But the very same day that the Senate passed the Secure Fence Act, Senate leaders had already hatched a plan to, in essence, un-do the Act. More precisely stated, Congress passed another law giving the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) discretion over how and where the fence would actually be built. That night, after the Secure Fence Act was passed, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison rose to the floor of the Senate and expressed her concern that the Act was too restrictive and would impose too much of a burden on Texas’ border communities. Hutchison then submitted into the record two letters written earlier that day. The first was a letter she had received from Majority Leader Bill Frist addressing Sen. Hutchison’s concerns; the second, Frist’s letter to House and Senate leaders issuing specific legislative directives related to Hutchison’s concerns. The letter made three stipulations:1. Congress “will work with the Department of Homeland Security” (DHS) to consult with state governments, local governments, and Native American tribes “regarding the exact placement of fencing and other physical infrastructure along the southwest border of the United States.”
2. Legislation will give DHS “flexibility to use alternative physical infrastructure” instead of fencing when DHS sees fit.
3. The legislation will “clarify the definition of operational control of the border” to ensure a “workable standard for the Department.”Read Hutchison’s comments and Frist’s letter from the Congressional Record (.pdf).

Thus, we see that a deal had already been struck to basically un-do the Secure Fence Act before the vote was even taken. The whole event was carefully staged to create the impression that Congress was clamping down on illegal immigration. You see, Republicans were just a few weeks away from the ‘06 elections and were desperately looking for an issue that would save them from defeat. So they passed the Secure Fence Act in hopes that people would overlook G.O.P. corruption when they went to the polls. Interestingly, as the Senate was voting on the Secure Fence Act vote, Democrats correctly criticized the G.O.P. for playing election-year political games. Sen. Patrick Leahy said the G.O.P passed the bill to “pander to the anti-immigration crowd” and give lawmakers “something they can take with them and hold up as a Republican victory for national security … ” Sen. John Kerry: “Knowing they cannot go home without taking some action to address immigration, Republicans in Congress have decided that saving their seats is more important than securing the borders.”

Timeline of Events Surrounding Fence Act Hoax
Here is the precise timeline of events surrounding the passage of the Secure Fence Act 2006 and the subsequent appropriations bill that undermined the Act:

•9/29/06, prior to vote — Sen. Bill Frist sends strongly worded letter to House and Senate leaders setting out the plan to pass subsequent legislation gutting the Secure Fence Act.
•9/29/06, 9:30 pm — Secure Fence Act passes
•9/29/06 late evening — Hutchison makes comments from the floor asking for discretion on implementation of Secure Fence Act; submits Frist letters into record
•9/29/06 1-2 hours later — DHS appropriations bill passed with discretionary funding for border security not specifically tied to Secure Fence Act

DHS questions necessity of border fence
It gets worse. The funding bill passed by Congress required that DHS report to Congress on how it would spend the funds prior to most of the funds being release. It is in DHS’s report that it becomes clear that neither Congress nor the Administration really ever intended on adhering to the Secure Fence Act. First, DHS’s plan — called SBInet (Secure Borders Initiative) — does not reference the goals of the Secure Fence Act. Second, DHS’s report back to Congress in December 2006 openly questioned whether the border fence was necessary.

Instead, DHS arbitrarily decided there should be 570 miles of total border barriers, of which 370 miles would be actual pedestrian fencing (not double layer). Thus, instead of 854 miles of double-layer fencing, DHS set a goal of 370 miles of “pedestrian” fencing. It is clear that DHS felt no obligation to fulfill the specific requirements of the Secure Fence Act of 2006.But that’s just the beginning…. Hutchinson’s amendment … entitled “Improvement of Barrier At Border” states in Subparagraph A: “(A) REINFORCED FENCING.–In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall construct reinforced fencing along not less than 700 miles of the southwest border where fencing would be most practical and effective and provide for the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors to gain operational control of the southwest border.” Note the phrase “where fencing would be most practical and effective.” Basically, DHS has an opt-out clause built in. But it gets worse. Page Two of the Hutchison amendment then states:“(D) LIMITATION ON REQUIREMENTS.–Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), nothing in this paragraph shall require the Secretary of Homeland Security to install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors in a particular location along an international border of the United States, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location” …Just in case Subparagraph A was not clear enough, Hutchison added Subparagraph D to leave no room for doubt that this amendment is intended to make sure DHS is under no legal obligation to ever build any fence, never mind the 854 miles of double-layer fencing mandated by the Secure Fence Act of 2006. “Notwithstanding” means “in spite of.” Thus, Subparagraph D says that in spite of anything stated in Subparagraph A, DHS is under no mandate to build the fence.

Read the text of the bill from the Congressional Record