GOP Lacks Oversight Plan for DHS Funds Despite Members’ Concerns

Republicans have offered few details on how they’ll oversee billions of dollars planned for immigration enforcement, even as some in their party have pushed for more accountability measures.

A budget resolution the Senate advanced last week would provide roughly $70 billion for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, boosting resources for the agencies leading the Trump administration’s deportation campaign.

The proposal bypasses the typical appropriations process to provide three-and-a-half years of funding after Republicans and Democrats reached an impasse on annual funding in February. The plan would supplement the more than $100 billion the GOP already provided last year through a partisan maneuver called reconciliation.

“There were lessons learned from the last reconciliation bill where oversight was not a robust thing,” said Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), who leads the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee.

“Anything going forward’s got to have regular Article I oversight in it,” he added, referring to Congress’ authority to monitor how agencies spend federal funds.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, said in an interview on the Scott Jennings Podcast that appropriators don’t “like” reconciliation because it “removes part of the executive branch from supervision.” He blamed Democrats for sparking the shutdown that resulted in Republicans’ approach.

Appropriators typically set conditions on funding, such as spending reporting requirements and tight limits on how money can be used. The lawmakers drafting the latest reconciliation package — the leaders of homeland security and judiciary panels rather than appropriators — haven’t signaled plans to include such measures, and some deflected or didn’t answer when asked about oversight.

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said he doesn’t have “anything specific” planned to oversee funding, even as he raised broader concerns about the scale of spending.

Spokespeople for the GOP leaders of the House Homeland Security Committee and judiciary panels in both chambers didn’t provide detail on any oversight plans.

‘Blank Check’

Budget specialists warned that Republicans’ reconciliation plan risks giving agencies too much latitude.

“Trust, but verify,” American Governance Institute Executive Director Daniel Schuman said. “You don’t give people unfettered power. This is incredibly dangerous.”

A reconciliation bill’s focus on budgetary matters means it lacks the detailed direction typically provided in appropriations laws, making it a “blank check,” said Bill Hoagland, senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), the top Democrat on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said reconciliation undermines transparency, too, leaving Americans in the dark about how agencies spend large sums of money.

The funding approach can strain the agency itself, said Stewart Verdery, a senior Department of Homeland Security official during the George W. Bush administration.

Giving agencies large sums through reconciliation is “a harder way to run a department,” he said, noting that without clear guidance from Congress, agency leaders have less direction on how best to spend the funds.

Philip Wallach, a senior fellow at the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, maintained that Congress can still conduct oversight of reconciliation money. Lawmakers can conduct investigations, though the loss of annual funding negotiations reduces a key pressure point, he said.

GOP Assurance

GOP lawmakers have defended the reconciliation approach and said existing oversight tools are enough.

The DHS inspector general can monitor the spending sufficiently, saidSen. John Kennedy (R-La.), who sits on the Appropriations Committee’s homeland security panel.

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), a member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said he “trusts” Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin to manage the funds appropriately. Republicans raised concerns earlier this year about some spending decisions by then-Secretary Kristi Noem.

Some Republicans dismissed oversight complaints outright.

“Do you think we do a lot of oversight in the current appropriations process? No, we don’t,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), another member of the homeland committee. “So no, it’s not a concern of mine. We can do oversight outside the appropriations process.”

Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash), who sits on the DHS appropriations panel in the House, said the approach isn’t ideal but doesn’t eliminate Congress’ role.

“I don’t think it’s the best route to take, but we don’t have any alternatives,” he said. “We still, technically, as a congressional body are approving the funding, so I don’t think we give up that responsibility.”

He added that lawmakers would remain “vigilant” in overseeing how the money is spent.

Key Republicans pressed DHS on spending plans from last year’s reconciliation bill, while others failed to follow through on pledges to conduct hearings on the subject.

Democrats, meanwhile, are gearing up to police the prospective spending themselves, an effort that will gain steam if they take the majority of both or either chamber after the midterm elections.

There has to be “heavy oversight,” said Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.