Spending Bill Saves Sensitive Areas from Border Wall

By MARK ANDERSON

Pivotal language in the legislation that prevented a second federal government shutdown has saved a place widely regarded as an irreplaceable haven for wildlife that’s critically important to the food chain and the overall ecosystem — especially pollinators like butterflies and bees. President Trump signed the “compromise bill” Feb. 15.

As a result, the National Butterfly Center in Mission, Texas, and four other sensitive landmark locations, will be spared construction of new sections of border fencing after all — representing a major victory for the Butterfly Center. The Center had made scores of headlines over the last few weeks regarding what had appeared to be an imminent effort on the part of the federal government to bulldoze some 70 acres of vegetation in the 100-acre Center’s rear section. The vegetation there serves as a critical habitat for migratory butterflies.

US Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Laredo) came to the rescue, adding language to the compromise bill to protect the Butterfly Center and four other places from having border-barrier sections erected on their lands.

Those places are: Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park, internationally recognized for bird-watching; Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge; the historic Catholic chapel La Lomita, which recently lost in court when it sought to prevent the government from surveying its land; and land near Brownsville slated as the new home for Elon Musk’s Space X commercial spaceport.

On Feb. 14, according to the Texas Tribune, “The House and Senate approved [the] 1,159-page spending package … It includes $1.375 billion for 55 miles of physical barriers in the Rio Grande Valley [of deep-south Texas] — far less than the $5.7 billion that President Donald Trump demanded when he refused to sign an earlier bill and triggered a 35-day partial government shutdown.”

Yet, while a second shutdown was averted, President Trump, as expected, did declare a national emergency regarding the border, over what he says are clear and present threats to national security posed by drug cartelists, MS-13 gang members and other elements mixing in with and often exploiting asylum-seekers. One might say that, given the five sensitive sites saved from having wall sections built across them, those skeptical of, or outright opposed to, construction of additional barriers along the nearly 2,000-mile southern border won a battle but not necessarily the war.

Indeed, as the New York Times acknowledged: “The border emergency declaration … enables Mr. Trump to divert $3.6 billion budgeted for military construction projects to the border wall … [He] will also use more traditional presidential budgetary discretion to tap $2.5 billion from counter-narcotics programs and $600 million from a Treasury Department asset forfeiture fund. Combined with the $1.375 billion authorized for fencing in [the] spending package passed by Congress, Mr. Trump would then have about $8 billion in all to advance construction of new barriers and repairs or replacement of existing barriers along the border this year …”

Yet, many can take heart that Rep. Cuellar did his job here and prevented an already controversial project from going way too far. Perhaps Cuellar’s move will inspire more thoughtful consideration of other sensitive areas eyed for wall construction, within and beyond Texas.

Meanwhile, the restraining order issued by lawyers for the Butterfly Center in mid-February—in an attempt to prevent the federal government from building barrier sections on the Center’s property—was dismissed almost immediately by US District Court Judge Richard Leon. He ruled that the government did not violate the Center’s Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights.The ruling came more than a year after the Center had first filed suit against the government over its border wall plans.

Mark Anderson is a veteran journalist who divides his time between Texas and Michigan. Email him at truthhound2@yahoo.com.

From The Progressive Populist, March 15, 2019

Populist.com