Skip to comments.Senate Denies Funds for New Border Fence("Kerriosis" spreads through Senate)
Posted on 07/14/2006 5:42:08 AM PDT by kellynla
Less than two months after voting overwhelmingly to build 370 miles of new fencing along the border with Mexico, the Senate yesterday voted against providing funds to build it.
"We do a lot of talking. We do a lot of legislating," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican whose amendment to fund the fence was killed on a 71-29 vote. "The things we do often sound very good, but we never quite get there."
Mr. Sessions offered his amendment to authorize $1.8 billion to pay for the fencing that the Senate voted 83-16 to build along high-traffic areas of the border with Mexico. In the same vote on May 17, the Senate also directed 500 miles of vehicle barriers to be built along the border.
But the May vote simply authorized the fencing and vehicle barriers, which on Capitol Hill is a different matter from approving the federal expenditures needed to build it.
"If we never appropriate the money needed to construct these miles of fencing and vehicle barriers, those miles of fencing and vehicle barriers will never actually be constructed," Mr. Sessions told his colleagues yesterday before the vote.
Virtually all Democrats were joined by the chamber's lone independent and 28 Republicans in opposing Mr. Session's amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations Act. Only two Democrats -- Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Thomas R. Carper of Delaware -- supported funding the fence.
All told, 34 senators -- including most of the Republican leadership -- voted in May to build the fence but yesterday opposed funding it.
The overall bill, which appropriates more than $32 billion to the Homeland Security Department, including $2.2 billion for border security and control, passed on a 100-0 vote last night.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Another day, another reason for term limits & the line item veto!
I've never seen so much incompetence in my life!
No wonder these clowns stay in Congress,
outside of lobbying, they couldn't get a job anywhere else!
I am going to go against the grain at FR and be happy about this.
I agree fully that greater enforcement is necessary, but a wall is a terrible idea.
It is not just a tool, but also a symbol. It would be a sign of American isolationism and a closing off to the world.
It would further erode America's image in the world. And, I am not talking about war on terror type of anti-Americanism, but rather the United States as a beacon of hope and freedom and openness.
Once again, the immigration problem needs to be addressed with greater enforcement. But I beleive a border fence is the wrong way to do it. I am glad that 79 Senators agreed.
Abestos underwear on. BBS
Doing the math that fence would cost about $174.74 per foot.
Remember, there's more than one strand of wire, the supports are well fastened to concrete or stone, it's anywhere from 12 to 20 feet high, consists of "wall" in many places, and will be constructed in some of the harshest environments in the world ~ as provided by the Gran Sonora, Earth's oldest desert.
So,no, it's not being made out of Platinum.
That's silly. Fences (and walls) make good neighbors.
wall? what friggin' wall?
these clowns are talking about spending $1.8 BILLION for a friggin' Fence!
and if you don't think barriers work,
then why the hell do we bother having one at the WH?
Accounting for inflation, degree of difficulty (constructed in urban vs. rura areas on the sides of mountains, etc.), the fence/wall cost of $1.8 billion looks to be comparable.
This just shows how much of a joke Congress is. I heard about the 'NO' on funding on Fox.
Aren't you concerned with the "image" this portrays to the American people ~ that it's OK to wall them in, but not wall the Mexicans out?
I believe some sort of barrier is probably a lot more effective than what we have now. I am all for a suitable fence, especially in high traffic areas.
I think this is just a case of typical political crap.
Tell the folks at home in english you voted for the fence--and in spanish you stopped it by denying funding.
Perhaps you should have read the article before posting...
"...Kris Kobach, who was a counsel to the attorney general under John Ashcroft, told a House subcommittee last week that one of the most unusual aspects of the Senate bill is a provision -- slipped into the more-than-800-page bill moments before the final vote -- that would require the United States to consult with the Mexican government before constructing the fencing.
"I know of no other provision in U.S. law where the federal government requires state and local governments -- every state and local government on the border -- to consult with state and local governments of a foreign power before the federal government can act," he said.
"Now, from my experience as a Justice Department official, when we had consultation requirements with the State Department, just getting two agencies in the executive branch to consult took months or years," ...If you add this, three levels of government and a foreign power, your delay" will never end. "
excuse me but read the piece again...
they're not talking about 1200 miles of fence,
they are talking about 370 miles.
LOL. I won't blast on your for your opinions. But I will point out the following...
From the article-
Kris Kobach, who was a counsel to the attorney general under John Ashcroft, told a House subcommittee last week that one of the most unusual aspects of the Senate bill is a provision -- slipped into the more-than-800-page bill moments before the final vote -- that would require the United States to consult with the Mexican government before constructing the fencing.
Given the above excerpt, it is reasonable to surmise that not all of the 79 senators voted against the fence for the reasons you stated.
What amazes me (frustrates is a better word) is the amount of BS that goes into these constructing these bills. Common sense is dead to these people.
Besides, it's not 370 miles ~ it's also 500 miles of "vehicle barriers". Plus, there's stuff already built and it's supposed to be "improved", but that mileage, which is considerable, is not part of the mileage estimates.
In any case, some of the border consists of mountains where no new fence will be built (although you'd better believe someone in congress will figure out why billybob's fence company in Mexicali needs to go out there and hang wire off a rockface.)
28 Republicans, including the leadership, vote not to support Senator Sessions' amendment funding a fence. Ben Nelson- D Nebraska votes to support Sessions. The Ringling Bros., Barnum and Bailey circus continues its long run in the Senate chamber.
Who are the republicans that voted against it.
We need names.
I saw a political TV commercial today by Jim Gerlach, a moderate pubbie in the Philly suburbs - and HE was running against Bush's guest worker program. That just shows how bad that idea is.
What a bunch of globalist crooks.
yea, yea, yea...
bottom line, these clowns couldn't get their act together to do what should have been done years ago.
but you keep making excuses for their incompetence while those of us who actually pay taxes around here pick up the FIFTY BILLION DOLLAR A YEAR tab for allowing illegals to stay here.
I think we are talking about two different bills ~ the first one had the clause about checking with the Mexicans on the fence, and the second one is a much shorter bill which merely funds the fence (if it ever gets approved).
Fear of a wall as a "symbol" makes no sense to me. At a time when we fully support free trade in the world, when we support the spread of democracy and have put our own resources on the line in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, Taiwan, at a time when we send huge amounts of foreign aid to less fortunate countries, at a time when terrorists are devastating cities around the world...we are going to fear protecting ourselves with a wall because it's a bad symbol? Please, stupidity is bad symbol too. I don't leave my front door wide open because I don't want my home to become a crack house despite having a welcome mat.
Nonsense. A fence to keep people in is a symbol of oppression. A fence to keep unwanted people out, whether along the border or along your back yard, is an expression of sovereignty.
What is the purpose of the front door in your house?
Is it to lock your family in or to keep unwanted people out.
Until we have better regulation regarding immigration, the fence is the best deal around.
Perhaps instead of the wall we should do what Mexico does on their Southern border. They slaughter Guatemalans, Costa Ricans, etc...caught trying to cross. I've yet to hear any left wing organization criticize them-it must be OK.
If drug dealers, human traffickers and criminals lived next door to you would you put up a fence to protect your family and property?
Let me guess...Snowe, Collins, Chaffee, Specter...
oh, I read the piece, thank you
but you like others around here can make all the excuses you like for the Senate's incompetence and the failure of the Bush administration to secure the borders and enforce the immigration laws 'cause come November & 2008 those of us who actually pay the bills around here are going to give the GOP a rude awakening!
Hey, doesn't bother me if we ship ALL the illegals and their spawn back 3 generations to their own, native homelands where they would be much more comfortable than living here surrounded by "rednecks" and "rough Negro youths" who say things offensive to their delicate ears.
Or, maybe even 4 or 5 generations.
And 7 or 8 probably wouldn't bother me, or even 10 ~ 15 probably.
At the moment I'm simply supporting the idea that $1.8 billion for an adequate fence (along all, most or critical parts) on the border is a good idea that should be funded, but I'll ramp it up in a sec if you want.
As long as you make things better with your "rude awakening" because those of us who also pay the bill will be pissed if you just make things worse.
"What a bunch of globalist crooks."
yep, and it appears that we have a few here at FR.
Not having read the detail of the amendment for appropriating the funds, I'm not willing to argue the point that the "fence" described in the original bill is the same as the "fence" described in the appropriations amendment. They could be different. They could be the same. Without more information the point cannot be debated, nor should it. The issue here is the apparant double-cross where some Senators vote for the fence but end up voting against building it.
The White House fence
Thank you for the clarification. I mistook the content as referring to Mr. Sessions amendments to fund the fence.
Just as well, this further illustrates the absurdity inherent in this process (that is, voting for a fence, then voting against funding a fence).
Please remove your front and back door on your house in case I wan't to drop by and borrow anything, raid your fridge, or grab an aspirin- I'd hate to disturb you with having to let me in.
Your typical highrise apartment building is, for all intents and purposes, gated.
You can't heal the wound (those already here) if you can't stop the bleeding (those still coming in). If a wall is what it takes to stop the bleeding, get 'er done. If there is another viable solution, something that WORKS, let's do that.
The only way America wouldn't be a beacon of hope etc. is if we continue to let absolutly everybody who wants to come in, in. Legal immigrants don't want criminals and terrorists living amongst them any more than we do.
Just think how much fencing could be paid for with the $14 + billion spent on Boston's Big Dig (aka Kennedy's Hole).
"$1.8 Billion for fencing? What the heck is this fence made of? Platinum?"
24 Karat gold plated platinum. WHy don't they just hire the Israeli company that built the wall in Israel.
It is a GOOD symbol.
you are being naive.
A fence is ABSOLUTLY VITAL to the border security.
Particularly the various proposed smart fences.
It is 100% absurd to think "enforcement" can be done throwing papers around. It is about as effective as outlawing sadness.