Senate Zeroes In on Border Security Compromise

<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&searchterm=border+patrol&search_group=#id=23541940&src=Ql-9jZNBeYCLxnWesRIV5A-1-22">Amy Walters</a>/Shutterstock

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


The controversial border security amendment authored by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), derided by Democrats as a “poison pill,” was voted down Thursday on the Senate floor. That leaves the door open for a less restrictive border security compromise brokered this week with the bipartisan Gang of Eight by Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and John Hoeven (R-N.D.). The measure would require doubling the number of border patrol agents to 40,000 and expanding a southern border fence to 700 miles at a cost of $30 billion.

After his amendment was tabled, Cornyn told Mother Jones that he wouldn’t decide whether to endorse the Corker-Hoeven compromise until he saw the full text. “They have helped focus attention on border security and why it’s so important to the bill, but I’m going to reserve any comments, obviously, until I have a chance to actually read it,” Cornyn said.

“How much more is it going to cost?” Cornyn later asked Hoeven on the floor. Hoeven, citing Tuesday’s Congressional Budget Office report on the immigration bill that projected a $197 billion federal deficit reduction over 10 years, said that would more than pay for the amendment’s $30 billion price tag. (Cornyn’s bill just called for a reallocation of $6.5 billion of border security funds already in the bill.) Others, like Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)—who introduced a multi-billion dollar proposal of his own that was rejected in committee—dismissed the Corker-Hoeven amendment as something that “will just throw money at the border.” (If recent history is any indication, Sessions is probably right.)

The Gang of Eight nevertheless believes that the Corker-Hoeven amendment will attract around 10 more conservative votes, but even if the Senate bill passes with the 70 votes the gang wants in order to pressure the House to pass a comprehensive companion bill, it’s not clear the lower chamber will move in that direction. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who chairs the judiciary committee, is opposed to a comprehensive bill; on Tuesday his committee began deliberations on a series of piecemeal bills on law enforcement issues. On Thursday, Goodlatte expressed skepticism about the Corker-Hoeven compromise, telling reporters that simply beefing up border security wouldn’t address issues such as immigrants who enter the country legally but stay after their visas expire. (Later, Corker said on the Senate floor that he hoped the House would add such a measure.)

“I think the House is a whole different animal,” Cornyn said, asked if he thought the successful passage of the Corker-Hoeven amendment might get a majority of House Republicans—the minimum level of support that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said it would take before he allowed a vote on comprehensive immigration reform—to take up the Senate bill. “They’re going to produce their own bill. It’s all about getting to conference [committee],” where differences between the House and Senate bills would be resolved.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest