House conservatives are sending signals of discontent toward Senate Republicans as negotiations start to resolve the six-week Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stalemate. Senate Republicans are considering a significant funding bill aimed at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which they believe may not attract much support from Democrats.
The proposed legislation encompasses elements of the SAVE America Act along with a stipulation requiring proof of citizenship for federal voter registration and a photo ID for voting.
However, some House Republicans are against voting on any plans that originate in the Senate. They have expressed their reservations about this approach.
In a statement, the conservative House Freedom Caucus pointed out that Senate Republicans previously avoided a filibuster to pass the SAVE America Act, fearing it would allow Democrats to propose limitless amendments. Now, they express concern about Senator Tim Scott’s insistence on pushing the SAVE America Act through reconciliation, a complex process that might not even align with Senate rules.
Representative Randy Fine (R-Fla.) reached out to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, indicating he would withhold his support for the Senate bill until the SAVE America Act is passed, although he is tentative about the situation.
“This doesn’t address my concern,” Fine remarked. “I’m going to keep voting against Senate bills until the SAVE America Act sees the light.” That said, he made an exception for DHS funding, especially if the final Senate proposal aligns with a bill previously approved by the House.
Republican senators gathered at the White House recently, expressing optimism that an end to the government shutdown might be near. Under the current framework, ICE funding would be part of a broader DHS spending bill, which Senate Democrats have pursued but faced obstacles from GOP senators. As a result, most government entities should reopen, with ICE being addressed later through budget reconciliation— an approach that caused significant division among Republicans last year.
Most of ICE’s operations excluding enforcement would have funding included in this initial agreement. The remaining DHS funds would likely fall under a bipartisan deal expected to be unveiled soon.
Nevertheless, the budget reconciliation process is typically lengthy and fraught with political complexities, especially in an election year. There’s also skepticism on whether the slender Republican majorities can rally to pass new expansive legislation like the tax planning bill President Trump signed last summer.
Moreover, conservatives note that key provisions of the SAVE America Act may struggle to withstand strict requirements surrounding settlements.
An insider from the House Freedom Caucus remarked, “Progressive Democrats have halted the DHS to safeguard criminal aliens. Why should we cut funding for enforcement and give them exactly what they desire?”
This approach places them at odds not only with Senate Republican leaders but potentially also with the White House. A White House official mentioned that the ongoing discussions seem acceptable as a resolution takes shape.
Furthermore, someone familiar with the DHS discussions suggested that contrasting filibusters with reconciliation isn’t quite the same. Essentially, settlements typically limit debate and propose amendments that directly relate to the package’s content, whereas a filibuster allows for expansive and indefinite debate along with limitless amendments. Senate Republicans aimed to avert the risks associated with the latter, as they aren’t united enough to obstruct any Democratic amendments that could alter the SAVE America Act significantly.
