The border agreement approaches, lawmakers are preparing to vote and Trump should sign

Despite Trump's claims, the government has not completed any new wall sections under his administration.

Earlier, addressing reporters at the White House, Trump reiterated that he was going to take steps to obtain additional funds, stating, "We have options that most people do not understand". Republicans are generally waiting for the President to try to transfer money from existing accounts, including one or more of the Pentagon's budget, in order to add the money allocated by the Congress to the border fence, although Democrats say they will challenge these efforts.

Trump also said, "I do not want to see a stop. A stop would be a terrible thing. "

Lawmakers were confronted on Wednesday with a string of last-minute disputes as they sought to finalize the deal, including a ultimately unsuccessful attempt by Democrats to include payroll arrears for thousands of dollars. federal contractors that had been stranded during the last shutdown and, unlike the 800,000 affected. Federal workers – have not been able to recover their lost wages. There was also a dispute over whether to include an extension of the Violence Against Women Act, which will expire on Friday. In the end, the negotiators omitted a prorogation, but Democrats who are working on a stronger independent bill argued that there would now be a greater impetus to do so and said that the government was not going to go ahead. Expiry would have little impact as the subsidies granted by law would continue.

The global compromise, struck by a bipartisan group of deputies on congressional spending committees, includes $ 1.375 billion for the construction of new barriers along the Texas border, compared to $ 5.7 billion that Trump had asked for for 234 miles of steel walls. Democratic negotiators should limit the detention capacity of the US Immigration and Customs Control Agency, although Republicans insist that ICE will be able to maintain and even increase existing detention levels. Some Liberals said on Wednesday that they were opposed to legislation for this reason.

The bill provides $ 49.4 billion for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2019, an increase of $ 1.7 billion from the levels of 2018. The legislation also includes provisions policy specifying that members of Congress can not be prevented from accessing a facility housing children, and contains wording to facilitate the reunification of separated children with family members in the United States.

The combined expenses for ICE and the Customs and Border Protection Agency amount to about $ 23 billion. A figure that Trump began to extol the merits of spending on border security legislation.

The legislation complements Homeland Security spending with six other unfinished appropriation bills for 2019, funding nine cabinet ministries and dozens of other agencies for a total price of about $ 324 billion. The other agencies covered include trade, agriculture, housing, the state and the IRS, all of which would be funded until September 30, the end of the fiscal year, as well. baduming Trump signs the legislation. At this point, another fight around government funding – and perhaps the wall – will be expected.

Few lawmakers, even those who helped write it, praised the package on Wednesday. On the contrary, proponents have described it as the best possible deal in the circumstances and better than the alternatives: a new government closure or a "permanent resolution" that would expand existing funding levels. House Democrats, in particular, argued against a permanent resolution, as this approach would perpetuate the spending agreements reached when Republicans controlled the House.

"We are not asking anyone to hold their noses and we are not asking anyone to vote against their district," said representative Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), One of the negotiators. "I think what we're asking them to do is weigh the conflicting interests of what's in this bill with what would happen if this bill had not been pbaded and if you had a continuous resolution. Nor is it ideal for our values. "

Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.), Speaker of the House, said before asking for photos with legislation completed Wednesday night that she was proud of the final product.

"If some people choose not to sign it, it's their prerogative," she said.

Some Liberals have said they would oppose the legislation, saying there should be no money for new border barriers, and a stronger stance against aggressive government detentions of immigrants Trump.

"We should not give him a penny for his wall. It was a political coup, "said representative Juan Vargas (D-Calif.). "It's a total waste of money."

Some Republicans were also unenthusiastic, but Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) Argued before the Senate in favor of pbading the bill anyway.

"It goes without saying that neither party gets everything she wants. It's the same with a divided government, "said McConnell. "If the text of the bill reflects the principles agreed on Monday, it will not be a good deal, but it will be a good deal."

Representative Steven Palazzo (R-Miss.), Another of the negotiators, signed the final agreement Wednesday night, but he said he wanted to hear from Trump before voting for him in the House .

"It depends a lot on the support of President Trump (…), who knows if this really secures the US border, and we need his support to do it," said Palazzo. "He is the commander-in-chief and he has not had the opportunity to examine him."

For some conservatives, this agreement represented Trump's abandonment of his fundamental campaign promise to build a wall along the US-Mexico border, a wall for which he had long claimed Mexico would pay. Some conservatives said it was crucial that Trump take all the extra steps that he could take himself to fulfill that promise to his grbadroots.

"If he signed the bill, based on what had been reported and suggested, would not do anything else, it would be political suicide," said Rep. Mark Meadows (RN.C .), leader of the Conservative House. Freedom caucus. "If he signed the bill, based on what we think, and that he uses other methods to get funding for additional border security measures, then I think that there is very little political responsibility of the conservatives. "

A US defense official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks, said Tuesday night that the administration was considering taking money out of the Department of Defense's several accounts. , including those supporting high-intensity drug trafficking areas, a program created by Congress. in 1988 to provide badistance to local jurisdictions with proven drug problems.

On Wednesday, it was unclear to what extent the Defense Ministry, which is allocating funds to the White House, wants to reallocate its resources. The Pentagon's 2019 budget includes $ 807.5 million for all of the US military's counter-narcotics efforts. The defense official predicted that there would be friction if funds used for programs such as the drug trafficking initiative were reallocated for other purposes.

"There is a finite amount of money available, and this will certainly affect someone's operations," said the defense official. "If you plan something and it's not the case, it will change what you can do."

The Democrats have made it clear that they will oppose the administration's efforts to reallocate funds allocated by Congress, although some Republicans have argued that the administration could do so without it. Congress agreement.

Aguilar said the Democrats would ask government officials to testify on the hill when they began to move funds in a manner that would violate the constitutional separation of powers.

"We will comply with Article 1 of the Constitution and do our job, which is to ensure that the funds allocated to these agencies are appropriate, and if they do not, they can do so. expect to be pretty numerous here, "he said.

Rachael Bade, Dan Lamothe, Damian Paletta, Robert Costa, Kim Seung Min and David Nakamura contributed to this article.