Lawmakers know well that getting close to a deal is one thing; actually closing it is another.
That lesson was on full display Wednesday as a tentative agreement to end the five-week Department of Homeland Security shutdown slipped away yet again.
Just a day before, Republicans thought they had a workable framework with Democrats: fund most aspects of DHS, while carving out money for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which Republicans would fund separately through a partisan reconciliation bill. Such a deal would largely give Democrats what they’d been asking for, allowing them to fund DHS while not approving money for immigration enforcement.
But the deal quickly unraveled.
Democrats were suddenly uneasy about moving forward without securing police changes at ICE, particularly in response to the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minnesota.
After signaling openness to funding most of DHS if ICE didn’t receive new money, Democrats countered with a proposal on Wednesday that would require federal agents to remove masks and obtain judicial warrants before entering homes and businesses.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., immediately rejected that proposal.
“It’s not even close to being real,” Thune told reporters Wednesday. “They know better. They’re asking for things that have already been turned down. So it just seems like they’re going in circles. Spinning and spinning.”
Thune has argued that Democrats can’t have it both ways: if they won’t support ICE funding, they shouldn’t expect to dictate how the agency operates.
Democratic leaders, however, say the policy changes are nonnegotiable.
“Masks and judicial warrants, from our standpoint, are absolutely essential,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., told reporters Wednesday. He said he was on the same page as Senate Democrats, who were leading the negotiations.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Wednesday afternoon he sent Republicans “our response.”
“And it’s a serious offer,” Schumer added. He said Democrats want “common-sense reforms, reasonable reforms” at ICE.
The lack of progress was clear on the Senate floor Wednesday, when Thune forced a procedural vote to consider a DHS funding bill. Senators voted 54-46, falling short of the 60 votes necessary.
Still, there is some hope a deal could come together.
Some moderate Democrats have suggested they could support a DHS funding bill that excludes money for ICE, provided there are safeguards to prevent agencies like Homeland Security Investigations and Customs and Border Protection from redirecting funds to enforcement operations.
“The idea is, HSI should do what HSI should do, CBP does what CBP should do, but not end up augmenting, end-running the pause on the funding of enforcement,” Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, told MS NOW.
Thune said Wednesday he’s open to negotiating that point, telling reporters that was “the law already,” but suggesting “there’s some room” on adding new language.
But even if negotiators can get a deal, Republicans face a daunting road ahead. While a DHS budget without key ICE funding was a drawback for conservatives, senators sold President Donald Trump on the plan by promising to follow up with a partisan reconciliation bill with money for the agency. That plan, however, is already exposing divisions within the party. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., chairman of the Budget Committee, outlined a laundry list of items that would be packaged with the ICE funds. Graham, who would lead the early work on the bill, said he envisions multiple years of funds for ICE, totaling tens of billions of dollars. “I think we’ll do multiple years, absolutely,” Graham told MS NOW on Wednesday. ICE’s most recent annual budget proposed by lawmakers was $10 billion. But the measure would also be packaged with financial incentives for states to adopt policies in the SAVE America Act, a Republican bill to require proof of citizenship to register to vote, among other election-related measures. Defense funds related to the war in Iran could also be included in that reconciliation bill, though there’s already some pushback to the $200 billion request that the White House has floated. That kind of price tag would require billions of dollars of spending cuts or revenue boosts to offset the cost of the new spending, Graham said. But Graham’s vision presents challenges among his Senate Republican colleagues, not to mention in the House, where Republicans can only afford to lose one vote and still have a majority. For one, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, opposes the SAVE America Act, which Graham considers the “centerpiece” of the upcoming bill to fund ICE. For another, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said he doesn’t see the need for more reconciliation funds for ICE, given that the lawmakers already approved about seven years’ worth of money for the agency in last year’s tax-and-spending law. “They gave ICE $75 billion extra last year, so I don’t know why we would need to do that again, since we just did it,” Paul told MS NOW on Wednesday. Kevin Frey contributed reporting.
Jack Fitzpatrick covers Congress for MS NOW. He previously reported for Bloomberg Government, Morning Consult and National Journal. He has bachelor's and master's degrees from Arizona State University. Recommended
