Skip to content

Not a penny for border “wall” in Senate bill, prevents Trump from using funds to build a wall, just a few feet of flimsy fence. The “steel wall” Trump speaks of is also forbidden. DHS is final judge, can refuse to install fence

January 24, 2019

Trump “deal” includes no wall, just some flimsy fence, forbids use of any his prototypes including steel barrier. GOP also inserted Bush era loophole that DHS can decide not to install any fence or barrier. Republican voters are well aware that both political parties and their donors are strictly open borders. Never once did Candidate Trump ever say the wall was subject to congressional approval. If he had, Mrs. Clinton would be president today.

1/23/19,Senate funding bill that includes $5.7 billion for the wall extends 2018 prohibition barring actually using the funds to build the wall,” Daily Torch, Robert Romano

If all you read was headlines, you might get the impression that the omnibus spending bill offered by the Senate to end the partial government shutdown includes full $5.7 billion funding for the wall. But you’d be wrong.

“Senate GOP unveils omnibus bill to fund wall, reopen government,” reads one headline from Roll Call.

“Senate panel releases text of bill to reopen government, includes wall money,declares Fox News.

“McConnell says vote expected Thursday on legislation to fund Trump’s border wall and reopen government,” CNN blares.

There’s just one problem. While the Senate legislation does in fact offer $5.7 billion for physical barriers, it leaves in place a 2018 prohibition on using those funds to build the prototype walls the President has been touting, including the steel barrier.

Included in the language under Title II of the omnibus bill is a reference to the prohibition: “Provided, That the conditions set forth in subsections (b) and (c) of section 230 of division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Public Law 115–11 141) shall apply during fiscal year 2019…”

Meaning, you have to go back to the 2018 omnibus bill to see what the conditions were in Title II, Section 230(b), as noted by Conservative Partnership Institute Policy Director Rachel Bovard, which states: “The amounts designated in subsection (a)(2) through (a)(4) shall only be available for operationally effective designs deployed as of the date of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, (Public Law 115–31), such as currently deployed steel bollard designs, that prioritize agent safety.”

This is not splitting hairs. That section limits the funds to those designs that were already deployed as of May 5, 2017, when the 2017 omnibus bill was passed. That takes all the President’s prototypes off the table, which were unveiled in Oct. 2017, including the new proposed steel barrier.

On Jan. 19, the President again stated his intention to build the steel barrier, “To physically secure our border, the plan includes $5.7 billion for a strategic deployment of physical barriers, or a wall.  This is not a 2,000-mile concrete structure from sea to sea. These are steel barriers in high-priority locations.”

Fortunately, there is still time to address the inconsistency, with a vote not expected until Thursday. Just remove the conditions on the use of the funds and let the President build the wall he’s asking for.

Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning expressed dismay over the prohibition in a statement, calling it a cynical “bait and switch.”

“It seems incredible but the Senate funding bill does not allow the steel slat barrier envisioned by President Trump to be built using the $5.7 billion of funds that would be allocated for ‘the wall,’” Manning said, adding, “Instead it would allow fencing and repairs. It is time for Congress, including the Republicans to get serious about border security and it is disheartening that this type of border barrier bait and switch would be attempted at this stage of the shutdown.”

Manning concluded, “Americans for Limited Government urges that the proposed funding bill in the Senate be defeated unless amended to allow for a real barrier to be constructed. It is time to stop playing games with our nation’s security.”

Manning has a point. What’s the point of meeting the President’s request for funding but then prohibiting the wall he is asking for? Why did we have this government shutdown for the wall just to settle for more fencing? What gives?”

“Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government.”


Added: In Trump “fence” bill DHS can choose not to install fencing:

“The border infrastructure section of Trump’s compromise bill…allows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to determine where best to build the bollard fencing”…

TheDHS component” was also used by Bush #2 in his so-called Secure Fence Act of 2006 to ensure the border remained wide open. “DHS,” whoever that might be, can just decide not to install fencing: “The Oct. 26, 2006 Secure Fence Act of 2006, was quietly altered [by Republicans] in a significant way the following year (2007)….”Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas,  proposed an amendment to give DHS the discretion to decide what type of fence was appropriate in different areas. The law was amended to read, nothing in this paragraph shall require the Secretary of Homeland Security to install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors in a particular location along an international border of the United States, if the Secretary determines thatthe use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location.””

From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: