Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

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

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

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

Ms. DeLAURO. 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.

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

Ms. DeLAURO. 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.

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

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

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the bill at issue in this rule today is not a serious legislative effort. It is, once again, political theater. It is a bill that has already been brought up several times and has gone nowhere. This would be the third time, and the third time is not a charm. If I take a look at the definition of insanity, it is doing the same thing over and over again with the same outcome. This is madness, what we are engaged in here, and, yes, a waste of time. Unlike the bill the Republicans have put forward, I have a measure that was introduced before the shutdown that actually has a good chance of becoming law if only Republican leadership would stop blocking it from receiving a vote. They keep saying no to paying TSA employees. Understand this: 85 percent of ICE and CBP agents are already being paid, so what is the administration doing? They are picking and choosing whom they want to pay. They are holding these other employees hostage for political gain. They view it as a political strategy. They want to continue to fund lawless and rogue agencies. What my bill would do is fund TSA, fund FEMA, fund the Coast Guard, cybersecurity, Secret Service, and other parts of the Department of Homeland Security, on which there was broad agreement. Mr. Speaker, I have to just say, please, spare me your concern over Federal employees. Where were my Republican colleagues when this administration proposed eliminating FEMA entirely? Not a peep. Where were they when the President proposed cutting cybersecurity by $500 million? Not a peep. Where were they when the President unilaterally eliminated the collective bargaining rights for the TSA workers? They were silent. Where were they when Kristi Noem spent $20,000 to rent a horse so she could sit on the saddle of this horse for her political ads that were sanctioned by the President of the United States? Where were they when she spent $200 million of Coast Guard money for two luxury airlines? Give me a break. They care not a whit about what is happening to Federal employees. Yes, they don't have a paycheck. Maybe if we didn't have a paycheck, we would treat this differently.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, they think our constituents are going to forget that it has been 2 months removed since the murder of Alex Pretti. This administration hopes we are going to forget about the harassment, the violence, the chaos, simply because it is not much in the news anymore. Wrong. These are our constituents, our communities. These protections are essential, but the Republican leadership is so opposed to any protection that they refuse to pay Federal workers. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up my bill, H.R. 7481, so that Members can vote to fund the parts of DHS we all agree on without any of the controversial components we do not agree on. I filed a discharge petition that would bring up my measure for a vote. I encourage my Republican colleagues to sign on. I know some of my Republican colleagues in the rank and file do not agree with what their leadership is doing. They hear from Federal workers, TSA agents, and constituents. They know there is no practical need to condition funding for TSA on funding for ICE. They understand we can continue to negotiate on immigration enforcement reform.

Ms. DeLAURO. I invite my colleagues to join me. We can fund TSA, we can pay these workers, and we can do it today. We can end the long lines at airport security. We can continue to negotiate on ICE and CBP to find common ground on reforms that the vast majority of the American people support.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. Madam Speaker, last Friday, workers across the Department of Homeland Security missed a full paycheck. Reports have shown that a number of TSA agents have had to find new jobs or to take up additional work to make ends meet while their pay is frozen. This is wrong. No Democrat wants this, but my Republican colleagues want it. Republicans insist on conditioning funding for TSA workers on more money for ICE. ICE is a lawless and reckless agency, which is terrorizing our community, masked and armed and marauding and roving through our communities nationwide. The Republicans will only agree to pay TSA officers, FEMA employees, cybersecurity experts, and Coast Guard servicemembers if we also provide another $28 billion for ICE and CBP on top of the $140 billion that they already have from the big, beautiful bill. If we defeat the previous question, I will move to bring up my bill, which will fully fund TSA workers. It will fully fund FEMA, including the Disaster Relief Fund. It will fully fund the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, and our cybersecurity efforts. In short, it will fund everything except ICE and CBP. I am tired of the crocodile tears on the other side of the aisle talking about TSA workers and cybersecurity and the Coast Guard. They have a chance to fund these efforts so that people can get paid. They refuse to do it. The Republican leadership blocks this bill. Their approach is all or nothing. It is not enough for them if we fund the vast majority of Homeland Security, if we pay workers who follow the law, people who keep us safe, who do not harass us, do not detain us, do not beat us up, do not abuse our constituents at whim, or kill American citizens.

Ms. DeLAURO. No, they will not support any measure unless it gives ICE and CBP more money without any of the protections our communities need and the American people demand. If Republicans allow my measure to come to a vote, we could end the impasse today. Hardworking Americans will get paid. Have the courage to stand up and do it. I encourage them to do so.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of the most effective staffers and one of the most trusted partners with whom I have ever had the pleasure of working. Many of my colleagues know her well by her presence at my side on this floor, from the townhalls and the briefings she has given regarding Community Project Funding, or her skill in helping hundreds of House Democratic offices submit their priorities to the Appropriation Committee each year. In each aspect of her role as director of Member services, Ryann Elizabeth Kinney has brought unmatched tenacity, patience, attention to detail, and good humor with her. These are all essential qualities during long debates and longer markups. She is more than staff to me. She is family. I worked with her father, and I watched her grow up and begin her career as an intern in my office. She jumped at the opportunity to become my temporary scheduler. We all know that scheduling can be a no-win job in the office. Ryann handled it with aplomb, taking on a legislative portfolio even as she became my permanent scheduler. When I took on the role of Appropriations chair, I knew there was no one I would rather have in my corner on the committee. As always, Ryann was up for the challenge. Since then, we have known victories. We have known defeats. We have had highs and lows. Like me, Ryann never tires of the fight. I am certain that Ryann will enjoy great success in her future endeavors, wherever that may lead. While I will miss her counsel and her company in this body, I am so proud and excited to see her pursue new opportunities and adventures. Mr. Speaker, Ryann will always be part of my family. I thank her for everything, and the staff is all gathered in the gallery to thank her, as well.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. 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.

Ms. DeLAURO. 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.''

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

Ms. DeLAURO. 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.

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

Ms. DeLAURO. 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.

Ms. DeLAURO. 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.

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

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

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, for fifty-five years, the City of New Haven, Connecticut has been home to Derek Simpson Goldsmith, a jewelry store offering unique pieces of all kinds designed by the remarkable artist, Derek Simpson. At the end of this month, the store will close and Derek will retire--a loss for Downtown New Haven and jewelry lovers everywhere. A beloved artist, small business owner, and community member, Derek and his exceptional craftmanship will be missed by many. Born and raised in Sheffield, Yorkshire, England, Derek earned a national design diploma upon his graduation from the School of Silversmithing at Sheffield College of Arts and Crafts. His undergraduate success was rewarded with a scholarship for post-graduate study at the Royal College of Art in the School of Silversmithing and Jewelry. Derek began his career working for renowned American jeweler, Bert C. Gore in Paris before returning to England where he was a professor of metalwork at the Rotherham School of Art and later the head of metalwork at Mid-Cheshire College of Art and Design. He enjoyed great success as a designer and educator; however, his true dream was to open his own jewelry store. It was a dream that he would fulfill here in America. With relatives in the area, Derek relocated to the New Haven, Connecticut, area in 1970. Just a year later, the owner of a bookstore on Park Street in City's downtown agreed to lease him a small space at the front of his business. It was here that Derek Simpson Goldsmith took root and Derek's dreams of owning his own business were realized. It was not long before both the business and inventory grew requiring Derek to seek a larger storefront. The design and creation of jewelry pieces is an art in and of itself. As a master jeweler, Derek is a brilliant artist. It is that nexus of art and jewelry that inspired former Yale President Henry Broude to offer Derek a retail space at the Yale Center for British Art while it was under construction in 1974. Designed by architect Louis Kahn, the Yale Center for British Art was a perfect fit and thus Derek Simpson Goldsmith found its second downtown New Haven home. Twenty years later, Derek later moved the business to its current downtown location on Chapel Street where it has remained since. Derek's mastery of design and his artistry have been recognized by local jewelry lovers and international celebrities alike. In addition to the incredibly popular and adored collections he has designed and sold in his stores, Derek has also been commissioned to create special pieces. Shirt studs for composer Leonard Bernstein, cufflinks for architect Philip Johnson, a pin and an earring respectively for American tennis greats Chris Evert, and Andre Aggasi, and necklaces for Olivia Newton-John and Patty Smith--all designed and created by Derek Simpson. In 1976, Derek was commissioned by the City of New Haven to design a silver pillbox, its lid etched with nine squares depicting New Haven original city plan. During the U.S. Bicentennial festivities in New Haven, the specially commissioned pillbox was presented to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, II to commemorate the Nation's anniversary and her visit. On a more personal note, I have been a fan and customer of Derek's for decades. I have always been in awe of his talent and creativity. I am especially grateful to Derek for the engagement ring and wedding bands he designed for myself and my husband. His imagination and creativity are just astounding. We have been fortunate to have had him call New Haven home for so long. Though we are all sad to see the doors of Derek Simpson Goldsmith close, I am honored to have this opportunity to rise and thank him for sharing his talents with us for so many years. As he begins this new life chapter, I am honored to extend my very best wishes to Derek, his wife, Pamela, as well as their family, for many more years of health and happiness. I thank him for bringing so much joy to so many lives.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the bill at issue today is not a serious legislative effort. It is political theater. Republican leadership is trying to use President Trump's aimless, costly, and illegal war with Iran to force through more funding for ICE and Customs and Border Protection without the substantial changes that the vast majority of Americans believe those agencies need. It is a cynical effort, and it is one that will fail. If Republicans are actually serious about the threat that President Trump's war with Iran has caused, then they would move quickly to bring up my bill. They rejected the amendment last night in the Rules Committee, but I will tell you what it would fund. The bill would fund law-abiding components of DHS: Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA; Disaster Relief Fund; Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency; U.S. Coast Guard; Transportation Security Administration, TSA; U.S. Secret Service; Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers; Science and Technology Directorate; Office of Inspector General; and Federal Protective Service. These are the agencies that are part of what we ought to be funding and could fund today if the Republicans wanted to do it. Mr. Speaker, they do not want to do it because they support lawless, reckless agencies, ICE and Customs and Border Patrol. We can set those aside for further negotiations as those negotiations continue. Unlike the bill Republicans have put forward, my measure actually has a good chance of passing if only the Republican leadership would allow it to come forward with a vote. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up my bill, H.R. 7481, so that Members can vote to fund the law-abiding agencies within the Department of Homeland Security. There is broad agreement on the funding of these agencies. There is no controversy over any of them. There is significant controversy over ICE and Customs and Border Protection because they 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 that we have no disagreements over? Let's pass those, allow that disaster relief 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. We are going to negotiate reforms to ICE and Customs and Border Protection. It is underway. What are those reforms? There is broad public support for prohibiting the detention or deportation of U.S. citizens and prohibiting operations at sensitive locations like schools and houses of worship.