My Congresswoman's reply on the Omnibus Spending Bill

Like a lot of us, I was pretty torqued when Congress sent that POS spending bill to the President for signature. My own Congresswoman voted for the bill, and so I sent her an email expressing my disappointment in her vote. Overall, she is a great Congressional rep, and I respect her.

Today I got a reply from her office, and I'll post a part of it down below. But on the issue of Planned Parenthood not being de-funded, she explains that last year the Republicans had passed a law removing the Obomba-era reqirement that states use their Federal family planning money to fund Planned Parenthood.Thus, in this Omnibus bill, there is no money earmarked for the abortionists. I do think states can probably elect to use some of their federal dollars to fund planned parenthood if that's their choice. But at least now, those states who don't want to fund PP won't have to. That's a little something.

Regarding sanctuary cities, she basically says that because Congress can't or wont act on this problem, the President is using his Executive branch powers to try to restrict funding to these cities, but the courts have pushed back. This will probably be settled by the US Supreme Court. But at least Trump is trying.

And finally, on the issues of immigration and building "the wall". she notes that the Omnibus bill provides 1.57 billion dollars for physical structures, "technology" and "assets". It's the last two items that intrigue me. Do we really need a physical wall if we could use technology to detect movement of people across the border, and then have a technology which could quickly respond to the intruders (drone?) And the term "assets"... doesn't that usually mean soldiers or mercenaries? So after we have detected intruders, and effectively contacted them by "technological" means, we now have more humans (ICE, Border Patrol etc.)who can get to the intruders more quickly and take care of the matter. Maybe we don't need a physical wall after all.

I really am glad I have a Congressional Rep. who will take some time to provide some additional information. I am still angry with the ineffectiveness of the Republican party, but I feel better about a few things thanks to her.

Here's the response:

"As you know, H.R. 1625 passed the House with my support on March 22, 2018, and was signed into law by President on March 23, 2018. Recently, it’s been suggested that this legislation 1) directs funding to Planned Parenthood, its affiliates, or other entities that provide abortions or related services, and 2) fails to prevent sanctuary cities from receiving federal funding. I’d like to take this opportunity to set the record straight.



First, I appreciate and share your opposition to providing federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which is why there are no funds in H.R. 1625 directed to Planned Parenthood. Funding is included for the Title X Family Planning Program, which under the Obama Administration was used to make awards to Planned Parenthood. However, last year Congress passed, and the President signed into law, H.J.Res. 43 to repeal the Obama-era Title X rule which forced states to fund Planned Parenthood with their Title X dollars. Overturning this rule allows states to fully fund Title X programs without being forced to direct that money to abortion providers who may not even offer basic health services, like prenatal care. Additionally, H.R. 1625 continues all seven existing pro-life riders to preserve the sanctity of human life including the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funds to be used for abortion, including in Medicaid, except in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in danger. Life in every stage, in every circumstance, is precious and deserves protection, and I will continue to ensure that federal funding is not used for abortions.



Second, while this spending bill does not specifically prohibit funding from going to sanctuary jurisdictions, the Administration is actively pursuing policies that would limit funding to these cities and counties. Specifically, the Administration is attempting to curb these practices by leveling immigration compliance requirements upon jurisdictions who receive federal Byrne JAG Grants and COPS Grants. While the Administration’s efforts have been successfully challenged in U.S. District Courts in California and Illinois, the Administration is using various legal means to combat these challenges. It’s likely that the associated lawsuits will eventually be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.



Finally, it’s important to note that H.R. 1625 contains $1.57 billion for physical barriers and associated technology and assets along the Southwest border, including a 30 percent increase for border security and law enforcement within Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). While this funding may not fully appropriate the amount requested by President Trump, I believe it is a step in the right direction. I also fully support building a wall as part of developing a secure border, including improving the ability for border agents to respond effectively to illegal crossings and developing a biometric entry-exit system to aid in identifying visa overstays."