Delcia Lopez/The Monitor via AP
Congressman Henry Cuellar is met by protesters in Mission, Texas, March 2019.
The year-end government spending bill that sailed through Congress this week included a series of policy changes unrelated to fiscal policy. But funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the border wall, a point of conflict all year, continued to dominate the agreement and its aftermath.
While Trump hardliners were astounded by how little they gave up in the deal, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus revolted against it. Most of the Hispanic Caucus voted against the bill that contained the border provisions, H.R. 1158, though it passed the House with 150 Democrats and 130 Republicans.
H.R. 1158 included $1.375 billion in border wall funding, the same as the previous fiscal year, with no restrictions on reprogramming funds from military construction projects to expand the total dollar outlay. There were no checks on migrant detention policy, and no reduction in the amount of ICE detention beds.
The major limit on the funding is that it must only flow to the highest-priority locations identified in the Border Security Improvement Plan, a document that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection writes themselves. So it consigns the Trump administration to follow the dictates … of the Trump administration. Other conditions include perfunctory reporting requirements and an “Immigration Detention ombudsman” to investigate issues of concern.
“The bill was written and negotiated under a House Democratic majority and, instead of using this opportunity to rein in DHS, it keeps many of the same spending levels and transfer flexibilities authored by Republicans and in line with President Trump’s priorities,” the Hispanic Caucus said in a statement, adding that it would “inflict cruelty and militarize our border.”
In one key area, however, the Trump administration got even more flexibility, freeing them from constraints on the type of border barrier they can build that had been in force since 2017. And the main reason for this change is that centrist Representative Henry Cuellar (D-TX) and city leaders in Laredo, Texas, want to build a riverwalk along the border.
Cuellar ultimately voted against the bill, saying that he couldn’t support “an ineffective border wall” that would harm “taxpayers, wildlife, the environment, and my community.” But at the same time, Cuellar, vice chair of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee that negotiated this part of the bill, touted the inclusion of language he wrote protecting certain wildlife refuges and historical landmarks in South Texas from any border fencing, including the Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park and the National Butterfly Center.
So Cuellar clearly played a role in the crafting of the bill, and his priority of enabling federal funding for a Laredo riverwalk got into the final package, which could create a chain reaction that leads to border wall construction throughout the region, cutting off numerous barrios, colonias, ranches, and farms. Cuellar’s office would not comment on his role in securing that language. But his fingerprints are all over it.
“[Cuellar] calls himself a Laredo boy, but he’s not protecting our people, especially the poorest people,” says Maxine Rebeles, a teacher in Laredo who is active with the No Border Wall movement in South Texas, a group that also opposes the riverwalk design. “He knows too many people don’t care about politics. He basically threw us under the bus.”
City of Laredo Rio Grande Vega Lands Master Plan (screenshot)
THE RIVERWALK CONCEPT goes back over a decade, known then as the River Vega Master Plan. “It was an economic development plan to build up the riverfront, with city-owned buildings and shopping,” says Julia Wallace, a reporter with the Laredo Morning Times who has written extensively about the issue. Included in the plan was a concrete retaining wall, termed a “bulkhead,” that would protect the city of Laredo from Rio Grande River flooding. So it was a two-fold concept: secure the flood plain and beautify the city.
The plans never got off the ground, predictably so considering the financial crisis and Great Recession in 2008. Only an outlet mall near the river was constructed. But about a year ago, Mayor Pete Saenz and city manager Horacio De Leon resurrected the concept, complete with artist’s renderings. They reimagined it for the Trump era by emphasizing its role as a border solution; the 15-foot-high bulkhead would present a barrier to border crossers, while a path would be dug out for Border Patrol to use.
The rest of the project remained mostly the same: converting city-owned property into park space, restaurants, a riverfront promenade, and development overlooking the “sister city” of Nuevo Laredo in Mexico. The city passed a resolution in favor of the bulkhead project in May. Other cities, like Roma, Texas, have picked up on the concept for their communities, though that proved unsuccessful, as the Trump administration built the wall there anyway.
Many in the community doubt the benefits of the project. “We’ve told the mayor of Laredo that we don’t want the bulkhead,” says Juan Livas, a leader in the No Border Wall movement. The river would have to be widened, and the project would cut through local soccer fields, parks, and even a few homes. There has been no environmental assessment of its effect on flooding and habitats outside Laredo. The river is the only source of water for many residents throughout South Texas.
Others question the economic benefits. “That riverwalk is something the city of Laredo has been pursuing on behalf of private contractors for more than a decade,” says Mariana Treviño-Wright, the head of the National Butterfly Center, who is suing the federal government over the border wall. “Everybody wants to use someone else’s money for their own profits.”
“Our mayor always tries to have great ideas to bring economic development in, they never work,” says Maxine Rebeles. “He thinks it’s going to be like the riverwalk in San Antonio. Nobody’s going to come to this river! Nobody’s going to get on a boat! It makes no sense.”
Added Treviño-Wright: “They’ve compared it to Paris. Talk about delusions of grandeur. Like the River Seine, this beautiful promenade. Pass me some of whatever they’re smoking.”
Hopes of obtaining federal funding for the project hit a snag. A provision in a 2017 appropriations bill states that border wall funding can only go to “operationally effective designs,” along the lines of the steel bollards being built on sections of the border. Without changes to that, Laredo would be unable to obtain federal funds. The city attempted to secure funding at the state level, but the bill failed to pass the Texas legislature, with the cost cited. The bulkhead would be more expensive to build than the steel bollard design.
Laredo did have an ace in the hole, however: Henry Cuellar, the centrist who sat on the key subcommittee that appropriates funds to DHS. Cuellar first pitched the project back in 2007, during a visit to Laredo by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. This January, Mayor Saenz announced that Cuellar “is currently advocating for this bulkhead approach in the capitol.” On the congressman’s website, you can see designs for the bulkhead project. He also organized meetings with top Republican appropriators in February and the heads of DHS in March to pitch the bulkhead concept.
“I support the development of mutually beneficial border security infrastructure projects based on mutual agreements between local communities and the Department of Homeland Security, that will produce viable alternatives to a 14th century wall,” Cuellar told The Texas Tribune.
The situation had some urgency to it. Laredo and surrounding Webb and Zapata counties were at the top of a list of priorities for border construction. The city owns tracts of farmland throughout the Rio Grande Valley, and has been fighting the Trump administration in court over wall construction in those outlying areas.
Livas of the No Border Wall movement fears that the idea is to trade off the beautification project in downtown Laredo for a border wall throughout the Rio Grande Valley. “We’ve heard from people in the Valley, the federal government needs the local officials to do a compromise,” he says. “Do the wall in this area and we’ll do this project.”
That appears to be what happened.
The new language in Section 209(b) of the DHS appropriation, which was folded into the omnibus bill, states that federal funding could not only go to operationally effective designs like steel bollards, but “operationally effective adaptations of such designs that help mitigate community or environmental impacts of barrier system construction, including adaptations based on consultation with jurisdictions within which barrier system will be constructed.”
This is precisely what Cuellar and the city of Laredo wanted. As long as they consult with DHS, as they already have, they could obtain federal funding for the bulkhead.
Juan Livas’s fear also appears to be coming true. A Laredo Morning Times article released Monday, just before the new appropriations language was released, carried the title “Like it or not, the border wall is coming to Laredo.” It described Customs and Border Protection officials leaning on the city, telling them the government would begin border wall construction with or without cooperation. They would use military and counter-narcotics funding to build it if they had to. The appropriations package Congress approved puts no restriction on such maneuvering, and the new $1.375 billion is also now available.
In the meeting, Customs and Border Protection proposed that Laredo could get one mile of bulkhead (the initial plan called for 10 miles) if they cooperated with the feds. CBP even called the project a “riverwalk.” The language in the appropriations appears to pave the way for this compromise. In exchange for that one mile, the city would allow wall surveying on its other riverfront property. A city council meeting will be held January 21, 2020, to discuss this.
Calls to the office of Mayor Saenz were not returned.
Activists, who have staged sit-ins by the river in Laredo to protest any border construction, were disappointed by the emerging deal, which they warned was coming. “It’s what we call a carve-out,” Livas says. “We’ll save this piece of land but we’ll put a wall over here.”
Maxine Rebeles
Livas believes any additional wall in the Rio Grande Valley is unnecessary. “People who don’t live on the border, they believe the national media saying it’s a crisis. We’re here on the border being like what are you talking about.? There’s no war zone, no need for a wall. Especially one that has the potential to cut off neighborhoods.” Other activists have called it “a compromise with the devil.”
A map provided by Maxine Rebeles shows the barrios at risk if border wall surrounds the one-mile riverwalk. “Kids go to the river and play, the houses are really close,” Rebeles says.
Cuellar has not met with the No Border Wall movement in Laredo, despite several invites. He similarly refused to meet with Dreamer activists opposed to a prior vote he made to fund border wall construction in his district.
Cuellar hasn’t confirmed his role in the compromise, but there is no other explanation for the change in language about “operationally effective designs.” Previously, Democrats had circumscribed wall construction, but that went away, so the Trump administration could offer a carrot to Laredo. It defies logic to suggest that Cuellar had nothing to do with the change. And presumably he will show up to any ribbon-cutting ceremony of the riverwalk and tout his efforts to get it done.
Even after voting no, Cuellar’s role in facilitating a deal that will lead to more wall construction in the district, within a larger appropriations package that adds no meaningful constraints to Trump administration border policy, has activists upset.
“I don’t know why Cuellar did what he did,” says Rebeles. “If he can use language to protect parts of South Texas, why didn’t he do that to protect Laredo?”
CUELLAR, WHO HAS sided with Republicans on critical votes throughout his career, faces a primary challenge from the left, against attorney Jessica Cisneros. The bulkhead is situated to go through Tres Laredos Park, where Cisneros learned to ride a bike and held her 10th birthday party.
“In 2018 and 2019, Representative Cuellar voted twice to authorize spending billions of dollars to construct Trump's border wall in his own district,” Cisneros says in a statement to the Prospect, referring to votes that funded 33 miles of wall in Starr and Hidalgo counties in 2018, and the deal to end last winter’s government shutdown that funded 55 miles of wall in Starr County. She added that her primary must have influenced Cuellar’s no vote. “When he thinks no one is looking, he's more than happy to cut a deal with Republicans and his big corporate donors, but now he knows our movement is paying attention.”
Cuellar has been criticized for allowing for-profit interests to enrich themselves off U.S. immigration policy, with campaign donations to him coming from private prison operator GEO Group (his top career contributor) and defense contractors engaged in militarizing the border like General Dynamics and L3Harris Technologies. He also supported the emergency supplemental vote this summer that that spread money to the border while putting no strings on migrant detention policies.
In general, Cuellar has dismissed the primary effort, calling the Justice Democrats, an organization supporting Cisneros that helped Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez win a primary, as “Justice Socialists.” Cisneros has come out fully against a border wall.
“I am against Trump's wall because not only is it a wasteful use of our government's resources, but it divides our communities here in South Texas and doesn't reflect our values,” she says.
