The Columbus Dispatch

$5.7B for ‘wall’ may be closer to $1.6B in deal

- By Alan Fram and Andrew Taylor

WASHINGTON — Congressio­nal bargainers traded offers Friday and worked toward a bordersecu­rity agreement that would give President Donald Trump a fraction of the money he’s demanded for his proposed southern border wall but avert a fresh federal shutdown next weekend.

Participan­ts said they expect the pact to end up well below the $5.7 billion that Trump has sought to begin constructi­on of the wall, which has attained iconic significan­ce for him and his conservati­ve supporters. Underscori­ng the clout he’s lost during a battle that’s dominated the opening weeks of divided government, the amount seems sure to fall much closer to $1.6 billion, a figure that was in a bipartisan Senate bill last year, they said.

“That’s what we’re working toward,” said

Rep. Lucille Roybal-allard, D-calif., one bargainer.

Coupled with a widespread expectatio­n that the accord would not use the term “wall,” the pact would represent a significan­t retreat for Trump, for whom “Build the wall!” has been a battle cry since his presidenti­al campaign. But it also would avert another partial federal shutdown, a Trump threat that has become toothless because of solid opposition from GOP lawmakers burned by the record 35-day closure that Trump initiated in December.

Democrats seemed to draw a firm line on spending.

“Throughout the talks, Democrats have insisted that a border-security compromise not be overly reliant on physical barriers,” said Evan Hollander, spokesman for Democrats who control the House Appropriat­ions Committee. “We will not agree to $2 billion in funding for barriers.”

In one signal that Trump was reluctantl­y preparing to give ground, the White House has been considerin­g accepting the deal but also using executive action to secure additional barrier funding without lawmakers’ approval. That plan was described by two people familiar with White House thinking who spoke on condition of anonymity. Depending on what Trump does, such an action could spark lawsuits or congressio­nal votes of disapprova­l.

Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., appeared to gesture at that Thursday, saying an accord could be “a good down payment.” Graham, who is close to Trump, said that to make up the difference, “there are other ways to do it, and I expect the president to go it alone in some fashion.”

Trump supporters have said there are other executive powers Trump could use to divert money from the budget to wall constructi­on, though it was unclear if they would face challenges in Congress or the courts. One provision of the law lets the Defense Department provide support for counter-drug activities.

Besides the dollar figure, talks were focusing on the type and location of barriers, participan­ts said. Also in play were the number of beds the federal Immigratio­n and Customs Enforcemen­t agency could have for detained migrants and the amount of aid included for natural-disaster relief.

Money for high-tech surveillan­ce equipment and more personnel also is expected to be included.

No one ruled out lastminute problems, especially with Trump’s penchant for head-snapping turnabouts. But the momentum was clearly toward clinching an agreement that Congress could pass by next Friday. The next day, many government agencies would run out of money and have to close again without a deal.

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., who leads the hardright House Freedom Caucus and spoke Thursday night to Trump, said he expects an agreement to provide an amount closer to $1.6 billion.

“I’m not optimistic it’ll be something the president can support,” Meadows said.

A conservati­ve House GOP aide said Freedom Caucus members wanted at least $2 billion for barriers and no restrictio­ns on new constructi­on, land acquisitio­n or types of barriers.

The aide also said the agreement need not contain the term “wall,” a word that Trump has alternated between embracing and abandoning. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity.

If there is a bipartisan deal, there would likely be enough votes to pass it without the most conservati­ve Republican­s or the most liberal Democrats.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States