Lots of ideas out there generated by Republicans on how to deal with Obama's coming executive amnesty.  Some conservatives favor a short-term funding bill for the government that would delay action until the new Congress sits next January.  Then there's an idea to pass a long-term funding measure for the entire government except Homeland Security.

But House Appropriations chair Hal Rogers has hit upon a tactic that might do the trick.  It's a manuever not seen since the 1990s, and it is likely to gain broad support.

It's called a rescission bill, and it would effectively defund agencies charged with implementing Obama's amnesty plan.

Breitbart:

The chairman of the House Appropriations Committee pitched GOP colleagues on a plan to rescind funding for targeted programs in the next Congress to respond to President Obama’s planned executive amnesty, throwing a new idea into a ring already full of them.

“Chairman Rogers just got up and said if we pass an omnibus and then the president does this executive amnesty, he said we can rescind it, and we can rescind it with 218 and 51 and we don’t need the president. That’s what he just told me. I’ve never heard that before,” said Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ), a key conservative lawmaker who has emerged as a leader in crafting strategy on the issue.

The idea startled GOP members who, according to Salmon, hadn’t contemplated the strategy until now. And Rogers had difficulty explaining the idea to a scrum of reporters given that the last time it was used was the 1990s. “I don’t think any of you have ever seen a rescission bill!” Rogers said.

“There’s any number of possibilities including rescission of spending after the fact. One of the difficulties we’re having is we really don’t know what actions he plans to actually take. When Livingston took over as chairman, he proposed and passed rescissions of spending bills that after the fact took away money that had been appropriated for an agency,” Rogers added.

Speaker John Boehner and the House GOP leadership team told Republicans that no decisions had been made, and several lawmakers said a wide range of ideas – as many as 15, according to one – were discussed.

Broadly speaking, however, the GOP is united in its desire to stop Obama from issuing amnesty unilaterally.

Basically, the plan calls for passing an omnibus spending bill and then passing another bill that rescinds funding from targeted agencies.  It has the virtue of not forcing a government shutdown due to an Obama veto of the spending bill.  And if Rogers is correct, the rescission bill would not need the president's signature.

Rogers notes that the tactic was used in the 1990s by then-Appropriations chair Robert Livingston.

Roll Call:

Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, a senior GOP appropriator, said under the approach being discussed, Congress would enact a 12-bill omnibus in December and later, in the new Congress when both chambers are controlled by Republicans, pass a separate bill that would rescind funding for certain programs. Neither he nor Rogers specified which specific agencies would be targeted.

“We don’t know what for certain the president is going to do and so fashioning a broad response to what might be a very specific action is very tough,” Cole told CQ Roll Call. “We’re just saying that just because we’ve passed an omnibus doesn’t mean we’ve lost the ability to impact the purse. We can change the current spending in a year any time we choose to, and we’ll be in an a lot better position with a Republican Senate to do something like that next year.”

The problem I see is that President Obama has access to tens of millions of dollars in discretionary monies that he controls – presidential "slush funds," they've been called.  He used some of that money for the implementation of Obamacare when the GOP refused to fund the program.  Since we're probably looking only at administrative costs, Obama has enough in the kitty to fund his amnesty anyway.