WASHINGTON _ Both Democrats and Republicans from Texas are griping _ for different reasons _ over a deal reached by Congress to approve $1.4 billion for the border barrier that President Donald Trump has made a signature component of his White House tenure.
While the dueling criticism is not expected to derail the massive $1.4 trillion spending bills that include the fence funding, it shows that the border battle's latest round will likely be scored as a draw.
Key Democrats from the Lone Star State are miffed that their party's leadership, which runs the House, gave even an inch to Trump's border wall ambitions, while also not doing more to constrain some other White House immigration policies that they consider cruel and misguided.
"It's a disaster," said Rep. Filemon Vela, a Brownsville Democrat who implored his colleagues to "stand up for border communities."
Some Texas Republicans, meanwhile, are unhappy that the barrier spending is far less than the $8.6 billion that Trump requested and that host of other immigration-related issues, such as rules governing asylum, remain unresolved.
"With all the billions we're spending on everything else, it looks like we could've done better," said Rep. Louie Gohmert, an outspoken Tyler Republican and Trump ally who voted against the spending package.
The House on Tuesday voted to approve the must-pass spending package, a set of two bills that would prevent a government shutdown while also implementing new policy on everything from health care taxes to the legal age for purchasing tobacco products to gun violence research.
The measure covering national security, including immigration, passed 280-138, with many Democrats in Texas and beyond voting no in protest. The measure covering domestic agencies was less controversial, passing 297-120.
The GOP-run Senate would then need to pass the legislation in short order to allow Trump to sign it into law by the end of the week.
Border wall funding was a significant sticking point in negotiations between the House, the Senate and the White House. That's no surprise, given that last year's record-setting government shutdown was just the most prominent example of how that battle has repeatedly roiled spending debates.
Trump campaigned on building a "big, beautiful" wall along America's southern border _ and said that Mexico would pay for it.
Putting that vision into action, though, has proved difficult. Mexico has refused to provide any payment. Democrats have sought to block a barrier they call offensive and ineffective. Building wall is no easy task in places like Texas, thanks to rugged terrain and private property rights.
About 80 miles of barrier have been built during Trump's presidency along the 1,900-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico. That fencing is new, in the sense that it was just built. But it actually just replaced existing barriers, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
The first extension of America's border barrier system broke ground in South Texas only in October, meaning that the eight-mile stretch won't likely be completed for several months.
Trump, however, has remained bullish ahead of the 2020 election that his administration can "get it close to 500 miles by the end of next year, depending on certain terrain conditions." He said in September that crews were "building it at breakneck speed."
Those efforts require money _ which, in turn, involves haggling in a divided Congress. The trick for appropriators this year proved to be giving neither side exactly what it wanted.
Funding for a barrier along the U.S.-Mexico line will remain at the status quo level of nearly $1.4 billion over the fiscal year. That's less than what Trump wanted. But the deal also doesn't prevent the president from again moving around money from other pots of money to fund the wall. Then again, the deal also doesn't replenish the funding areas that Trump already raided for his border barrier.
In short, the status quo remains.
"Any funding for additional barriers is something I'm opposed to," said Rep. Veronica Escobar, an El Paso Democrat who against the spending bill that covered immigration policy.
She and other Texas Democrats are not just steamed about the border wall spending, either. Escobar said she was most concerned about the continuation of Trump's Migrant Protection Protocols, which requires asylum-seekers to return to Mexico while awaiting court hearings in the U.S.
"I can't in good conscience vote for anything that continues that," she said, adding that the policy has helped create a "criminal ecosystem" and a "humanitarian crisis."
Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-San Antonio, is chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which opposed the immigration-related spending bill to "defend our communities from the president's chaotic, wasteful and racist policies."
He conceded that there are "some great provisions" in the spending package that are unrelated to immigration. But he said the border barrier funding was a nonstarter, as was a provision that gives the Trump administration some flexibility to increase detention capability at the border.
"What's problematic is the transferability that the president can have, moving money to the wall and to ICE detention beds," Castro said, referring to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, said he managed to at least secure language in the spending package that would prevent the construction of border fencing through some sensitive South Texas areas, such as the Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge and La Lomita Historic District.
"We cannot allow the administration's border wall to destroy any cultural and historical landmarks in South Texas or upend lives of constituents in my district," said Cuellar, a member of the House Appropriations Committee who voted against the immigration-related bill.
On the Republican side, the border compromise was enough to win over some Texans.
Rep. Roger Williams, R-Austin, said he appreciated that Trump "has the option to pull from other areas to get done what he needs to get done." Fort Worth Rep. Kay Granger, the top GOP appropriator in the House, cited the immigration deal in calling the package "good for America."
But Rep. Chip Roy, R-Austin, was among the Texas conservatives who were underwhelmed.
He said the deal includes "some positive steps in there" that will "keep moving the ball forward." But he was clear that the agreement was "not what was requested or what's fully needed to accomplish the objective the president's laid out."
"We need to have a much more thorough effort at securing the border," said Roy, who voted against the broader bills due to objections about the package's largess and the opaque process that caused lawmakers to have only a short amount of time to review the legislation.
Rep. Ron Wright, R-Arlington, said the $1.4 billion in border wall funding was "not enough," adding that it's "silly" for Democrats to "continue to throw up road blocks."
"We're a sovereign nation of laws," said Wright, who voted against the spending package "There's nothing wrong, nothing racist, nothing inhumane or uncompassionate about expecting people from other countries to follow the laws of the United States of America."
