Ninety-eight senators voted to begin the process of passing a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill shorn of the House-passed bans on implementation of President Obama’s executive amnesty, setting the stage for a final vote that could come as late as Friday.
With the Department of Homeland Security funding set to lapse on Friday, Senate Democrats may want to extend the debate over the DHS funding bill for the 30 hours provided by Senate rules in order to jam House Republicans. The Senate could also agree to vote on the bill without waiting the full 30 hours.
In the meantime, House Republicans are mulling a short-term continuing resolution for DHS that would give them time to respond to the Senate’s clean DHS bill without having the funding for the department lapse. The CR being discussed would also stipulate that the funding could not be used to implement the executive amnesty orders, in the event that the federal judge’s decision to block the orders is reversed.
“[It could pass] if it was tied to something with these court situations, where it keeps the unconstitutional piece from being implemented,” said one GOP lawmaker who criticized the idea of a passing a short-term CR that lacked such a proviso. The idea of a CR containing such a trigger is “among the more popular options among Members,” according to a senior GOP aide.
What the House does next depends in part on the timing of when the Senate passes the DHS bill. One GOP source said that, during a discussion in the House Republican conference meeting, there was more energy behind emphasizing that Congress must not allow DHS funding to lapse. Much of the conversation focused on an unrelated education bill, though, so Republicans did not reach consensus on the point.
Representative Trent Franks (R., Ariz.) argued against moving from their current position, even past Friday, when the current continuing resolution funding DHS expires.
“Every shutdown prior to this one I have opposed and have supported an alternative to it, and I certainly want to support an alternative to it now,” Franks told National Review Online. In this case, “the very constitutional foundations of the nation are at play here and so I’m committed to doing whatever we can within the bounds of reason and our constitutional parameter to protect the Constitution.”