GOP senator: No border security plan without a wall

Sen. James LankfordJames Paul LankfordGOP group calls on Republican senators to stand up to McConnell on election security in new ads Hillicon Valley: GOP hits back over election security bills | Ratcliffe out for intel chief | Social media companies consider policies targeting 'deepfakes' | Capital One, GitHub sued over breach The Hill's 12:30 Report: Biden camp feels boost after Detroit debate MORE (R-Okla.) on Wednesday said he would not support an agreement on border security that doesn't include specific funding for a wall along the southern border.

Lankford said during an appearance on CNN's "New Day" that there are some areas that need a "physical pedestrian barrier" rather than technology.


"[A wall] needs to be a part of it. You can't say we're going to do everything with technology," Lankford said. "In urban areas when you've got a large town on one side of the border and a large town on the other side of the border, you’ve got to have a physical pedestrian barrier between the two or someone can quickly cross the border." 

He added that the wall would not be a "2,000-mile-long concrete wall."

"This is a physical barrier where it's needed in those certain areas," he said. "And in other areas we can use technology."

The federal government is currently in the 19th day of a partial shutdown that was prompted because President TrumpDonald John TrumpDavid Axelrod after Ginsburg cancer treatment: Supreme Court vacancy could 'tear this country apart' EU says it will 'respond in kind' if US slaps tariffs on France Ginsburg again leaves Supreme Court with an uncertain future MORE refused to sign a funding bill that didn't include at least $5 billion for a wall along the southern border.

Democrats in Congress have said they are willing to agree to border security funding but have vowed not to approve funding for a wall. They have offered $1.3 billion for border security measures.

Trump on Tuesday used a prime-time address from the Oval Office to push for the wall, claiming that it's necessary to confront a “growing humanitarian and security crisis” at the southern border.