HR-9310-119
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 605.
Sponsored by Mark Amodei (R-NV)
What it does
This bill would appropriate funds for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2027, covering operations of CBP, ICE, TSA, the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, and departmental management offices. It would set specific spending levels, operational requirements, and policy restrictions across DHS components — including immigration detention capacity mandates, border security infrastructure rules, and limits on certain medical care for detainees. It would also impose extensive congressional oversight requirements, including monthly financial reports, quarterly acquisition briefings, and Inspector General audits.
Who benefits
U.S. taxpayers who benefit from border security, aviation security, and Coast Guard operations. Domestic maritime shipping companies protected by Jones Act provisions. Travelers who benefit from TSA screening investments. Victims of human trafficking and child exploitation targeted by funded ICE investigations. Intellectual property holders benefiting from funded IP enforcement. Pregnant and postpartum women in CBP custody protected by mandated care standards. Individuals importing personal-use prescription drugs from Canada. U.S. flag vessel operators protected by Strategic Petroleum Reserve shipping restrictions. Contractors and vendors receiving DHS procurement dollars. State and local law enforcement agencies receiving DHS air and marine support.
Who is hurt
Unauthorized immigrants subject to expanded detention and GPS monitoring requirements. Transgender individuals in ICE custody who would be denied gender-affirming medical care. Detainees in immigration facilities who may be affected by work compensation preemption of state labor laws. Colleges and universities not accredited by federally recognized agencies, whose prospective international students would be barred. Chinese nationals seeking visa-free entry to the Northern Mariana Islands. Foreign drone manufacturers in adversary countries barred from U.S. market entry. Detention facility contractors whose facilities receive poor performance reviews. State and local governments whose labor laws would be preempted for detainee work programs. Individuals who might otherwise benefit from a border crossing fee study or implementation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this bill provides essential funding to secure U.S. borders, protect aviation, and enforce immigration law at a time of historically high border encounters, while building in robust congressional oversight through monthly financial reports, quarterly briefings, and Inspector General audits. They contend that provisions mandating full detention capacity utilization and GPS monitoring for non-detained aliens are necessary to ensure immigration court appearance rates, and that the body-worn camera funding ($40 million) and maternal care standards improve accountability and humanitarian conditions. They further argue that preempting state labor laws for detainee work programs and restricting gender-affirming care in custody reflect legitimate federal authority over federal detention facilities.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that mandating detention facilities operate at full capacity regardless of need locks in high per-bed costs — ICE detention averages over $150 per person per day — and removes executive flexibility to use less expensive alternatives. They contend that preempting state minimum wage laws for detainee labor and prohibiting gender-affirming medical care for ICE detainees raise serious due process concerns under the Fifth Amendment, as civil immigration detainees have not been convicted of crimes. They further argue that restricting abortion access for ICE detainees to only rape, incest, or life-endangerment cases, and barring hormone therapy, impose medical restrictions on a civil detention population that courts have increasingly scrutinized under constitutional standards for adequate medical care.
Constitutional context
Several provisions implicate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, particularly the preemption of state labor laws for detainee work (Sec. 229), the prohibition on gender-affirming care (Sec. 227), and abortion restrictions for ICE detainees (Sec. 226) — civil detainees retain constitutional rights to adequate medical care. The Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine is relevant to Sec. 229's preemption of state wage laws. Post-Loper Bright (2024), any agency rules implementing these provisions face independent judicial scrutiny rather than deference.
Checks and balances
Congress gains significant direct control over DHS operations through spending conditions and policy riders, while the executive branch retains day-to-day operational authority; the Inspector General, Appropriations Committees, and federal courts serve as checks on both congressional mandates and executive implementation.
Historical precedent
Annual DHS appropriations acts have been enacted since the department's creation in 2003, with policy riders on immigration detention, border security, and detainee medical care appearing in multiple prior fiscal year bills.