HR-9659-119
Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
Sponsored by Greg Stanton (D-AZ)
What it does
This bill would transfer any unobligated (unspent) funds appropriated to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under sections 102 and 202 of the Secure America Act (P.L. 119-98) to the Department of Education, to be used for Title I Part A programs that serve low-income K-12 students. It would also require the Secretary of Homeland Security to sell, within 60 days of enactment, each of the 11 immigration detention facilities purchased between January 1 and March 31, 2026.
Who benefits
Low-income K-12 students at Title I schools, who would receive additional federal education funding. School districts with high concentrations of economically disadvantaged students, particularly in urban and rural areas. Taxpayers who oppose the scale of recent immigration detention infrastructure spending. Advocacy organizations focused on education funding equity. Potential buyers of the 11 detention facilities (private entities, local governments, or developers).
Who is hurt
ICE and the Department of Homeland Security, which would lose unobligated operational and infrastructure funds. Immigration enforcement personnel whose planned operations or programs depended on those appropriations. Contractors and vendors with pending ICE contracts funded by the redirected appropriations. Communities near the 11 detention facilities that may have expected local economic activity from those facilities. Detainees currently held in those facilities, who would need to be relocated if the facilities are sold, potentially to more distant or less accessible locations. The federal government may also receive less than market value if forced sales occur within a strict 60-day window.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Secure America Act dramatically expanded ICE's budget and detention infrastructure, and that unspent funds represent a more productive use if redirected to Title I schools, which serve roughly 26 million low-income students who are chronically underfunded. They contend that the 11 detention facilities were purchased rapidly and at scale, and that selling them recovers public assets while reducing the government's long-term detention footprint and associated operating costs.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that Congress already authorized and appropriated these funds for specific immigration enforcement purposes under the Secure America Act, and that redirecting them mid-cycle undermines the appropriations process and hampers enforcement operations that depend on planned resource availability. They contend that the mandatory 60-day sale timeline for 11 federal facilities is operationally unrealistic, would likely result in below-market sale prices that waste taxpayer money, and could disrupt detention capacity needed to carry out lawful removal orders.
Constitutional context
Congress holds the power of the purse under Article I and may redirect appropriations between agencies. However, the forced sale of executive branch assets within a 60-day window raises questions under the Take Care Clause (Art. II, §3) about whether Congress can so tightly constrain executive property management. The Supremacy Clause and the Naturalization Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 4) confirm federal primacy over immigration enforcement funding decisions.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority over the allocation of previously appropriated executive funds, reducing DHS's discretion over unobligated balances; the executive branch retains implementation authority over the sale process, and courts could review whether the 60-day forced-sale mandate improperly constrains executive property management under the Take Care Clause.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously rescinded unobligated agency balances and transferred funds between agencies through rescission bills and supplemental appropriations acts, though forced asset sales on strict statutory timelines are less common.