That one pointed to Sec. 230 and page number on the enrolled bill.
230(b) contains the construction style restriction.
641
1 SEC. 230. (a) Of the amount made available in this
2 Act under ``U.S. Customs and Border Protection--Procure-
3 ment, Construction, and Improvements'', $1,571,000,000
4 shall be available only as follows:
5 (1) $251,000,000 for approximately 14 miles of
6 secondary fencing, all of which provides for cross-bar-
7 rier visual situational awareness, along the southwest
8 border in the San Diego Sector;
9 (2) $445,000,000 for 25 miles of primary pedes-
10 trian levee fencing along the southwest border in the
11 Rio Grande Valley Sector;
12 (3) $196,000,000 for primary pedestrian fencing
13 along the southwest border in the Rio Grande Valley
14 Sector;
15 (4) $445,000,000 for replacement of existing pri-
16 mary pedestrian fencing along the southwest border;
17 (5) $38,000,000 for border barrier planning and
18 design; and
19 (6) $196,000,000 for acquisition and deployment
20 of border security technology.
21 (b) The amounts designated in subsection (a)(2)
22 through (a)(4) shall only be available for operationally ef-
23 fective designs deployed as of the date of the Consolidated
24 Appropriations Act, 2017, (Public Law 115-31), such as
642
1 currently deployed steel bollard designs, that prioritize
2 agent safety.
3 (c) None of the funds provided in this or any other
4 Act shall be obligated for construction of a border barrier
5 in the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge.
If I remember correctly this is a partial or direct copy from the bill passed during W term. When the last appropriation was passed. COngressional Old timers that are too lazy to do their own work.
That one pointed to Sec. 230 and page number on the enrolled bill. 230(b) contains the construction style restriction.
Well, there you have it I suppose.