Border security bargainers get to work, still miles apart
Democrats show few signs of giving in to wall demand
WASHINGTON – House Democrats showed few signs of giving in to President Donald Trump’s demands for $5.7 billion for a border wall as a conference committee began talks Wednesday to strike a border security deal that would also fund the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal 2019.
But both sides expressed optimism and pledged to work toward an agreement by the Feb. 15 deadline that the president can sign, and thus avoid another partial government shutdown.
Rep. Nita M. Lowey, chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee and of the conference, outlined in general terms the House Democrats’ proposal and indicated some flexibility that her side would be willing to spend more on border security.
“Along with my Democratic colleagues, I am ready to work in good faith to write a Department of Homeland Security bill that funds smart, effective border security. In doing so, we will expand on the $1.6 billion for border security-related programs that House Democrats have already passed in the last few weeks in other appropriations bills,” she said.
These investments, she said, include enhancing security at land ports of entry, hiring additional immigration judges to reduce an immigration case backlog that has already hit 800,000 cases, and providing more resources for humanitarian needs for children and families arriving at the southern border.
House Democrats at a news conference after the conference meeting discussed their priorities in broad terms, which they said would fit within a total regular spending allocation of $49.1 billion for the DHS appropriations bill. That figure is about $800 million more than the Senate Appropriations Committee approved on a 26-5 vote last year, which included $1.6 billion for 65 miles of fencing along the southwest border.
Last week Senate Republicans unveiled a version that had $49.4 billion in regular discretionary spending, only slightly more than the House has set aside, in part because Democrats in that chamber have included more for ports of entry improvements in the Financial Services spending bill.
But the Senate GOP padded their bill with another nearly $5.6 billion in emergency spending to meet Trump’s demands, including an extra $3.7 billion for the border security assets infrastructure account where wall funding resides. House Democrats say emergency funding to get around budget caps won’t be part of their proposal.
“We don’t want to do emergency funding,” said Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas.
A one-page outline of the House Democrats proposal, which doesn’t provide any dollar figures, says it will contain funds “for a smart, effective border security posture, one that does not rely on costly physical barriers.”
One offsetting cut in their proposal appears to be funds for Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention beds for migrants in custody. The outline says their bill “significantly reduces ICE detention beds; requires more frequent detention facility inspections, and limits ICE’S ability to use more detention beds than Congress intends to fund.” Trump wants enough money to support 52,000 detention beds, up from an average daily population of less than 41,000 in fiscal 2018.
House Homeland Security Appropriations Chairwoman Lucille Roybalallard of California said House Democrats are still finalizing their proposal, which she said won’t shortchange other programs to make room for a wall.
In an interview, Cuellar kept to the theme that Democrats want strong border security, but not at the expense of other accounts in the Homeland Security bill.
“We have an allocation, so if you take billions of dollars and put it in the wall, who is going to suffer? Coast Guard, TSA, even Border Patrol. They are all going to suffer. So does that mean their services are not as good as the wall? No. Of course not,” he said.
The Texas Democrat, who represents Laredo and part of the state’s border with Mexico, said conference committee negotiators are going to have to decide how to use their allocation to fund border security in a broader way than just a physical barrier, in part because that may not be the most effective.
But additional funding for border barriers might not be completely off the table, Cuellar suggested.
“There are already 654 miles,” Cuellar said. “Under the Secure Fence Act, the minimum should be 700. We already added in the last appropriations 33 new miles, so if you add that to 654 there are only 13 miles left to hit the 700 mark . ... I’m just sick and tired of people moving the goal post, so if we get somehow to 700 miles that should be it.”