Construction of the US-Mexico Border Wall to Move Forward
This announcement follows a court ruling.
Senate rejection of Donald Trump border emergency no longer certain
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is trying to make it harder for Republicans to avoid an embarrassing Senate rebuff of President Donald Trump‘s effort to steer billions of extra federal dollars to building barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border by declaring a national emergency. As the White House and GOP senators sought a compromise on curbing a president’s power to unilaterally declare such emergencies in the future, Pelosi said Wednesday that the House would not take up that legislation if it passed the Senate. GOP senators are hoping that if Trump endorses that bill, more Republicans would oppose a separate resolution, set for a vote Thursday, that would block the border emergency he proclaimed last month. If Trump’s border emergency stands, he could divert $3.6 billion from military construction projects to build border barriers, even though Congress had voted to limit him to less than $1.4 billion for such construction. Pelosi’s move seemed aimed at persuading GOP senators wavering over the resolution disapproving Trump’s border emergency that they would get no political protection by supporting the bill curbing future emergencies because it will never become law. “Republican Senators are proposing new legislation to allow the President to violate the Constitution just this once in order to give themselves cover,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement. “The House will not take up this legislation to give President Trump a pass.” It has long looked like the Republican-run Senate would join the Democratic-led House in voting to block Trump’s border emergency. That would set up the first veto of Trump’s presidency. But there have been signs that opposition by a few GOP mavericks is softening. Some Republicans think Trump went too far in declaring an emergency, but they also are eager to avoid defying a president popular with conservative voters. An administration official said Wednesday that the White House is skeptical there will be enough votes to head off a Senate defeat Thursday and is reluctant to back limits on future declarations unless a victory on the resolution is assured. The official was not authorized to publicly private conversations and spoke on condition of anonymity. GOP Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Thom Tillis of North Carolina and others are trying to work out a compromise with the White House over future emergencies. They also were among five GOP senators who met privately Tuesday at the Capitol with Vice President Mike Pence as Republicans tried to find a way to bolster support for Trump. Tillis and three other GOP senators have said they would vote with Democrats to support the resolution blocking Trump’s border emergency — enough to assure its passage, assuming all Democrats vote “yes” as expected. At a closed-door lunch Tuesday, Tillis suggested he could be open to backing the president, said two people familiar with his comments. One said Tillis told his colleagues he could change his vote if Trump was indeed ready to curb presidential powers to declare emergencies without Congress’ approval. The two spoke on condition of anonymity to reveal private conversations. A Tillis aide did not return messages left for him. Tillis faces a potentially tough re-election fight next year. Republicans control the Senate 53-47, meaning that four GOP defections would be enough to send the resolution blocking Trump’s border emergency to the White House. The others are Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky. Paul said earlier this month that there were “at least 10” GOP senators prepared to oppose Trump’s emergency. But he now expects fewer defections. Still, Congress would be highly unlikely to muster the two-thirds majorities needed to eventually override a veto. But approval of the resolution would highlight a clash in which Trump was being forced to protect his signature campaign promise by vetoing legislation sent to him by a Republican-led Senate. Congress has never before voted to overturn a president’s emergency declaration. Under a 1976 law, presidents have wide discretion in determining when a national emergency has occurred. Congress can vote to block an emergency declaration, but the two-thirds majorities required to overcome presidential vetoes make it hard for lawmakers to prevail. Lee’s proposal says a presidential emergency would last 30 days unless Congress votes to extend it. It would apply to future emergencies, not Trump’s current border emergency. A vote on Lee’s plan was expected after Congress returns from a recess later this month. The strongest chance of blocking Trump’s border emergency is likely several lawsuits filed by Democratic state attorneys general, environmental groups and others. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Donald Trump budget sets up another battle over wall funding
President Donald Trump is reviving his border wall fight, preparing a new budget that will seek $8.6 billion for the U.S-Mexico barrier while imposing steep spending cuts to other domestic programs and setting the stage for another fiscal battle. Budget documents are often seen as just a starting point of negotiation, but fresh off the longest government shutdown in history Trump’s 2020 proposal shows he is eager to confront Congress again to reduce domestic spending and refocus money on his priorities. It calls for boosting defense spending and making $2.7 trillion in nondefense cuts. Trump’s proposal, titled “A Budget for a Better America: Promises Kept. Taxpayers First” and set for release Monday, “embodies fiscal responsibility,” said Russ Vought, the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget. Vought said the administration has “prioritized reining in reckless Washington spending” and shows “we can return to fiscal sanity.” Two administration officials confirmed that the border wall request was part of Trump’s spending blueprint for the 2020 budget year, which begins Oct. 1. That document, which sets the stage for negotiations ahead, proposes increasing defense spending to $750 billion — and standing up the new Space Force as a military branch — while reducing nondefense accounts by 5 percent, with cuts recommended to safety net programs used by many Americans. The plan sticks to budget caps that both parties have routinely broken in recent years and promises to come into balance in 15 years, relying in part on economic growth that may be uncertain. The officials were not authorized to discuss budget details publicly before Monday’s release of the plan and spoke on condition of anonymity. While pushing down spending in some areas, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the proposal will seek to increase funding in others to align with the president’s priorities, according to one official. The administration will invest more than $80 billion for veterans services, a nearly 10 percent increase from current levels, including “significant” investments in rehabilitation, employment assistance and suicide prevention. It will also increase resources to fight the opioid epidemic with money for prevention, treatment, research and recovery, the administration said. And it seeks to shift some federal student loan costs to colleges and universities. By adhering to strict budget caps, Trump is signaling a fight ahead. The president has resisted big, bipartisan budget deals that break the caps — threatening to veto one last year — but Congress will need to find agreement on spending levels to avoid another federal shutdown in fall. White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said Trump’s budget “points a steady glide path” toward lower spending and borrowing as a share of the nation’s economy. He also told “Fox News Sunday” that there was no reason to “obsess” about deficits, and expressed confidence that economic growth would top 3 percent in 2019 and beyond. Others have predicted lower growth. The border wall, though, remains a signature issue for the president and is poised to stay at the forefront of his agenda, even though Congress has resisted giving him more money for it. Leading Democrats immediately rejected the proposal. “Congress refused to fund his wall and he was forced to admit defeat and reopen the government. The same thing will repeat itself if he tries this again,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York. They said the money “would be better spent on rebuilding America.” In seeking $8.6 billion for the wall, the budget request would more than double the $8.1 billion already potentially available to the president after he declared a national emergency at the border last month in order to circumvent Congress — although there’s no guarantee he’ll be able to use that money if he faces a legal challenge, as is expected. The standoff over the wall led to a 35-day partial government shutdown, the longest in U.S. history. Along with border wall money, the proposed budget will also increase funding to increase the “manpower” of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and Customs and Border Patrol at a time when many Democrats are calling for cuts — or even the elimination — of those areas. The budget also proposes policy changes to end sanctuary cities, the administration said. The budget would arrive Monday as the Senate readies to vote this week to terminate Trump’s national emergency declaration. The Democratic-led House already did so, and a handful of Republican senators, uneasy over what they see as an overreach of executive power, are expected to join Democrats in following suit. Congress appears to have enough votes to reject Trump’s declaration but not enough to overturn a veto. Trump invoked the emergency declaration after Congress approved nearly $1.4 billion for border barriers, far less than the $5.7 billion he wanted. In doing so, he can potentially tap an additional $3.6 billion from military accounts and shift it to building the wall. That’s causing discomfort on Capitol Hill, where even the president’s Republican allies are protective of their power to decide how to allocate federal dollars. Lawmakers are trying to guard money that’s already been approved for military projects in their states — for base housing or other improvements — from being shifted to build the wall. The wall with Mexico punctuated Trump’s campaign for the White House, and it’s expected to again be featured in his 2020 re-election effort. He used to say Mexico would pay for it, but Mexico has refused to do so. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Senate foes of Donald Trump’s border emergency near strength to win
Senate opponents of President Donald Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the Mexican border moved within a hair Thursday of having enough votes to prevail, and one Republican suggested he could face a rejection by the GOP-led chamber if he doesn’t change course. Trump’s move would “turn a border crisis into a constitutional crisis,” veteran Sen. Lamar Alexander said on the Senate floor. But he stopped just short of saying he’d support a resolution blocking the president’s move. Had Alexander pledged his vote, it would probably be enough for the Senate to pass a measure repealing the emergency declaration. Speaking later to reporters, Alexander, R-Tenn., warned about what might happen if Trump doesn’t settle for using other money he can access without declaring an emergency. “He can build a wall and avoid a dangerous precedent and I hope he’ll do that,” Alexander said. “So that would change the voting situation if he would agree to do that.” The Democratic-led House voted Tuesday to upend Trump’s move, which if left standing would let him circumvent Congress and funnel billions of extra dollars to build his proposed wall. The Senate is considering the measure. Exactly what the Senate will vote on remains unclear. Several Republicans said that behind closed doors, they were considering several options for alternative language, including making it harder for future presidents to divert federal dollars to projects of their choosing by declaring emergencies. Republicans say a Senate vote is likely in two weeks. Trump has promised to veto the House-passed resolution. Congress appears all but certain to lack the two-thirds majorities in each chamber that would be needed to override his veto, but the showdown carries risks for GOP lawmakers. Underscoring that, Trump warned Republicans against challenging him. While the wall and other Trump moves curbing immigration elicit wide public opposition, he remains wildly popular with hard-right voters and GOP lawmakers cross him at their peril. “I really think that Republicans that vote against border security and the wall, I think you know, I’ve been OK at predicting things, I think they put themselves at great jeopardy,” Trump said in excerpts of an interview with Fox News Channel’s “Hannity” show released Thursday. While congressional Republican are reluctant to challenge Trump, many say his move tramples Congress constitutional power to control spending. They also say it would set a precedent for future Democratic presidents to declare emergencies for their own purposes, and they worry that he would siphon money to barrier construction from home-state projects. Alexander, a three-term senator who will retire in 2021 and is known for reaching across the aisle, has no re-election worries. “I support what the president wants to do on border security, but not the way he has been advised to do it,” said Alexander, 78. “It is unnecessary and unwise to turn a border crisis into a constitutional crisis about separation of powers.” Presidents have declared 58 national emergencies under a 1976 law. But never has one declared an emergency after Congress had explicitly denied the money in question. GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina have said they will vote to derail the emergency declaration. Just four would be needed to send the measure to Trump for his promised veto, assuming that all 47 Democrats and their independent allies vote as expected to confront the president. By law, the resolution cannot be filibustered and would need just a majority of 51 votes to pass the Senate. Congress has voted to limit spending for barriers to just under $1.4 billion. Trump featured the wall as a central plank of his presidential campaign and repeatedly said Mexico would pay for it, which hasn’t happened. Trump has said he needs additional barriers to halt drugs, human traffickers and unauthorized immigrants from slipping into the U.S. Opponents say there is no crisis. The emergency declaration would let Trump divert $3.6 billion from military construction to erect more border barriers. He’s invoking other authorities to transfer an additional $3.1 billion to construction. Lawsuits have been filed aimed at derailing the declaration, which could at least prevent Trump from getting the extra money for months or more. Meanwhile, Collins and three other moderate senators introduced their own resolution blocking the emergency. and three other moderate senators introduced their own resolution blocking the emergency. The proposal is identical to the one-sentence, House-approved measure. The new legislation gives the Senate and the four centrist sponsors — two Republicans and two Democrats — a chance to put their stamp on congressional opposition to Trump’s move. The other sponsors are Sens. Tom Udall, D-N.M., Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. Only Murkowski does not face re-election next year. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
House Dems introduce measure to revoke Donald Trump border edict
House Democrats on Friday introduced a resolution to block the national emergency declaration that President Donald Trump issued to fund his long-sought wall along the U.S-Mexico border. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., immediately announced that a vote would come on Tuesday. The move sets up a fight that could result in Trump’s first veto. It starts the clock on a constitutional clash between Trump and Democrats and sets up a vote by the full House as soon as next week. The Democratic-controlled House is sure to pass the measure, and the GOP-run Senate may adopt it as well despite Trump’s opposition. Any Trump veto would likely be sustained, but the upcoming battle will test Republican support for Trump’s move, which even some of his allies view as a stretch — and a slap at lawmakers’ control over the power of the federal purse. A staff aide introduced the measure during a short pro forma session of the House in which Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., presided over an almost empty chamber. “What the president is attempting is an unconstitutional power grab,” said Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, the sponsor of the resolution, on a call with reporters. “There is no emergency at the border.” Pelosi added that the measure would “reassert our system of checks and balances.” Should the House and the Senate initially approve the measure, Congress seems unlikely to muster the two-thirds majorities in each chamber that would be needed later to override a certain Trump veto. The measure to block Trump’s edict will be closely watched in the Senate, where moderates such as Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., have signaled they would back it. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is only a reluctant supporter of Trump on the topic. The battle is over an emergency declaration Trump issued to access billions of dollars beyond what Congress has authorized to start erecting border barriers. Building his proposed wall was the most visible trademark of Trump’s presidential campaign. Congress last week approved a vast spending bill providing nearly $1.4 billion to build 55 miles (89 kilometers) of border barriers in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley while preventing a renewed government shutdown. That measure represented a rejection of Trump’s demand for $5.7 billion to construct more than 200 miles (322 kilometers). Besides signing the bill, Trump also declared a national emergency and used other authorities that he says give him access to an additional $6.6 billion for wall building. That money would be transferred from a federal asset forfeiture fund, Defense Department anti-drug efforts and a military construction fund. Federal officials have yet to identify which projects would be affected. Castro said he has already garnered support from a majority of the Democratic-controlled House as co-sponsors and that he has at least one GOP sponsor, Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan. Castro’s measure says Trump’s emergency declaration “is hereby terminated.” Castro chairs the 38-member Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Pelosi wrote that the Republican president’s “decision to go outside the bounds of the law to try to get what he failed to achieve in the constitutional legislative process violates the Constitution and must be terminated.” Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Democrats prepare resolution against Donald Trump’s declaration
House Democrats will file a resolution Friday aimed at blocking the national emergency declaration that President Donald Trump has issued to help finance his wall along the Southwest border, teeing up a clash over billions of dollars, immigration policy and the Constitution’s separation of powers. Though the effort seems almost certain to ultimately fall short — perhaps to a Trump veto — the votes will let Democrats take a defiant stance against Trump that is sure to please liberal voters. They will also put some Republicans from swing districts and states in a difficult spot. Formally introducing the measure sets up a vote by the full House likely by mid-March, perhaps as soon as next week, because of a timeline spelled out by law. Initial passage by the Democratic-run House seems assured. The measure would then move to the Republican-controlled Senate, where there may be enough GOP defections for approval. The law that spells out the rules for emergency declarations seems to require the Senate to address the issue too, but there’s never been a congressional effort to block one and some procedural uncertainties remain. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., seemed to predict approval, telling colleagues in a letter that her chamber will “move swiftly” to pass it and “the resolution will be referred to the Senate and then sent to the President’s desk.” Should the House and Senate initially approve the measure, Congress seems unlikely to muster the two-thirds majorities in each chamber that would be needed later to override a certain Trump veto. Even so, Republican senators facing tough 2020 re-election fights in competitive states like Arizona, Colorado and North Carolina would have to take stances that could risk dividing the GOP’s pro-Trump and more moderate voters. Moderate Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said Wednesday she would back a resolution blocking the declaration, making her the first Republican to publicly state her support for the effort to thwart the emergency. With Republicans holding a 53-47 majority, three more GOP senators would need to vote with Democrats for the resolution to win initial approval. The votes could also cause discomfort for other Republicans who’ve opposed the declaration. Many have expressed concerns that Trump’s declaration sets a precedent for future Democratic presidents to declare emergencies to help their own favored issues, like global warming or gun control. The battle is over an emergency declaration Trump has issued to access billions of dollars beyond what Congress has authorized to start erecting border barriers. Building the wall was the most visible trademark of his presidential campaign. Congress approved a vast spending bill last week providing nearly $1.4 billion to build 55 miles of border barriers in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley while preventing a renewed government shutdown. That measure represented a rejection of Trump’s demand for $5.7 billion to construct more than 200 miles. Besides signing the bill, Trump also declared a national emergency and used other authorities that he says gives him access to an additional $6.6 billion for wall building. That money would be transferred from a federal asset forfeiture fund, Defense Department anti-drug efforts and a military construction fund. Federal officials have yet to identify specifically which projects would be affected. Pelosi and Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, circulated separate letters Wednesday to lawmakers seeking co-sponsors to his one-sentence resolution. A Castro aide said there were already 102 co-sponsors, all Democrats. Both letters targeted Friday for the measure’s introduction. While Congress is in recess this week, the House has a brief “pro forma” session Friday for bill introductions but no votes. Castro’s measure says Trump’s emergency declaration “is hereby terminated.” He chairs the 38-member Congressional Hispanic Caucus. “The President’s decision to go outside the bounds of the law to try to get what he failed to achieve in the constitutional legislative process violates the Constitution and must be terminated,” Pelosi wrote. Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a joint statement last week that lawmakers will use “every remedy available” to defend Congress’ powers, including in the courts. Democratic aides said Wednesday that leaders were still deciding exactly what legal action to take, and when. Outside activists said they understood from conversations with congressional staff that Democrats were likely to file their own lawsuit, rather than simply joining other actions that 16 state attorneys general and liberal, environmental and other organizations have commenced separately. It remained unclear whether Democrats would wait for congressional action to play out before going to the courts. Speaking Tuesday about the attorneys general suit, Trump said he expected to do “very well” in the case and said he had an “absolute right” to make the declaration. Democrats and some Republicans say there is no emergency at the border. They say Trump is improperly declaring one to work around Congress’ rejection of the higher amounts. Once a resolution of disapproval is introduced, the national emergency law says it must be assigned to a committee, which has 15 calendar days to send it to the full chamber. The House parliamentarian has assigned Castro’s measure to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. That chamber then has three calendar days to vote on it. The timing could be shortened, which is why a vote could occur more quickly. The same procedure is then repeated in the second chamber. The law requires those timetables unless either chamber votes to do otherwise. If McConnell tries using that provision to delay the vote on the resolution, the vote on slowing the measure will become the key showdown. A spokesman for McConnell declined to comment on what the leader will do. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Donald Trump will sign border deal but will also declare emergency
Congress lopsidedly approved a border security compromise that would avert a second painful government shutdown. But a new confrontation has been ignited — this time over President Donald Trump‘s plan to bypass lawmakers and declare a national emergency to siphon billions of dollars from other federal coffers for his wall on the Mexican boundary. Money in the bill for border barriers, about $1.4 billion, is far below the $5.7 billion Trump insisted he needed and would finance just a quarter of the 200-plus miles (322 kilometers) he wanted. The White House said he’d sign the legislation but act unilaterally to get more, prompting condemnations from Democrats and threats of lawsuits from states and others who might lose federal money or said Trump was abusing his authority. The uproar over Trump’s next move cast an uncertain shadow over what had been a rare display of bipartisanship to address the grinding battle between the White House and lawmakers over border security. The Senate passed the legislation 83-16 Thursday, with both parties solidly aboard. The House followed with a 300-128 tally, with Trump’s signature planned Friday. Trump will speak Friday morning in the Rose Garden about border security, the White House said. Trump is expected to announce that he will be spending roughly $8 billion on border barriers — combining the money approved by Congress with funding he plans to repurpose through executive actions, including a national emergency, said a White House official who was not authorized to speak publicly. The money is expected to come from funds targeted for military construction and counterdrug efforts. House Democrats overwhelmingly backed the legislation, with only 19 — most of whom were Hispanic — opposed. Just over half of Republicans voted “no.” Should Trump change his mind, both chambers’ margins were above the two-thirds majorities needed to override presidential vetoes. Lawmakers, however, sometimes rally behind presidents of the same party in such battles. Lawmakers exuded relief that the agreement had averted a fresh closure of federal agencies just three weeks after a record-setting 35-day partial shutdown that drew an unambiguous thumbs-down from the public. But in announcing that Trump would sign the accord, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders also said he’d take “other executive action, including a national emergency,” In an unusual joint statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said such a declaration would be “a lawless act, a gross abuse of the power of the presidency and a desperate attempt to distract” from Trump’s failure to force Mexico to pay for the wall, as he’s promised for years. “Congress will defend our constitutional authorities,” they said. They declined to say whether that meant lawsuits or votes on resolutions to prevent Trump from unilaterally shifting money to wall-building, with aides saying they’d wait to see what he does. Democratic state attorneys general said they’d consider legal action to block Trump. Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rossello told the president on Twitter “we’ll see you in court” if he makes the declaration. Despite widespread opposition in Congress to proclaiming an emergency, including by some Republicans, Trump is under pressure to act unilaterally to soothe his conservative base and avoid looking like he’s lost his wall battle. The abrupt announcement of Trump’s plans came late in an afternoon of rumblings that the volatile president — who’d strongly hinted he’d sign the agreement but wasn’t definitive — was shifting toward rejecting it. That would have infused fresh chaos into a fight both parties are desperate to leave behind, a thought that drove some lawmakers to ask heavenly help. “Let’s all pray that the president will have wisdom to sign the bill so the government doesn’t shut down,” Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said Thursday’s Senate session opened. Moments before Sanders spoke at the White House, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., took to the Senate floor to announce Trump’s decisions to sign the bill and declare an emergency. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told reporters there were two hours of phone calls between McConnell and the White House before there were assurances that Trump would sign. McConnell argued that the bill delivered victories for Trump over Pelosi. These included overcoming her pledge to not fund the wall at all and rejecting a Democratic proposal for numerical limits on detaining some immigrants, said a Republican speaking on condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. In a surprising development, McConnell said he would support Trump’s emergency declaration, a turnabout for the Kentucky Republican, who like many lawmakers had opposed such action. Democrats say there is no border crisis and Trump would be using a declaration simply to sidestep Congress. Some Republicans warn that future Democratic presidents could use his precedent to force spending on their own priorities, like gun control. GOP critics included Maine Sen. Susan Collins, who said emergency declarations are for “major natural disasters or catastrophic events” and said its use would be of “dubious constitutionality.” White House staff and congressional Republicans have said that besides an emergency, Trump might assert other authorities that could conceivably put him within reach of billions of dollars. The money could come from funds targeted for military construction, disaster relief and counterdrug efforts. Congressional aides say there is $21 billion for military construction that Trump could use if he declares a national emergency. By law, the money must be used to support U.S. armed forces, they say. The Defense Department declined to provide details on available money. With many of the Democrats’ liberal base voters adamantly against Trump’s aggressive attempts to curb immigration, four declared presidential hopefuls opposed the bill in the Senate: Cory Booker of New Jersey, New York’s Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kamala Harris of California. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota voted for it, as did Vermont independent Bernie Sanders, who is expected to join the field soon. Notably, the word “wall,” the heart of many a chant at Trump campaign events and his rallies as president, is absent from the compromise’s 1,768-page
Highlights of the $330 billion-plus bill to avoid shutdown
It’s not just about President Donald Trump’s border wall. The border security issues that sparked a 35-day government shutdown are but one element of a massive $330 billion-plus spending measure that wraps seven bills into one, funding nine Cabinet agencies, including the departments of Justice, State, Agriculture, and Commerce. It also contains a variety of other provisions, touching on Medicaid, pesticides and even the permitted length of sugar beet trucks in rural Oregon. While full details haven’t been released, highlights are expected to include: A BILLION HERE, A BILLION THERE Most of the bill deals with spending minutia such as a $1 billion increase to gear up for the 2020 census, an almost 4 percent budget increase for NASA and an $11.3 billion budget for the IRS. Most agencies are kept relatively level compared to last year, and the measure rejects big spending cuts — such as a $12 billion cut to foreign aid and the State Department — proposed by Trump. ___ FEDERAL EMPLOYEE PAY Trump has proposed a pay freeze for civilian federal employees, but the measure would guarantee those workers a 1.9 percent increase, according to No. 2 House Democrat Steny Hoyer of Maryland. The military got a 2.6 percent increase in legislation that passed Congress last year. ___ FLOOD INSURANCE The government’s troubled federal flood insurance program would be extended through Sept. 30 to give lawmakers time to reauthorize the program. The program expired last year but has been temporarily extended in order to avert disruptions in the housing market. ___ ODDS AND ENDS Since the bill is a must-pass vehicle, it’s serving as a locomotive to pull a host of miscellaneous provisions into law. There’s an extension of a Medicaid provision on home- and community-based nursing care, grants for the poor under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program and funding fixes to a trust fund that finances dredging and maintenance or ports and harbors. For fans of the truly obscure, there’s a provision to exempt sugar beet trucks in rural Oregon from length limits. Republished with permission from the Associated Press
Budget deal allows far less money than Donald Trump wanted for wall
Congressional negotiators reached agreement to prevent a government shutdown and finance construction of new barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border, overcoming a late-stage hang-up over immigration enforcement issues that had threatened to scuttle the talks. Republicans were desperate to avoid another bruising shutdown. They tentatively agreed Monday night to far less money for President Donald Trump’s border wall than the White House’s $5.7 billion wish list, settling for a figure of nearly $1.4 billion, according to congressional aides. The funding measure is through the fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30. It’s not clear whether Trump will support the deal, although GOP negotiators said they were hopeful. The agreement means 55 miles (88 kilometers) of new fencing — constructed through existing designs such as metal slats instead of a concrete wall — but far less than the 215 miles (345 kilometers) the White House demanded in December. The fencing would be built in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas. “With the government being shut down, the specter of another shutdown this close, what brought us back together I thought tonight was we didn’t want that to happen” again, said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby, Republican-Ala. Details won’t be officially released until Tuesday, but the pact came in time to alleviate any threat of a second partial government shutdown this weekend. Aides revealed the details under condition of anonymity because the agreement is tentative. “Our staffs are just working out the details,” said House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey, Democrat-N.Y. The pact also includes increases for new technologies such as advanced screening at border entry points, humanitarian aid sought by Democrats, and additional customs officers. This weekend, Shelby pulled the plug on the talks over Democratic demands to limit immigrant detentions by federal authorities, frustrating some of his fellow negotiators, but Democrats yielded ground on that issue in a fresh round of talks on Monday. Asked if Trump would back the deal, Shelby said: “We believe from our dealings with them and the latitude they’ve given us, they will support it. We certainly hope so.” But Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity, a Trump ally, said the barrier money in the agreement was inadequate. He warned late Monday that “any Republican that supports this garbage compromise, you will have to explain.” Trump traveled to El Paso, Texas, for a campaign-style rally Monday night focused on immigration and border issues. He has been adamant that Congress approve money for a wall along the Mexican border, though he no longer repeats his 2016 mantra that Mexico will pay for it, and he took to the stage as lawmakers back in Washington were announcing their breakthrough. “They said that progress is being made with this committee,” Trump told his audience, referring to the congressional bargainers. “Just so you know, we’re building the wall anyway.” Democrats carried more leverage into the talks after besting Trump on the 35-day shutdown but showed flexibility in hopes on winning Trump’s signature. After yielding on border barriers, Democrats focused on reducing funding for detention beds to curb what they see as unnecessarily harsh enforcement by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. The agreement yielded curbed funding, overall, for ICE detention beds, which Democrats promised would mean the agency would hold fewer detainees than the roughly 49,000 detainees held on Feb. 10, the most recent date for which figures were available. Democrats claimed the number of beds would be ratcheted down to 40,520. But a proposal to cap at 16,500 the number of detainees caught in areas away from the border — a limit Democrats say was aimed at preventing overreach by the agency — ran into its own Republican wall. Democrats dropped the demand in the Monday round of talks, and the mood in the Capitol improved markedly. Trump met Monday afternoon with top advisers in the Oval Office to discuss the negotiations. He softened his rhetoric on the wall but ratcheted it up when alluding to the detention beds issue. “We can call it anything. We’ll call it barriers, we’ll call it whatever they want,” Trump said. “But now it turns out not only don’t they want to give us money for a wall, they don’t want to give us the space to detain murderers, criminals, drug dealers, human smugglers.” The recent shutdown left more than 800,000 government workers without paychecks, forced postponement of the State of the Union address and sent Trump’s poll numbers tumbling. As support in his own party began to splinter, Trump surrendered after the shutdown hit 35 days, agreeing to the current temporary reopening without getting money for the wall. The president’s supporters have suggested that Trump could use executive powers to divert money from the federal budget for wall construction, though he could face challenges in Congress or the courts. The negotiations hit a rough patch Sunday amid a dispute over curbing ICE, the federal agency that Republicans see as an emblem of tough immigration policies and Democrats accuse of often going too far. According to ICE figures, 66 percent of the nearly 159,000 immigrants it reported detaining last year were previously convicted of crimes. Reflecting the two administration’s differing priorities, in 2016 under President Barack Obama, around 110,000 immigrants were detained and 86 percent had criminal records. Few convictions that immigrants detained last year had on their records were for violent crimes. The most common were for driving while intoxicated, drugs, previous immigration convictions and traffic offenses. The border debate got most of the attention, but it’s just part of a major spending measure to fund a bevy of Cabinet departments. A collapse of the negotiations would have imperiled another upcoming round of budget talks that are required to prevent steep spending cuts to the Pentagon and domestic agencies. Republished with permission from the Associated Press
Richard Shelby: Border security talks ‘stalled’ as clock ticks
Bargainers clashed Sunday over whether to limit the number of migrants authorities can detain, tossing a new hurdle before negotiators hoping to strike a border security compromise for Congress to pass this coming week. The White House wouldn’t rule out a renewed partial government shutdown if an agreement isn’t reached. With the Friday deadline approaching, the two sides remained separated by hundreds of millions of dollars over how much to spend to construct President Donald Trump’s promised border wall. But rising to the fore was a related dispute over curbing Customs and Immigration Enforcement, or ICE, the federal agency that Republicans see as an emblem of tough immigration policies and Democrats accuse of often going too far. Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, in appearances on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and “Fox News Sunday,” said “you absolutely cannot” eliminate the possibility of another shutdown if a deal is not reached over the wall and other border matters. The White House had asked for $5.7 billion, a figure rejected by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, and the mood among bargainers has soured, according to people familiar with the negotiations not authorized to speak publicly about private talks. “You cannot take a shutdown off the table, and you cannot take $5.7 (billion) off the table,” Mulvaney told NBC, “but if you end up someplace in the middle, yeah, then what you probably see is the president say, ‘Yeah, OK, and I’ll go find the money someplace else.’” A congressional deal seemed to stall even after Mulvaney convened a bipartisan group of lawmakers at Camp David, the presidential retreat in northern Maryland. While the two sides seemed close to clinching a deal late last week, significant gaps remain and momentum appears to have slowed. Though congressional Democratic aides asserted that the dispute had caused the talks to break off, it was initially unclear how damaging the rift was. Both sides are eager to resolve the long-running battle and avert a fresh closure of dozens of federal agencies that would begin next weekend if Congress doesn’t act by Friday. “I think talks are stalled right now,” Sen. Richard Shelby, Republican-Ala., said Sunday on “Fox News Sunday.” ″I’m not confident we’re going to get there.” Sen. Jon Tester, Democrat-Mont., who appeared on the same program, agreed: “We are not to the point where we can announce a deal.” But Mulvaney did signal that the White House would prefer not to have a repeat of the last shutdown, which stretched more than a month, left more than 800,000 government workers without paychecks, forced a postponement of the State of the Union address and sent Trump’s poll numbers tumbling. As support in his own party began to splinter, Trump surrendered after the shutdown hit 35 days without getting money for the wall. This time, Mulvaney signaled that the White House may be willing to take whatever congressional money comes — even if less than Trump’s goal — and then supplement that with other government funds. “The president is going to build the wall. That’s our attitude at this point,” Mulvaney said on Fox. “We’ll take as much money as you can give us, and we’ll go find the money somewhere else, legally, and build that wall on the southern border, with or without Congress.” The president’s supporters have suggested that Trump could use executive powers to divert money from the federal budget for wall construction, though it was unclear if he would face challenges in Congress or the courts. One provision of the law lets the Defense Department provide support for counterdrug activities. But declaring a national emergency remained an option, Mulvaney said, even though many in the administration have cooled on the prospect. A number of powerful Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican-Ky., have also warned against the move, believing it usurps power from Congress and could set a precedent for a future Democratic president to declare an emergency for a liberal political cause. The fight over ICE detentions goes to the core of each party’s view on immigration. Republicans favor tough enforcement of immigration laws and have little interest in easing them if Democrats refuse to fund the Mexican border wall. Democrats despise the proposed wall and, in return for border security funds, want to curb what they see as unnecessarily harsh enforcement by ICE. People involved in the talks say Democrats have proposed limiting the number of immigrants here illegally who are caught inside the U.S. — not at the border — that the agency can detain. Republicans say they don’t want that cap to apply to immigrants caught committing crimes, but Democrats do. In a series of tweets about the issue, Trump used the dispute to cast Democrats as soft on criminals. He charged in one tweet: “The Border Committee Democrats are behaving, all of a sudden, irrationally. Not only are they unwilling to give dollars for the obviously needed Wall (they overrode recommendations of Border Patrol experts), but they don’t even want to take muderers into custody! What’s going on?” Democrats say they proposed their cap to force ICE to concentrate its internal enforcement efforts on dangerous immigrants, not those who lack legal authority to be in the country but are productive and otherwise pose no threat. Democrats have proposed reducing the current number of beds ICE uses to detain immigrants here illegally from 40,520 to 35,520. But within that limit, they’ve also proposed limiting to 16,500 the number for immigrants here illegally caught within the U.S., including criminals. Republicans want no caps on the number of immigrants who’ve committed crimes who can be held by ICE. As most budget disputes go, differences over hundreds of millions of dollars are usually imperceptible and easily solved. But this battle more than most is driven by political symbolism — whether Trump will be able to claim he delivered on his long-running pledge to “build the wall” or newly empowered congressional Democrats’ ability to thwart him. Predictably each side blamed
Border security bargainers trade offers as deadline nears
Congressional bargainers traded offers and worked toward a border security compromise Friday that would avert a fresh federal shutdown and resolve a clash with President Donald Trump that has dominated the opening weeks of divided government. differences Both sides’ negotiators expressed optimism that an accord could be reached soon on a spending package for physical barriers along the Southwest border and other security measures. Participants said the agreement would all but certainly be well below the $5.7 billion Trump has demanded to build his proposed wall, and much closer to the $1.6 billion that was in a bipartisan Senate bill last year. “That’s what we’re working toward,” said Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, Democrat-Calif., one of the bargainers. 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 how much aid for natural disaster relief would be included. Money for high-tech surveillance equipment and more personnel was also expected to be included. No one ruled out that last-minute problems could emerge, 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, government agencies would have to close again for lack of money, if no deal is reached. Negotiator Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, Republican-Tenn., said the latest Democratic offer was “much more reasonable.” And Democratic bargainer Rep. Pete Aguilar of California said, “Each time an offer and a counter is going back and forth the number of open items is reducing. That is progress.” Rep. Mark Meadows, Republican-N.C., who leads the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, said he spoke Thursday night to Trump, who he said was in “wait and see” mode. Meadows said he expects an agreement to provide something 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 to back a deal, Freedom Caucus members wanted at least $2 billion for barriers and no restrictions on new construction, land acquisition or new types of barriers that could be built. The aide also said the agreement need not contain the term “wall” — a word that was a premier plank of Trump’s presidential campaign, and which Trump has lately alternated between embracing and abandoning. The person would talk only on condition of anonymity to describe private talks. Meadows’ assessment of Trump’s view clashed with one expressed Thursday by Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the chief GOP bargainer. He described the emerging deal to Trump in the Oval Office and told reporters the session was “the most positive meeting I’ve had in a long time.” Shelby said that if the final agreement followed the outline currently under discussion, he believed Trump “would sign it.” Trump has modest leverage in the battle. Besides facing unified Democratic opposition, there is virtually no GOP support in Congress for another shutdown. When congressional talks began, Trump called them a “waste of time.” “They’ve got to come to a solution that actually does what they promised they would do, which is protect the American people,” White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said on Fox News. Trump faces an aggressive, Democratic-led House that is ramping up investigations into Russian involvement in his campaign and businesses and trying to get access to his income tax returns. But ending the border security fight would close one chapter that’s bruised him, including his surrender after a 35-day partial federal shutdown that he started by unsuccessfully demanding taxpayer money to build the border wall. Even with a deal, it was possible Trump might try using claims of executive powers to reach for more wall funding. That could spark votes by Congress to block him, which Trump could veto but would still inflict political damage. Sen. Lindsay Graham, Republican-S.C., said Thursday that an accord could be “a good down payment” and added, “There are other ways to do it and I expect the president to go it alone in some fashion.” Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney said on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity” on Wednesday, “If Congress won’t participate or won’t go along, we’ll figure out a way to do it with executive authority.” Members of both parties have expressed opposition to Trump bypassing Congress by declaring a national emergency at the border, a move that would be certain to produce lawsuits that could block the money. Lawmakers have grown accustomed to expecting the unexpected from Trump. Before Christmas, both parties’ leaders believed he’d support a bipartisan deal that would have prevented the recently ended shutdown, only to reverse himself under criticism from conservative pundits and lawmakers. “There’s a small light at the end of the tunnel,” said Sen. Pat Roberts, Republican-Kan. “We just hope it’s not a train coming the other way.” Republished with permission from the Associated Press
Richard Shelby: Border security meeting with Donald Trump ‘the most positive I’ve had in a long time’
President Donald Trump appears to be taking a more positive view of Capitol Hill talks on border security, according to negotiators who struck a distinctly optimistic tone after a White House meeting with a top Republican on the broad parameters of a potential bipartisan agreement. Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby of Alabama said Thursday’s session in the Oval Office was “the most positive meeting I’ve had in a long time” and that the president was “very reasonable.” Down Pennsylvania Avenue at the Capitol, the mood among negotiators was distinctly upbeat, with participants in the talks between the Democratic-controlled House and GOP-held Senate predicting a deal could come as early as this weekend. There’s a Feb. 15 deadline to enact the measure or a stopgap spending bill to avert another partial government shutdown, which neither side wants to reprise. Republicans are especially eager to avoid another shutdown after they got scalded by the last one. Trump had previously called the talks a “waste of time,” and he’s threatened to declare a national emergency to bypass Congress and build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. But Shelby said Trump during their meeting “urged me to get to yes” on an agreement. Publicly on Thursday Trump took a wait-and-see approach. “I certainly hear that they are working on something and both sides are moving along,” Trump said. “We’ll see what happens. We need border security. We have to have it, it’s not an option. Let’s see what happens.” The White House is committed to letting the negotiations play out, with some saying they are “cautiously optimistic” about getting a deal they could live with, said a senior administration official who lacked authorization to publicly discuss internal deliberations and spoke on condition of anonymity. The new openness comes after Trump delivered a well-received State of the Union speech in which he preached the value of bipartisanship. Despite the newfound optimism, Trump continues to threaten to declare a national emergency to circumvent Congress if lawmakers fail to reach a deal he can stomach. Still, Sen. Lindsay Graham, Republican-S.C., a close ally of Trump, said Thursday that the deal could be a good starting place — suggesting Trump could take additional action if needed to secure more wall funding without congressional approval. “I would recommend that this will probably be a good down payment and what else is lacking, the delta between what you want and what you get, there are other ways to do it, and I expect the president to go it alone in some fashion,” Graham told reporters. Shelby said he and Trump didn’t discuss whether Trump still might use an emergency declaration even if there’s a deal, saying: “The president’s got constitutional powers. … I would think he wouldn’t, but I don’t know what the situation” will be. Beyond the border security negotiations, the measure is likely to contain seven appropriations bills funding domestic agencies and the foreign aid budget, as well as disaster aid for victims of last year’s hurricanes and western wildfires. “I’m hopeful,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “I do like the idea of getting all of last year’s work finished, and I hope that’s where it ends up.” Any move by Trump to fund a border barrier by executive fiat, however, would roil many Republicans on Capitol Hill, raising the likelihood that both House and Senate could pass legislation to reverse him. Trump could veto any such measure, but he’s also certain to face a challenge in the courts. “If Congress won’t participate or won’t go along, we’ll figure out a way to do it with executive authority,” Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney said on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity” on Wednesday. Mulvaney said that the administration has identified well more than $5.7 billion to transfer to wall construction, saying they would try to avoid legal obstacles. “Find the money that we can spend with the lowest threat of litigation, and then move from that pot of money to the next pot that maybe brings a little bit more threat of litigation,” Mulvaney said. It’s clear that Trump won’t get anything close to the $5.7 billion he’s demanded for wall construction, just as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat-Calif., will have to depart from her view that there shouldn’t be any wall funding at all. Last year, a bipartisan Senate panel approved $1.6 billion for 65 miles of pedestrian fencing in Texas — in line with Trump’s official request. The negotiations aren’t likely to veer very far from that figure, aides involved in the talks said, and newly empowered House Democrats were looking to restrict use of the money. A key negotiator, Sen. Dick Durbin, Democrat-Ill., said details on nettlesome border wall issues haven’t been worked out. Sen. Roy Blunt, Republican-Mo., another participant, said both sides are showing flexibility, including Democrats who insisted during the recently-ended 35-day shutdown on no wall funding at all. “They are not opposed to barriers,” Blunt said about Democrats. “And the president, I think, has embraced the idea that there may actually be something better than a concrete wall would have been anyway.” Pelosi told reporters Thursday that she was hopeful of an agreement that would “protect our borders as we protect our values.” Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, Democrat-Calif., another negotiator, acknowledged that Democrats could possibly lose votes on any final deal and that it’s “unrealistic” to think there would be no funding at all for any physical barriers. “Like in any negotiation — if the Republicans and the White House are saying they need barriers, wall, whatever you want to call it, and that is an absolute objective, and we’re saying we want some other things — like in anything else, it’s a trade off,” she said. Among the things Democrats are battling against are higher levels of funding for detention beds to hold migrants crossing into the U.S. illegally. ___ This story has been corrected to reflect the White House meeting was between Trump and Shelby, not between
