Perhaps you should have read the article before posting...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"...Kris Kobach, who was a counsel to the attorney general under John Ashcroft, told a House subcommittee last week that one of the most unusual aspects of the Senate bill is a provision -- slipped into the more-than-800-page bill moments before the final vote -- that would require the United States to consult with the Mexican government before constructing the fencing.
"I know of no other provision in U.S. law where the federal government requires state and local governments -- every state and local government on the border -- to consult with state and local governments of a foreign power before the federal government can act," he said.
"Now, from my experience as a Justice Department official, when we had consultation requirements with the State Department, just getting two agencies in the executive branch to consult took months or years," ...If you add this, three levels of government and a foreign power, your delay" will never end. "
oh, I read the piece, thank you
but you like others around here can make all the excuses you like for the Senate's incompetence and the failure of the Bush administration to secure the borders and enforce the immigration laws 'cause come November & 2008 those of us who actually pay the bills around here are going to give the GOP a rude awakening!
I saw that in the article too, but I am reviewing the Congressional record to see where this was put in.
So far as I can tell, those words were not added to the Sessions Amendment which failed 29-71. They were added somewhere else in the bill, which I have not found yet. When I do, I will let you know.
The opposition to the amendment was mostly due to the fact that the $1,829,400,000 would have been taken from other Dept. of Homeland Security programs.
If you want to take $1,829,400,000 from some useless government program and put it towards building a wall, well then yippie ki-yi-yay. But I guarantee you the Republicans who voted against the Sessions Amendment did so for that reason.
The provision calling for the consultation with the Mexican government is a different issue altogether.