Why GOP-run Congress didn’t fund Trump’s wall

There’s no $1.4 billion for a 'big, beautiful wall' in this week's bipartisan budget deal, but there is a similar amount for border security. That shows that the Democrats have clout, but there's also room for finding common ground.

Aaron P. Bernstein/REUTERS
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R) of Texas heads to the Senate floor for a vote on Capitol Hill in Washington on April 26, 2017.

What happened to President Trump’s wall in this week’s bipartisan budget deal is a good way to look at the new political dynamic in Washington.

For it is a new dynamic. Up to this point – the cabinet confirmations, the Supreme Court justice, the regulatory rollbacks – all could be done with a GOP majority in Congress and a Republican in the White House.

But Congress is now in the budgeting phase, and budgeting – as well as most other major legislation – still requires clearing a 60-vote threshold in the Senate. For the first time since Mr. Trump took office, Republicans and Democrats actually have to work together to get something done.

Back to the wall. It’s not in there. There’s no $1.4 billion to start construction on a “big, beautiful” wall as the president requested. What that shows is the Democrats' clout, even as a minority party. They erected a solid wall of resistance so that not one penny could go to Trump’s expansive vision of concrete.

But here’s what did get in there: $1.5 billion for border security – technology and maintenance of existing infrastructure at the border, even if there’s nothing for new fencing, as the administration wanted. What this shows is the two parties finding common ground, something that America hasn’t seen much of in these early months.

Alas, it did not please the president.

Trump calls for a government shutdown

He showed his displeasure in a couple of tweets on Tuesday morning. Referring to this week’s $1.16 trillion budget deal – which will fund the government through Sept. 30 and which gave Democrats almost everything they wanted – Trump laid out three ways "to fix mess!”:

  • Elect enough Republican senators in 2018 so that they can clear the 60-vote threshold by themselves (that’s how Democrats squeaked the Affordable Care Act past the Senate)
  • Blow up the 60-vote rule for Senate legislation so that everything passes with a simple majority
  • Blow up the government with a “good ‘shutdown’ ” in September – i.e., force the hand of Democrats.

These last two suggestions did not go down well with Senate Republicans such John Cornyn of Texas – in the Senate's GOP leadership – and reflect what America has so far come to know about the president: That he’s on a learning curve.

“It’s a free country, he’s entitled to express his views, as are we,” Senator Cornyn told reporters Tuesday.

But in a speech just minutes before on the Senate floor he vigorously argued against the party in control shutting down the government. And he defended the 60-vote threshold as a way for members to have their say in legislation and to forge lasting consensus on America’s big issues.

Here, again, the wall teaches a lesson. Even if the president were to have his way and the Senate tore down its 60-vote rule, not every issue splits neatly along partisan lines – though more and more it’s trending that way.

Take the wall, for instance.

Why some GOP lawmakers also oppose wall

Last month, The Wall Street Journal canvassed Democrat and Republican lawmakers from Southwest border states and found that none of them supported the president’s funding request to start wall construction, though Sen. Ted Cruz (R) of Texas “backs the overall idea of a wall,” the news organization reported. For next year, the president has requested $2.6 billion.

“You don’t have a single Republican on the border who’s for the wall,” Senate minority leader Charles Schumer (D) of New York told reporters Monday. He said he had spoken with seven or eight Republican senators who oppose the president’s project. “I don’t think it can pass,” the New Yorker said, looking ahead to the wrangling over next year’s budget, even while praising the bipartisan cooperation on this year's deal.

Border lawmakers and others have concerns about the president’s focus on a physical barrier. They point to all the ways to go over, under, or through a barrier. They raise issues of terrain and eminent domain, and of fear of Mexican retaliation by blocking US agriculture exports.

They also point to cost. Estimates on building a wall range wildly, from $12 billion to nearly $70 billion. Whatever it is, it’s hard to find any lawmaker who believes Mexico will pay for it.

“It’s not helpful to his goal and to my goal to just be talking about a border wall,” Cornyn told reporters on Tuesday, referring to Trump. “We need to talk about more than infrastructure. We need to talk about technology, we need to talk about personnel, and I’d like to see a comprehensive border security plan.”

And yet the president is still promising the wall. “We will build a wall folks, don’t even worry about it,” he said at his Harrisburg, Pa., rally over the weekend.

The way through this impasse looks to be a matter of definition and scope – redefining the wall as “border security” and taking a more multifaceted approach.

“If you’re talking about drones, if you’re talking about towers, if you’re taking about anti-tunneling, if you’re talking about increasing the manpower. Then that’s fine. That’s my view of what a wall is. Not just concrete,” says Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona.

The president’s press secretary called the $1.5 billion in this week's deal “a down payment on border security.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.