Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (53-47, 3/5 majority required)
53 Yea47 Nay0 Not voting3/5 required
HR-7147-119
Became Public Law No: 119-86.
Sponsored by Tom Cole (R-OK)
What it does
This law provides fiscal year 2026 funding for the Department of Homeland Security, including Customs and Border Protection, TSA, Coast Guard, Secret Service, FEMA, and CISA, specifying dollar amounts for each agency's operations, procurement, and grant programs. It also includes numerous conditions on spending, reporting requirements to Congress, and restrictions such as barring new border-crossing fees, requiring passenger screening for members of Congress and top officials, and zeroing out funding for certain immigration enforcement line items referenced in the accompanying explanatory statement.
Who benefits
DHS agencies and their employees who receive continued funding and staffing (CBP, TSA, Coast Guard, Secret Service, FEMA, CISA); state and local governments receiving homeland security grants (e.g., State Homeland Security Grant Program, Urban Area Security Initiative); government contractors supplying vehicles, aircraft, and detection systems; recipients of specific grants such as the National Computer Forensics Institute and missing/exploited children investigations; and travelers benefiting from prohibitions on new border-crossing fees.
Who is hurt
Programs or activities whose funding was set to $0 under the explanatory statement's ICE and Border Security Operations line items, potentially affecting immigration enforcement operations and personnel tied to those specific accounts; taxpayers who bear the overall cost of roughly $40+ billion in DHS appropriations; and agencies or offices facing new reporting burdens and spending restrictions that limit administrative flexibility, such as the Office of Intelligence and Analysis's restriction on certain covered activities.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this bill ensures continuity of critical homeland security functions—border security, aviation security, disaster response, and cybersecurity—without disruption from a government shutdown, while adding accountability measures like monthly budget reporting, inspector general oversight of prior emergency funding, and restrictions on covert intelligence activities. They contend targeted provisions, such as banning new border-crossing fees and mandating equal airport screening for lawmakers and executives, promote fairness and protect the public from added costs.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that zeroing out specific ICE and Border Security Operations funding lines undermines immigration enforcement capacity and reflects a policy dispute resolved through appropriations riders rather than substantive legislation. They contend that the bill's extensive earmarked conditions, transfer restrictions, and reporting mandates constrain executive branch flexibility in ways that may hamper agencies' ability to respond to emerging security needs, while also noting that some restrictions, like the surveillance systems limitation, may not have been fully debated on the merits.
Constitutional context
This is a straightforward exercise of Congress's Article I, Section 9 power of the purse—only Congress can appropriate funds from the Treasury—and its Article I, Section 8 authority over immigration, customs, and coast guard functions; no landmark case governs routine appropriations of this kind, though the zeroing-out of specific line items touches on the separation-of-powers question of whether Congress can direct agency spending priorities so specifically, an area historically addressed through impoundment control rather than judicial doctrine.
Checks and balances
Congress exercises its constitutional power of the purse to direct and condition executive branch spending, while imposing extensive reporting and notification requirements that constrain agency discretion; the executive branch retains implementation authority but faces detailed congressional oversight through mandated briefings and inspector general reviews.
Historical precedent
Annual DHS appropriations acts are a recurring, routine part of the federal budget process, following the same basic structure as prior years' Homeland Security appropriations bills.
Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (53-47, 3/5 majority required)
Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-46, 3/5 majority required)
Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-37, 3/5 majority required)
Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (51-46, 3/5 majority required)
Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (51-45, 3/5 majority required)
Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (50-45, 3/5 majority required)
Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required)
Passed