Senate Republicans released a budget blueprint on Tuesday that would clear the way for legislation they plan to push through Congress to provide an additional $70 billion to pay for immigration enforcement through the end of President Trump’s second term.
The plan, written by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, is a crucial piece of the G.O.P.’s strategy for ending the shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, which has lasted more than nine weeks. Republicans hope to push it through the Senate in a matter of days.
It would allow Republicans to steer around the opposition of Democrats, who have demanded restrictions on Mr. Trump’s immigration crackdown before they agree to funding the department. The plan crafts a bill that the minority party could not block to provide money for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol.
After a weekslong impasse with Democrats over immigration enforcement, Republican leaders agreed weeks ago on a two-track strategy to quickly reopen the department.
They would first pass a spending bill to cover everything but ICE and Border Patrol, allowing the department to resume operations. Then, they would write a separate piece of legislation to fund those agencies for the rest of Mr. Trump’s term, using a complex process known as reconciliation that shields budget-related bills from a filibuster, thus depriving Democrats of any chance to stop it.
But while Speaker Mike Johnson endorsed the two-track strategy, House Republicans balked. They have refused to take the first step to reopen the department until Congress makes meaningful progress toward the second step to guarantee a funding stream for immigration enforcement for years to come.
Mr. Graham’s budget resolution would allow the two Senate committees that oversee both agencies to write legislation that increases government spending by up to $70 billion each. A spokesman for Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota and the majority leader, said Republicans expect the total spending amount to be closer to $70 billion total.
Notably, the Senate’s budget resolution does not include spending cuts to offset the billions of dollars in new spending. Senate Republicans have said that such compensating cuts are unnecessary because their legislation is a last-ditch effort to fund agencies that would otherwise receive money through an annual appropriations bill, which is typically not paid for.
“Republicans are doing something that must be done quickly, and that our Democrat colleagues are trying to prevent us from doing,” Mr. Graham said in a statement. “That something is simple: fully fund Border Patrol and ICE at a time of great threat to the United States.”
Hard-line conservative Republicans worried about the federal deficit have typically demanded that lawmakers offset any new spending passed through reconciliation, and it is unclear whether they will support a budget measure without such cuts.
Other House Republicans have demanded that their party fund the entire Homeland Security Department through the reconciliation process. Some rank-and-file lawmakers have suggested they would like to see funding for defense and other G.O.P. priorities attached to this bill, but Mr. Johnson said on Tuesday that he wanted to keep it “targeted and narrow.”
Democrats criticized Republicans for using the reconciliation process to avoid imposing new guardrails on federal immigration agents, and they noted that both ICE and Border Patrol already received a large slush fund from Republicans last year as part of their major tax cut and domestic policy package.
“Republicans rejected the most basic accountability measures, and now they’re rushing to give ICE billions of dollars more.” Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington and the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said in a statement.
Megan Mineiro contributed reporting.
Michael Gold covers Congress for The Times, with a focus on immigration policy and congressional oversight.
The post Senate Republicans Release Budget Measure to Fund ICE Through 2029 appeared first on New York Times.
