Quantcast
Connect with us

Here’s what’s in the $4.6 billion border aid bill passed by Congress

Published

on

Democratic leadership in the House signed onto the GOP-led Senate’s proposal Thursday after a fight over what should specifically be in the bill.

Amid a raging nationwide debate over the dire conditions of migrant detention centers, the U.S. House and Senate rushed to pass legislation this week to address a crisis at the U.S-Mexico border.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Democratic-controlled House and the Republican-controlled Senate initially approved separate bills with about $4.5 billion aimed at improving conditions in overcrowded migrant detention centers. The bills proposed allocating money differently and offered different levels of assurance that the Trump administration puts the appropriations to their intended use.

But as calls to address the humanitarian situation at the border grew, leaders in both chambers were on a collision course as they scrambled to address the situation ahead of a weeklong July 4 recess. The House ultimately passed the Senate’s version, which now heads to President Donald Trump, who is expected to sign it. Here’s a look at how the bills compared.

What’s in the Senate Bill?

The Senate bill that the House ultimately approved with no changes pushes billions toward alleviating the pressures on detention centers and providing emergency humanitarian aid to migrant children. That version of the bill comes with far fewer restrictions on the implementation of its funds.

The language in the Senate bill is the product of a fairly robust bipartisan effort, and it passed the upper chamber by a resounding 88-4 margin with the support of the Senate’s two Texans — Republicans John Cornyn and Ted Cruz. It passed the House in 305-102.

ADVERTISEMENT

The vast majority of the Senate’s legislation is aimed at alleviating the squalid conditions detained migrant children are facing. It sends $2.9 billion to restore the waning resources of the Department of Health and Human Services.

The majority of the remaining funding — some $1.3 billion — will go to the Department of Homeland Security. The bulk of this appropriation is designated for Customs and Border Patrol to improve the conditions in border facilities, expand medical care, and provide better access to essential items like clothing, hygiene products and baby formula. According to The New York Times, these improvements would not include more beds at detention facilities.

Among the provisions in the Senate bill that originally met resistance in the House was $145 million allocated to the Department of Defense to fund military expenses along the border, including facility maintenance, medical assistance and surveillance and enforcement operations. Democrats sought to keep the Pentagon out of any border aid efforts.

ADVERTISEMENT

Also drawing pushback on the House side were appropriations in the Senate bill for enforcement, including more than $200 million in funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and $110 million in overtime funding for Customs and Border Protection employees.

What was in the House bill?

Only three Republicans supported the House’s original version of the bill, including one Texan, Will Hurd of Helotes. The funding designations of the House bill were carefully crafted to funnel appropriations towards improving conditions at detention facilities and extending aid and legal services to migrants.

Most of the House’s appropriations — some $2.9 billion — would have gone to the Department of Health and Human Services to fund legal services for migrant children who have been detained and to relieve overcrowding by creating more licensed facilities to hold migrant children.

ADVERTISEMENT

And of the remaining $1.5 billion in the House bill, the majority would have gone to the Department of Homeland Security, a sprawling network of agencies that includes U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

But the House bill was careful to spell out how the Department of Homeland Security would have been allowed to use the new funding, requiring the agency to ensure it has an adequate supply of necessities like food, water, blankets, soap, toothpaste and diapers. Extreme shortages of such products have stoked widespread outrage and served as a flashpoint in the national conversation about the situation at the border over the last week.

Still, nearly $800 million of Department of Homeland Security funding in the House bill was designated for the expansion of “soft-side and modular facilities” — the overflow shelters often referred to as “tent cities” — an expansion of detention accommodations that critics have argued are inhumane.

ADVERTISEMENT

Unique to the House bill was $17 million in allocations to the Department of Justice prescribing legal services for children and $20 million to ICE to fund alternatives to physical migrant detention centers.

Several provisions added to the House bill in the hours before it passed were aimed at appeasing holdout members of the Congressional Hispanic and House Progressive caucuses. These amendments would have established even tighter restrictions on the use of humanitarian aid funding and stringent standards on the care and resources provided to detained children, including a 90-day limit on the detention of unaccompanied children at influx shelters, demands that U.S. Customs and Border Protection adopt higher standards of medical care and hygiene for unaccompanied children, and a guarantee of translation services and legal assistance for detainees.

The biggest differences

The two chambers were furthest apart on how much leeway to give the Trump administration with this new funding. Perhaps the most significant distinction in the House bill were the “guardrails,” as some members have called them — provisions intended to prevent the misappropriation of funds by ICE and the Trump administration. Republicans argued that these restrictions on implementation wouldseverely limit the ability for the Trump administration to administer a unilateral response in an emergency situation. Those so-called guardrails were aimed at preventing the White House from redirecting appropriations away from humanitarian aid and toward immigration enforcement programs.

ADVERTISEMENT

According to U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar of El Paso, who emerged as a lead proponent for the lower chamber’s version of the bill, the most important of these safeguards was a prohibition on the use of funds for anything other than their designated purpose.

“We cannot give a president like this a blank check. It just would be disastrous,” Escobar told the Tribune on Wednesday. “We’ve seen him use funding in order to foment chaos and, really, to implement cruelty.”

The House bill was also far more specific in how some of the funds — especially those going to the Department of Homeland Security — could have been spent, down to granular notes about what should be spent on toiletries.

ADVERTISEMENT

And the House bill also made it easier for lawmakers to check on the detention facilities. The Senate bill says that members of Congress may visit detention facilities with two days advanced notice, while the House bill would have let them show up at detention facilities unannounced.

But ultimately Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opted to pass the Senates version after failing to bring together the more liberal and centrist members of her party.

“In order to get resources to the children fastest, we will reluctantly pass the Senate bill,” Pelosi wrote in a letter to Democratic lawmakers, according to The New York Times.

ADVERTISEMENT

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. Like you, we here at Raw Story believe in the power of progressive journalism — and we’re investing in investigative reporting as other publications give it the ax. Raw Story readers power David Cay Johnston’s DCReport, which we've expanded to keep watch in Washington. We’ve exposed billionaire tax evasion and uncovered White House efforts to poison our water. We’ve revealed financial scams that prey on veterans, and legal efforts to harm workers exploited by abusive bosses. We’ve launched a weekly podcast, “We’ve Got Issues,” focused on issues, not tweets. And unlike other news outlets, we’ve decided to make our original content free. But we need your support to do what we do.

Raw Story is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. We’re not part of a conglomerate, or a project of venture capital bros. From unflinching coverage of racism, to revealing efforts to erode our rights, Raw Story will continue to expose hypocrisy and harm. Unhinged from billionaires and corporate overlords, we fight to ensure no one is forgotten.

We need your support to keep producing quality journalism and deepen our investigative reporting. Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Invest with us in the future. Make a one-time contribution to Raw Story Investigates, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click to donate by check.

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. Like you, we here at Raw Story believe in the power of progressive journalism — and we’re investing in investigative reporting as other publications give it the ax. Raw Story readers power David Cay Johnston’s DCReport, which we've expanded to keep watch in Washington. We’ve exposed billionaire tax evasion and uncovered White House efforts to poison our water. We’ve revealed financial scams that prey on veterans, and efforts to harm workers exploited by abusive bosses. We’ve launched a weekly podcast, “We’ve Got Issues,” focused on issues, not tweets. Unlike other news sites, we’ve decided to make our original content free. But we need your support to do what we do.

Raw Story is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. We’re not part of a conglomerate, or a project of venture capital bros. From unflinching coverage of racism, to revealing efforts to erode our rights, Raw Story will continue to expose hypocrisy and harm. Unhinged from corporate overlords, we fight to ensure no one is forgotten.

We need your support to keep producing quality journalism and deepen our investigative reporting. Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Invest with us in the future. Make a one-time contribution to Raw Story Investigates, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you.



Report typos and corrections to: [email protected]. Send news tips to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump’s ‘indefensible’ comments just made it ‘much much harder’ for GOP to win in 2020: Ex-RNC Chair

Published

on

President Donald Trump's latest anti-Semitic trope is going to make it "much much harder" for Republicans to hold control of the White House in 2020, the former chair of the Republican National Committee (RNC) explained on MSNBC on Tuesday.

Michael Steele was interviewed by MSNBC's Chris Matthews on "Hardball."

"There’s a long-respected leader of what's called Jewish Republicans, Matt Brooks -- I've known him for a long time -- this guy has the job of helping get votes, Republican votes, in the community, which generally votes Democrats," Matthews noted. "What is he going to deal with this baby, this assault on religious identity and trying to claim you must vote your group?"

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Washington Post editorial board calls Trump too cowardly to pass background checks in scathing editorial

Published

on

The Washington Post just published a scathing editorial saying that President Donald Trump is far too cowardly to fight for gun safety laws or any kind of gun reform.

For a brief few days, while Trump was on vacation, he was willing to say that background checks needed to be tightened. But once he was on the phone with the National Rifle Association, everything changed. It isn't the first time. When Trump promised action after the Parkland, Florida massacre he said to the faces of parents who'd just lost their children. The next day he reneged. Now Americans are back at step one, where the next shooting is around the corner and even if police are on scene to take the shooter down in less than 60 seconds, people will still die.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Trump’s tumbling support among ‘the poorly educated’ may crush his 2020 prospects: report

Published

on

When Donald Trump famously declared, “I love the poorly educated” during his 2016 campaign, it was obvious that he was taking a much more populist (or rather, pseudo-populist) approach than Republican presidential candidates were typically known for. And white males without college degrees continue to be a key part of the president’s base. But Washington Post columnist Aaron Blake, analyzing an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released on Monday, stresses that when Trump is up against a “generic 2020 Democrat,” he finds himself struggling with non-college educated white women.

Continue Reading
 
 

Thank you for whitelisting Raw Story!

As a special thank you, from now until August 31st, we're offering you a discounted rate of $5.99/month to subscribe and get ad-free access. We're honored to have you as a reader. Thank you. :) —Elias, Membership Coordinator
LEARN MORE
close-link
close-image