Members of Maine’s congressional delegation say President Trump’s threat to partially shutdown the federal government next week over the Mexican border wall issue is nonsensical. Trump has threatened the move if he does not get $5 billion to build a wall along the Mexican border. The Maine delegation believes that a wall is not feasible, and that the partial shutdown is completely avoidable.
Most of the spending by the federal government - about 75 percent - has already been approved for this budget year. But seven spending bills, including the one for Homeland Security, have yet to be acted on and the affected agencies are only funded through Dec. 21.
The president's threat to let that funding run out was raised Wednesday during a live televised meeting with House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer.
"If we don’t get what we want, one way or the other, whether it’s through you, through the military, through anything you want to call, I will shut down the government," Trump said.
"OK," Schumer said. "That’s fair enough. We disagree. We disagree."
"And I will tell you, I am proud, I am proud to shut down the government over border security,” Trump continued.
The comments drew criticism from both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill as they watched the video of the meeting replayed on the cable news channels.
First District Congresswoman Chellie Pingree, a Democrat who serves on the House Appropriations Committee, says Trump’s threat makes no sense, given the fact that Republicans are in control.
“If he has the votes in the House - and we have had the Homeland Security bill since June, I think - why don’t they just take it to the floor and run it?" she says. "They are in majority in the House and Senate and they have the White House.”
The House bill does not include the kind of money the president is seeking. The Senate bill provides $1.6 billion for border security. Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who serves on the Senate Appropriations Committee, says that's the amount that the panel believes can truly be spent on the border the budget year.
But "there are ways for a compromise to be struck on this issue,” she says. For example, Collins says, there could be advance funding provided for border security, which would be contingent on congressional approval of the plans for spending that money over a two- or three-year period.
“But then you’re saying we need a wall and I don’t think that is accurate - it would be a waste of the taxpayers' money,” says Sen. Angus King, an independent.
King says the funding for border security should be part of the annual budget, and is not just for a physical wall. He says a wall is not physically practical in many areas along the border. King says more agents and greater use of technology are already working to reduce illegal border crossings.
As for the threat of even a partial shutdown, King and Collins both say it would be a serious mistake.
“Everybody wants to deal with border security," King says. "The only question is whether we do it in a sensible, economic and practical way or whether we do something that allows the president to fulfill a campaign promise but otherwise does not serve the public interest.”
“This really is completely avoidable," says Collins. "And we need people to come together in good faith and negotiate a solution. “
Republican 2nd District Congressman Bruce Poliquin, who leaves office at the end of this session, did not respond to a request for an interview.
The other members of the delegation say that as the deadline gets closer, they will continue efforts to avoid even a partial shutdown of the federal government.
