Our meeting Monday, Jan 21, was a good example of the in-depth look at issues that Citizen Reform is all about. Thanks to those who could come.

The Border Fence: the Full Story

We started out with the “red meat” headline: "Hutchison Amendment to Omnibus Spending Bill guts double-layer fence." However, this raised many questions:

1. To “gut” something, means there had to be something there of substance to begin with. Was the 2006 Secure Border Act (what was allegedly “gutted”) an “iron-clad” border security piece of legislation?
   No. The Secure Border Act was passed in desperation by Republicans near the election of November, 2006, knowing they were in deep trouble with the electorate. The total of 854 miles comes from adding the distances of 5 specific stretches of fence that the Act stipulates.

   However, on the same day the Secure Border Act was passed, a second bill was passed giving the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) discretion over how and where the fence would actually be built. The impetus for this was Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison who rose to the floor of the Senate and expressed her concern that the Act was too restrictive and would impose too much of a burden on Texas' border communities.
    

2. Why would Sen Hutchison, normally a reliable conservative, be the one to offer this amendment?
   Because all politicians are one part sincere beliefs, one part responders to their constituents, and one part survivors of the next election. Senator Hutchison was the recipient of a determined coalition of Texas/Mexico border stake holders who demanded the fence not be built.

   In her own words: “Throughout the process that led to passage of the Secure Fence Act, Sen. Cornyn and I were frustrated that local officials representing areas specifically cited in the act — particularly in the El Paso, Del Rio-to-Eagle Pass and Laredo-to-Brownville sectors — did not have the opportunity to participate in decisions regarding the location of fencing and other physical infrastructure near their communities.”
    

3. How is the Border Fence viewed and supported/opposed by people living on the border?
   A border fence protest group, “Hands Across El Rio” puts it this way:
   
   

   at two points along the border — El Paso and Mission, Texas — groups are forming a united front in making the strongest statement yet to Washington that construction of a border fence is not wanted by residents of the region, on either side of the border. What those who do not live in the border region may not understand is that the cultural and economic connection between the U.S. and Mexico is one that neither country can afford to cast aside…many…Texas border mayors, judges and economic experts, believe that building a wall across our nation's southern border is not [acceptable].

   This is typical of the sentiment of those directly affected by the proposed fence. In addition, Texas, unlike much of the other three border states, has a border that is majority private property and highly populated, creating many issues and conflicts.
    

4. So what happened in 2007? Was the fence truly “gutted”?
   A provision in the fiscal 2008 Omnibus Spending Bill strengthens the hand of landowners, local governments and other groups opposed to fence building along the U.S.-Mexico border.

   The bill (HR 2764) requires the Homeland Security Department (DHS) to consult with local governments, American Indian tribes, property owners, and the secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture "to minimize the impact on the environment, culture, commerce and quality of life" in the area the fence is to be built.

   The bill also requires DHS to build at least 700 miles of "reinforced fencing" along the approximately 1,933-mile southern border where it "would be most practical and effective." But it also strikes provisions of a 2006 law (PL 109-367) authorizing fencing in five specific areas along the Mexican border.

   Peter King, a strong fence proponent complained: "I don't believe [DHS] should have to be consulting every level of government and every Indian tribe and every property owner to the extent that the statute requires…This could now drag on forever."

   The text of the amendment that passed

   The amendment put forward by Sen. Hutchison said DHS would not have to build the fence. This Amendment (SA 2466 to HR 2638) seems, at first glance, to support building a fence. It is entitied "Improvement of Barrier At Border" and states in Subparagraph A:
   

   (A) REINFORCED FENCING.–In carrying out subsection
   (a), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall construct reinforced fencing along not less than 700 miles of the southwest border where fencing would be most practical and effective and provide for the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors to gain operational control of the southwest border." Note the phrase "where fencing would be most practical and effective." Basically, DHS has an opt-out clause built in. But it gets worse. Page Two of the Hutchison amendment then states:
   (D) LIMITATION ON REQUIREMENTS.–Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), nothing in this paragraph shall require the Secretary of Homeland Security to install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors in a particular location along an international border of the United States, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location.

   Just in case Subparagraph A was not clear enough, Hutchison added Subparagraph D to leave no room for doubt that this amendment is intended to make sure DHS is under no legal obligation to ever build any fence, never mind the 854 miles of double-layer fencing mandated by the Secure Fence Act of 2006. "Notwithstanding" means "in spite of." Thus, Subparagraph D says that in spite of anything stated in Subparagraph A, DHS is under no mandate to build the fence.
    

5. How accurately have our talk radio and conservative pundits been portraying this situation? Was this a “traitorous act” delivered in the “dark of night” or was there fair warning?
   In my opinion, the news of the Hutchison Amendment, which appeared in the Omnibus Spending Act, was reported misleadingly:

   Myths

   Myth: The Secure Border Act of 2006 was “iron-clad”.
   Reality: As seen above, it was passed in desperation and with a companion bill, the very same day, that undid its very intent.

   Myth: The watering down of the Hutchison amendment was a “surprise”.
   Reality: Hutchison was very vocal about this all through 2006 and 2007. No one should have been surprised.

   Myth: The amount of fencing was “gutted”.
   Reality: Since the fence was only a theoretical 854 miles, and not solid, it could not be “gutted”. People who wanted a fence chose to believe it had been sincerely authorized but we had not done our homework.

   Myth: Senator Hutchison is a “traitor”.
   Reality: She is more a typical politician trying to please everyone, and in so doing, pleasing no one and looking like a phony. She has been caught between national demands for a fence and local push back of those directly affected. It just like NIMBY, “not in my back yard”, during the early days of recycling.

   Myth: The fence has been nothing but a “hoax”.
   Reality: It is worse than that, it is fear, disingenuousness, self delusion on the part of Congress coupled with our ignorance and hearing what we wanted to hear, and not doing our homework on the part of we, the electorate.

Conclusion: Talk radio, tends to say what creates anger in us, but we are guilty of not knowing the facts in the first place, and the pundits do not necessarily care if we really know all the details, just the part that gets us to tune in and create an audience. Yet without Talk Radio, we would be in total ignorance. Talk Radio is a tool, but we need to add our own research and drill down to get the whole truth.

At our Next Citizen Reform meeting we will discuss:

• If our goal is truly border security, how do we best achieve this as rapidly as possible?
• Who are the stakeholders?
• What can Citizen Reform do that could make a difference?