; officer ID requirements; no mask but badges like other law enforcement agencies; prohibit immigration enforcement at sensitive locations such as schools, churches, and medical facilities; end racial profiling; restrictions on the use of force to prevent future deadly incidents like those we saw in Minnesota; prohibiting the Department from withholding evidence for use of force-related investigations; protecting Member access to all ICE facilities, including new facilities that they are buying with $45 billion that they received in the big, beautiful bill; and, yes, mandatory body-worn cameras.

These policies have to be built into law. That is what needs to happen here. I have offered--and I did this a month ago, more than a month ago now--I said plainly speaking--because there are serious disagreements about ICE and about CBP, serious disagreements.

Mr. Speaker, 70 percent of the United States, the people in this country, believe that these agencies need to be brought under control and that we need protections. Let's hammer that out. Let's hammer it out on its own.

Why do we want to hold hostage the men and women who are doing their job every single day? They are not asking for more. They are asking to be paid for the work and the service that they give to all of us. Why are we holding them hostage and deliberately doing so with TSA agents? As I said, ICE and CBP, they are being paid. CBP has $65 billion. ICE has $75 billion.

Our people are hurting. They need to get help.

The President said $500 million cuts to cybersecurity. That is what he said in his budget. No one blinked an eye when he said he was cutting 1,000 workers from cybersecurity. Now we have this newfound worry about cybersecurity? Again, spare us.

There is a very simple solution to this.

Let us take the agencies on which we have mutual agreement. It is a reasonable middle ground between two sides of this discussion. We don't want to provide more funding for ICE or CBP without the binding policy changes that protect our communities.

Republicans are opposed to many of these changes and want to fund ICE and CBP without any new protections. Neither side disagrees over funding TSA, FEMA, Coast Guard, or other parts. What we are caught up on is whether or not we can deal with ICE and CBP separately or if we have to fund everything all at once.

I personally do not believe it must be all or nothing. That is not the spirit of compromise that allows us to move forward and to create policy changes and initiatives in this Nation.

My proposal funds the parts of DHS that we all agree on. It funds TSA so they would get paid. They can pay their bills, stop sleeping in their cars, and avoid evictions. We can put an end to the long lines at airport security. It funds FEMA so we can replenish the disaster relief fund. It ensures that our communities are prepared for the next natural disaster. It fully funds cybersecurity so we are equipped to prevent or respond to any threat that comes our way. It separates ICE and CBP for the time being, not forever, for the time being, so we can negotiate on that issue without holding the rest of the Department hostage.

As I said earlier, I listened to the debates. I believe some of my Republican colleagues are under the impression that the proposal is designed to permanently shutter ICE and CBP. That is not true. We have to pass bills to fund those agencies. We will do so when we can come together on an agreement that establishes those protections against abuse, which the majority of Americans support.

There is no reason for us to keep the rest of the Department shut down. It is an easy solution if we choose to take it. This is about political will and a choice. Quite frankly, we do not need a discharge petition. The Speaker of the House could call up this bill at any moment, place it on the floor, and it would pass overwhelmingly. But there is a discharge petition. If we have to try to get it to the floor, it would be my hope that several of my Republican colleagues would find that this is a reasonable solution, a way to accommodate both sides of the argument.

Let's come to a compromise on what we can do with ICE and CBP, but let us fund the agencies that so deserve to get paid for the job that they are doing for the American people. It should be up to us to do our job for the American people, and today our job is to bring up this compromise and allow us to fund these agencies and to continue to negotiate about ICE and CBP.

That is the responsible thing for all of us to do today. It can be done, and I would just say one last thing. What we are doing here today is what I said at the outset. This is not three times is the charm. This bill has nowhere to go, nowhere to go, and it is an argument that has failed in the past. It will fail again.

Let's fund the agencies that deserve our support. Let's make sure we get the kinds of protections for the American people and ICE and CBP.

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, pursuant to House Resolution 1131, I call up the bill (H.R. 5103) to establish a program to Beautify the District of Columbia and establish the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful Commission, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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, I support the Make the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful Act of 2025, which codifies core components of President Trump's Executive Order No. 14252 titled: ``Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful.''

Our Nation's Capital is a direct reflection of our great country and should be a symbol of pride for the American people and a safe and beautiful location for all who reside and visit. Violent crime in Washington, D.C., has been far too high for far too long.

The Oversight and Government Reform Committee's investigation into D.C. crime has shown that lawlessness and violence on D.C.'s streets are not an inevitability. It is a policy choice.

Specifically, we show that D.C. leadership pressured and, at times, directed police commanders to manipulate crime data in order to maintain the appearance of low crime in the Nation's Capital.

You have to ask yourself: Why would the Democratic D.C. Council do that? They sought to deceive the American people because their misguided policies hurt American citizens.

Unfortunately, years of soft-on-crime policies have turned Washington, D.C., into a city with high crime rates, rampant homelessness, and graffiti on historic buildings and monuments. Symbols of our great Nation, such as the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, and the World War II Memorial, have all been vandalized and defaced over the years.

President Trump and congressional Republicans are tackling crime in Washington, D.C., head-on.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5103 establishes the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful Commission, made up of key Federal law enforcement and other Federal partners, to focus on ensuring the safety of District residents and visitors through full enforcement of Federal and local laws in the District.

The commission will develop recommendations on how to prioritize the safety of the District's residents and visitors. This bill also requires the development and implementation of a D.C. beautification plan.

Key Federal and local leaders will be tasked--I will repeat that one. Key Federal and local leaders will be tasked with coordinating the cleanliness of the District's facilities, infrastructure, and parks. These leaders will also work to restore Federal public monuments, statues, markers, and similar properties that have been defaced.

Every day, my constituents from Virginia's Fifth Congressional District visit D.C. for work, travel, and my office coordinates tours for them. My constituents, as well as all who work or live in or travel to D.C., should feel safe while walking down the street.

Today, congressional Republicans will again show that we are the party

of law and order by voting in support of H.R. 5103.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there was a great debate in 1790 with Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison. Many here may remember the play ``Hamilton.'' At the end of the day, they came up with the idea of having Washington, D.C. At the time, they wanted the seat of Federal Government to be in Pennsylvania or in New York. What that would have done is that would have given us a superstate where all of the money and all of the priorities would have gone.

Maryland ceded a little bit of land, Virginia ceded a little bit of land, and we came up with Washington, D.C.

Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, we are Congress, and we, by the Constitution, have complete authority over Washington, D.C. It is not a State, because if it was, it would be a superstate, which would have all of the money and all of the power for the country, and it would take away voices from the other States.

Now, as I have been in Congress for 14 months, I have been around the District of Columbia talking with law enforcement and people that have lived here for years. In just 14 months and into the first year of President Trump's term, I have a lot of anecdotes.

I ran into a young woman, who went into a Subway, and a homeless woman said: Let me get the door for you. So the homeless woman opened the door. As she walked in, this woman punched her in the back of the head, nearly knocked her out. When she came to, that woman that knocked her out went to jail. She got a phone call just a few hours later from a detective saying: Hey, we put that woman back on the street, but don't worry, she is not going to harm anyone.

It seems like the policies coming out of the D.C. Council indicate to the American citizens visiting and living here that police are bad, criminals are good, and nobody cares about the victim. They have made a mockery of the criminal justice system.

Again, that authority is Congress, and this bill codifies that.

My bill codifies many elements of President Trump's successful executive order until 2029, ensuring there isn't a backslide into lawlessness in the city.

I had a young woman come up to me and say: I walk my dog at 8 p.m. I didn't understand what that meant. What she then said is: 2 years ago, I would not walk my dog in the dark. That is just in 14 months, and we need to codify that.

This bill is not partisan. It is common sense. Whether you are Democrat, Republican, Independent, we are all Americans, and I think we all want to live, work, and raise our family in peace. It should be nonpartisan. Wanting our Nation's Capital to be safe and beautiful, again, is not political. It is in the best interests of all who travel to and call D.C. their home.

When people come to Washington, D.C., they are not just visiting a city. They are visiting our Nation's Capital, the greatest country with the greatest people in the history of Earth. We may not be perfect, but we have lifted more people out of poverty, given more people freedom, and given more people opportunity than any country on Earth. Even in our worst days, everyone around the world wants to come to America because of our freedom.

What they see in The National Mall, the memorials, in our parks, and transit quarters shapes their pride and our shared heritage. If those spaces aren't clean, safe, and cared for, we all feel it--residents, commuters, small businesses, and millions of visitors who power D.C.'s local economy. When people visit D.C., they should feel safe

while taking in the scenery and historic landmarks, not scared to walk two blocks because of the crime or confronted with a homeless encampment while walking on The National Mall.

One young staffer told me that she takes an Uber if she has to walk more than two blocks, but in the last 14 months she now walks 20 minutes to work. So, we are making progress, and we need to codify that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, reckless D.C. Council policies have caused citizens from all over the United States and in D.C. to be robbed, raped, and murdered. They are reckless. They are not getting the job done, which is why we need to do this bill.

In the Oversight Committee we pointed that out. Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia Chief Pamela Smith actually resigned immediately following the release of the Oversight Committee's report. Why would they cover up these crimes? It is to trick the American people so they don't understand how bad their policies are.

In 2023, there were 274 homicides in D.C., a 20-year high.

In 2024, D.C. had the fourth highest homicide rate in the country.

While these crime statistics are troubling on their own, they significantly understate the level of crime in the D.C. area.

Last year, an investigation into D.C.'s crime statistics by the Oversight Committee revealed that D.C. leadership pressured and at times manipulated crime statistics to maintain the appearance of low crime in our Nation's Capital. This pressure demoralized the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department making the city less safe.

President Trump's crackdown on violent crime in D.C. last year resulted in a significant drop in crime and increased arrests.

My bill, H.R. 5103, facilitates the deployment of more robust Federal law enforcement presence in D.C. in coordination with local law enforcement, providing vital support to ensure that both Federal and local laws are being followed to keep D.C. safe.

Now, sanctuary cities are sanctuaries for criminals. If you are a criminal, would you rather go to a city where local and Federal police authorities cooperate, communicate, and work as a team, or would you rather go to one where they don't work as a team? They have not been working as a team in D.C., and it is causing people to die.

That is unacceptable.

On the concealed carry permit aspect of the bill, D.C. has some of the most complicated and strict gun laws in the country.

Law-abiding residents who wish to protect themselves and their loved ones are forced to wait 4 months on average for a concealed carry permit appointment. This is unacceptable and, frankly, infringes on their Second Amendment rights, which are enshrined in our founding documents.

Criminals don't care about the law.

My bill establishes the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful Commission which will collaborate with appropriate local government entities to speed up and reduce the cost of D.C.'s concealed carry permit process.

Criminals do not care about the law. You can create whatever law you want and try to get guns out of D.C. The criminals do not care. They are always going to get a gun, and you are making law-abiding citizens helpless victims.

The only people who are affected by D.C.'s complicated process are law-abiding residents. Streamlining concealed carry permits will decrease crime by allowing law-abiding citizens to better protect themselves and their families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, crime statistics coming from the other side, obviously, I can't see them being reliable, especially as a member of the Oversight Committee. We talked about the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department. Chief Pamela Smith resigned immediately following the release of the Oversight Committee report, where they had a clear coverup on crimes to make it look like D.C. crime is not accurate.

Since President Trump's Federal enforcement action, the D.C. crime, especially violent crimes, has truly drastically decreased. Carjackings have dropped 87 percent. This is proof that increased Federal and local cooperation is essential to reducing crime in D.C.

Again, if you are a criminal, Mr. Speaker, you would rather go to a city where they don't cooperate, communicate, and work as a team. We are ensuring that they cooperate, communicate, and work as a team, and they will be less attracted to D.C.

Mayor Bowser herself stated that she appreciated the surge of Federal law enforcement officers as it enhanced the Metropolitan Police Department's law enforcement efforts. In contrast, the D.C. Council has proven time and time again that they prioritize dangerous criminals over the law-abiding residents of D.C. and the thousands of tourists who visit our Nation's Capital every day.

My bill will ensure coordination between Federal and local law enforcement continues, providing local police the additional Federal resources and personnel they need to combat crime in the District.

Again, on the concealed carry permit, nowhere in the United States do you have to wait 4 months, Mr. Speaker. That is an infringement on our Second Amendment, for whatever excuse they have.

Thankfully, not only is President Trump making America great again, he is making Washington, D.C., great again.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues, my friends on the other side, will consider the priority of the safety of American citizens in D.C. and the rest of the country, and keep the city that represents our great Nation safe and beautiful.

Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, Congress has a constitutional duty to ensure the District of Columbia is safe, secure, and beautiful.

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