TOPICS
TOPICS
Border fence stalls fiscal 2010 spending bill
Disputes over several issues are holding up the annual Homeland Security spending bill, including funding for border fencing and the construction of a biodefense facility. And with the new fiscal year three days away, Republicans are seizing on the stalled bill to accuse Democrats of putting the nation's security at risk.
House Appropriations Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., said on Friday that "significant substantive differences" remain in reconciling the House and Senate versions of the fiscal 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations bill.
Until the differences are resolved, appropriators plan to continue funding the department at current levels under a continuing resolution to keep the federal government operating when the new fiscal year begins on Thursday.
One outstanding difference concerns an amendment in the Senate bill that would require the department to build 700 miles of reinforced double-layered physical fencing along the Southwest border, Obey's office said on Monday.
That amendment was added by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and would require the department to complete the fencing by Dec. 31, 2010. But the department and other lawmakers assert that 700 miles of double-layer fencing is unnecessary and prohibitively expensive. The GAO reported this month that one mile of fencing would cost about $6.5 million.
With frustration apparently mounting, House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member Harold Rogers, R-Ky., called on Democratic leaders on Monday to wrap up a conference on the bill.
"If there are outstanding issues as the chairman suggests, you appoint conferees and go to conference to work out these tough issues," Rogers said in a statement. "The bill is at a place where a true conference negotiation could resolve these last few outstanding issues out in the open, but we're not sure what the majority is afraid of."
Another holdup involves funding to build the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kan., Obey's office said.
The House bill would deny a $36.3 million request to construct the facility and would prohibit obligation of any funds until a separate risk assessment of the site is completed by an entity other than the Homeland Security Department.
But the Senate bill would provide construction funds, pending a safety assessment and report from the department.
The spending bill's lack of movement triggered a brusque exchange Friday between Rogers and Obey.
"Instead of actually doing our work and fulfilling the security needs of our nation, we are placing a priority on Congress' own budget, putting Homeland Security spending on ice, taking the next few Mondays and Fridays off and basically waiting around until October until we get further direction from on high," Rogers said on the House floor.
Obey said it is "patently preposterous to suggest that this bill is being delayed in any way."
"Under the rules of the body, we can't bring a conference bill back to this House until we've reached agreement on all of those differences," he said. "If the gentleman wants to resolve those by agreeing with our position on each of them, I would be happy to see them go to conference right now."
COMMENTS
- Here is the Homeland Security Department's plan to secure the border. Don't build a fence, reduce Border Patrol agents in the south and move them to the north. What is wrong with this picture? Homeland Security definition of a secure fence, a concrete vehicle barrier along the border. Did the Homeland Security Department ever consider that the drug dealers and human smugglers may have accomplices with a pickup truck in the USA. If a double border fence was in place maybe a California Border Patrol agent would still be alive today, instead of being gunned down by drug smugglers. Al Arizona Posted September 30, 2009 10:19 PM
- While the constitutionality of the fence is not an issue, how we go about protecting the border is very real. The fence has only limited value and the costs are a contractors dream as to overcharging the taxpayers of this country. We need a combination of technology plus additional human resources at the ports of entry as well as in between. That is the key. Even DHS and CPB admit that the fence is only a vehicle to slow down an intruder and probably only the low tech non terrorist job seeker. The real terrorist breezes through a poorly structured CBP/ICE data base. Our government has good data on many known unsavory types listed elsewhere. We need to be smart and spend our money wisely and the fence, much less the double fence for 700 miles is a bad investment. We already have fence repair crews working 24/7 on what is already constructed. This is not a partisan issue as it pertains to terrorist. The debate is about immigration and its lack of consistent rules that could be solved with true reform. starrborder Posted September 29, 2009 1:27 PM
- I live in deep S. Texas, the area affected by the tax guzzling boondoggle fence! We should STOP wasting money on a fence and put feet on the ground as promised us over the years. Those who scream loudest for a fence DON'T HAVE A CLUE what it's doing to our area in terms of people, culture, land and wildlife destruction. Areas paid for by OUR tax dollars or donated years ago for wildlife habitat and plant restoration are now torn up and destroyed for a fence that won't work and we DON'T WANT. Sharon Swanson Posted September 29, 2009 11:27 AM
PROMO RIGHT: FIRSTLIGHT
PROMO RIGHT: GBC
Advancing the business of government through analysis, insight and the sharing of best practices.
SPONSORED RESEARCH
Telework in the Federal Government TANDBERG
Healthcare Reform: A Looming Implementation Challenge IBM-Cognos and Symantec
Out of Sight, but Not Out of Touch: Federal Executives' Assessment of Agency Telework Policy KRONOS
The State of Green Government: Response to a Mandate Juniper and HP
Achieving a Greener Federal Government IBM
Federal Cybersecurity: Securing the Nation's Information IBM









