[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 15, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H594-H597]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NEGOTIATION IS CRITICAL TO ENDING THE SHUTDOWN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2019, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Loudermilk) for 30 minutes.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, I also want to thank my colleagues
from the Freedom Caucus for the hour that they spent sharing with the
American people the facts and the statistics of what is happening at
our southern border because of the inaction of Congress over quite a
long time.
As a historian, I love this building. I love the Capitol. I love
spending time
[[Page H595]]
in this Chamber just thinking about the history of our Nation and the
historical moments that have taken place in here.
I love giving tours of the Capitol to constituents when they come. I
bring them into this Chamber and, as they sit here, I share with them
that it is from this rostrum behind me that President Franklin
Roosevelt gave his day of infamy speech.
We walk down the hallway and we go to the rotunda, the magnificent
rotunda that has portraits hanging in the rotunda that depict the
history of America. I share with them about how this is the greatest
legislative body in the history of the world.
We have become the envy of other nations, our deliberative bodies,
for the strength of America and all that we have accomplished in this
Nation, the mind-boggling things that we have accomplished, from
aerospace to business and the ingenuity of America, because of the
strength of our freedom that has been built by a legislative body that
brings the different sides together and negotiates to come up with
solutions, solutions that are good for America.
Our strength isn't because we have always agreed. No, we, quite
frankly, disagree. And our disagreements go back to the beginning of
our Nation.
In that rotunda is a portrait portraying a turning point in American
history, a very critical part of American history. It happened during
the Second Continental Congress, when our predecessors, those who came
before us, the representative body that we now represent, were faced
with a very critical decision. That decision was whether to vote in
favor of declaring independence against Great Britain.
There were strong advocates, very strong advocates in favor of
independence. One of those was John Adams from Massachusetts. John
Adams was strongly in favor of independence and spoke very passionately
of voting in favor of independence. But just as strongly as John Adams
was in favor of independence, you had John Dickinson from Pennsylvania
who also was as strongly opposed to independence.
They continued to debate all aspects of whether they should declare
independence. And, in fact, there were others who disagreed, even to
the point where the first vote for independence failed.
But Dr. Benjamin Franklin understood the power of negotiating, the
power of compromise, the power of bringing two sides together, and he
began to negotiate. He began to bring the sides together. And by the
time they took the second and final vote for independence, he had
garnered enough votes to actually pass the motion to declare our
independence from Great Britain.
Now, the difference between John Adams and John Dickinson wasn't that
they disagreed on the problem they were facing. No, they both agreed
that there were atrocities committed on the American Colonies by Great
Britain. They only disagreed on how to deal with it.
As I mention that, and as you know from history, the second vote
barely passed. John Dickinson remained opposed to declaring
independence. In fact, he voted ``no'' on the resolution when it was
brought before the floor. However, as soon as the resolution passed,
John Dickinson left Philadelphia, and he joined the fight for
independence.
{time} 1800
We are at an impasse here in this historic Chamber today, not because
we have a differing opinion, but because we are even refusing to come
together to lay out the facts, to lay out the ideas, and to lay out the
various solutions to this problem.
We are the greatest, most powerful, and most influential legislative
body in the world. We have been the envy of the entire world. Other
nations have modeled or tried to model their legislative bodies after
ours. But we should be embarrassed to where we are today because the
system is broken, and it isn't broken because of a design flaw. It is
broken because of what we have turned this into. We have broken the
system because we have chosen to ignore our own rules, our own laws,
and our own procedures.
Most Americans may not realize it, but we have a deadline. We have a
deadline every year of September 30 to fully fund the government. But
the last time that was done was in the 1990s. We have continued to kick
the can down the road. Every September we get to the point that we just
do a continuing resolution, and we put it off to another date and to
another date until we get to a point that creates a crisis and we must
fund the government. Then somebody holds the funding of the government
hostage for whatever political partisan reason that they want.
The 4 years I have been in Congress I have worked diligently with
others to try to change this status quo system of ignoring our own
laws, rules, and procedures and consolidating the power of
appropriations to just a few who get to call the shots and allow others
to hold the American workers, the citizens, and the businesses that
rely on those workers who were furloughed, hold them all hostage in our
political partisan wrangling. I don't like where we are. I don't like
the way the process is broken. We should not be here because we should
have fully funded the entire government before the end of September.
Now, to give credit where credit is due, over the last couple of
years the House Republicans have made great efforts to try to
accomplish that. In 2017, we were actually able to pass all 12 of our
appropriations bills out of this Chamber before the deadline. It didn't
happen in the Senate, but we were able to do it here. This year we made
an even greater accomplishment; we passed several of them. We passed
five out of here that also went to the Senate. The Senate passed it. It
went to the President's desk, and he signed it. But it is those
remaining appropriations bills that have us where we are today, because
we did not follow our own rules.
I don't like it. Most of the Members I know on our side don't like
it. My dad, a World War II veteran, used to give me a piece of advice.
He said: Son, if there is something in life you don't like, you have
two choices. You can do something to change the situation or just
accept the status quo and go on with your life. But complaining never
accomplishes anything.
We are at an impasse where two sides have dug in on what they both
claim are ideological principles. Let's look at where we are. One side,
the Republican side, believes that the drug trafficking, the weapon
trafficking, human trafficking, sex trafficking, and terrorist travel
coming across the border is a national security and humanitarian
crisis. In fact, the Vice President, when he met with us last week,
used those words, that this is a national security and a humanitarian
crisis we have at the border. The President of the United States also
agrees that we have a crisis at the border.
However, the other side that is also dug in, the Democrats, don't
believe that we have a crisis. In fact, the talking points of the day
have been, as you heard earlier, that the crisis has been manufactured,
that the desire to build a border wall or a physical barrier is a
vanity project for the President, or as one reporter stated as he was
at the border, he said: Things are tranquil here.
So we have one side claiming a crisis, and the other side claiming
conspiracy.
I believe we do have a crisis at the border. I believe that that
crisis is real and that crisis has been going on for quite some time.
As you can see on the board next to me here, I am not the only one who
believes that, not only do we have a crisis but we have had a crisis
that has existed for quite some time.
The President of the United States in 2014 stated: ``We now have an
actual humanitarian crisis on the border.'' In fact, what he said was:
``We now have an actual humanitarian crisis on the border that only
underscores the need to drop the politics and fix our immigration
system once and for all.''
Now, some of you who are watching on television right now will look
at that and immediately attribute that to our current President,
President Trump. But if you think back, Mr. Speaker, the President of
the United States in 2014 was President Barack Obama. He is the one who
said: Yes, we do have a crisis. It is a humanitarian crisis at the
border.
But today my Democratic colleagues on the other side say that the
crisis doesn't exist, that it is manufactured, and that it is a
conspiracy. It really doesn't exist. Things are tranquil.
[[Page H596]]
Well then you have to ask the question: What changed?
We must have done something significant during that time period. But
nothing has changed. We still have the status quo when it comes to our
border and border security.
In fact, President Obama went on to say: ``In recent weeks we've seen
a surge of unaccompanied children arrive at the border, brought here
and to other countries by smugglers and traffickers.''
``The journey is unbelievably dangerous for these kids. The children
who are fortunate enough to survive it will be taken care of while they
go through the legal process, but in most cases that process will lead
them to being sent back home.''
This is exactly what our current President is saying. We have a
humanitarian crisis as well as a national security crisis. In fact, for
the 4 years I have served in Congress, I have been saying that our
crisis at the border should not be categorized just as an immigration
crisis, but it is a national security crisis.
When I served on the Homeland Security Committee, we had many
briefings by the then-Obama administration Department of Homeland
Security who went through all of what was going on at the border, the
crossings at the border, the drugs, the weapons, and who they were
intercepting, and I identified at that time that we had a crisis at the
border.
But this issue at the border goes beyond even the time I have been in
Congress. It has been going on for decades. It is a decades-old problem
that because of status quo, because of the broken system that we are
working under, because politicians are comfortable with the status quo,
we have not done anything to address it.
In 2006, I was serving in the State legislature in Georgia. I was a
young businessman who didn't like the way things were going in the
State, so I took the advice of my father that if there is something in
life you don't like, do something to change the situation. So I ran for
the State house, and I was elected.
We were dealing with issues in Georgia of immigration. In fact, a
young man by the name of Dustin Inman had lost his life because an
illegal immigrant driving drunk hit the car killing Dustin Inman and
permanently making his mom disabled. It appeared to us that the Federal
Government, the Congress in Washington, D.C. wasn't doing anything to
fix the situation, so a group of legislators got together.
We said: Look, we may have to address some of this on our own. So we
will go to the border. We will spend several days at the border to see
what is going on ourselves.
While I was at the border, I spent time with Border Patrol agents. We
went up and down the border. They showed us where the physical barriers
were working, but they also showed us where they had problems, and it
was usually where the physical barrier ended. They shared with us the
lack of funding that they had and the lack of adequate Border Patrol
agents. They told us of the dangers that they were facing, but they
also told us the frustrations of catch and release.
We also spent the night with a rancher, after we had met with several
residents who lived along the border. They were telling us the horrific
stories of crime that were going on on their property and in their
neighborhoods, because of the cartel activity going on at the border.
While we sat at this rancher's home that evening--because of the lack
of the adequate number of Border Patrol agents, he had to set up his
own security systems and surveillance systems just to protect his
property and protect his employees on his ranch.
We sat in his home that evening watching on infrared night vision
cameras. You could see coyotes, those who were helping to bring
illegals across into the United States, as they would congregate inside
of Mexico and they would move up to where there was a physical barrier,
a border wall.
I asked him: At this point, what is going to happen? Are they going
to scale the barrier?
He said: No. They are just staging. All they are going to do is move
a few miles down that wall to where the wall doesn't exist, and they
will walk right across into the United States.
That is exactly what happened. We watched as they came into the
United States, they ran to a gully, and they hid in a gully until
somebody came and picked them up. By the time the Border Patrol was
able to get there, they were long gone.
I kept a journal. The other day I went back, and I pulled that
journal out from 2006. I was reading over my experiences, and I got to
the last entry of that journal that I wrote when I got home. That
journal said: I believe the government in Washington, D.C., doesn't
want to solve the problem at our southern border.
Again, they are happy with the status quo.
Americans have been asking Congress to do something, not just about
illegal immigration but about the drugs coming across into our Nation.
As you heard earlier, the Department of Homeland Security has
intercepted enough fentanyl used in opioids to kill nearly two-thirds
of the entire population of the United States. They want us to do
something about the sex trafficking, other drugs coming across the
border, weapons, criminal activity, human trafficking, and terrorism,
the terrorists who are traveling across the border.
But we can't solve any of these issues nor reopen this government
until we are willing and ready to come together and have a national
debate, a debate about the merits of each side. Each side needs to come
forward and present what their priorities are and what their ideas are
for the solutions.
Republicans have done that. We have laid out several different ideas
and several different solutions. We have yet to hear anything from our
colleagues on the other side except for the word no.
We must lay out our priorities. We must lay out our ideas, not just
hurl insults at each side.
Then we must debate, and the debate must be based on truth, on facts,
not perceptions and not accusations. It has to be based on what is best
for the American people, not what is best for the politicians or
political victory or preparing for the next election.
If we are going to get to this place there has to be some things that
take place. First of all, we have to have meetings, we have to have
discussion, and we have to have negotiation. Just as Dr. Benjamin
Franklin did at the onset of this Nation, he brought the parties
together in meetings. They began discussing, and then they started
negotiating. That is how they came up with compromise.
You have to have all three. You can't have one without the other. You
can't have a discussion without first having a meeting.
Two weeks ago, congressional leaders were invited to the White House
to; first of all, have a meeting to discuss, Where do we go from here
to end the shutdown; to do something about border security; to move
forward?
But the answer given to the President when he asked was: Are you
willing to negotiate border security which includes building a physical
barrier?
The answer was no, end of story, end of discussion.
Meetings aren't effective unless you actually are able to have a
discussion and both sides are willing to negotiate.
Mr. Speaker, you also have to be able to deal with facts. Both sides
have to be able to deal with facts. Again, the President invited
leadership of the House to the White House to the Situation Room to
discuss the facts and the issues that you have heard several of here
tonight.
However, as the Secretary of Homeland Security began to go through
these issues one by one, she was interrupted by the Speaker of the
House, Ms. Pelosi, and was told that she wasn't interested in hearing
the facts. In fact, according to a news media report, it was, ``I
reject your facts.''
Secretary Nielsen said: ``These aren't my facts, they are the
facts.''
So we have to be able to deal with the truth, the facts. One question
that I am always asked back home is: Your colleagues on the other side
of the aisle continue to say they are for border security, they are for
national security and they just don't want a wall.
Well, that is a question I have. So when the Democrats rejected the
facts that came from the Department of Homeland Security about the
atrocities that are going on, the criminal activities going on at the
border, the President took it upon himself, and he sent it to Members
of Congress. Immediately upon receiving this data, my
[[Page H597]]
colleagues and my friends on the other side started dismissing the
data.
{time} 1815
When it came out in 2017 that the Department of Homeland Security
intercepted 3,755 terrorists, that number was immediately challenged.
And the other side was quick to point out, well, not all of those were
caught at the border.
And they were right; not all were caught at the southern border. In
fact, they properly pointed out that many of them were caught at our
ports of entry at airports, so we should focus in that area and not on
a border wall, even though a number were caught at the border.
Well, that is fine. They say they are for border security; however, I
question that because, when President Trump, in his first year in
office, identified this very problem, that we had terrorists coming in
from nations that are known to harbor, train, and fund terrorists and
he tried to put a travel ban on people coming in from those countries,
the Democrats objected to it and actually took it to court and tried to
stop him from actually implementing that.
So it leads to the question: Do they really want border security?
When the statistic came out that 6,000 illegals associated with gangs
have been apprehended by ICE, again my colleagues challenged that
statistic and brought up that, well, only 800 gang members were
actually apprehended at the southern border--only 800.
Just the other day, the district attorney of one of the largest
counties in Georgia said that the greatest threat to Georgians today is
gangs. And, as we started looking at how do these gang members come in,
our colleagues on the other side adequately pointed out that most of
these gang members were not coming across the border, but they were
here as a result of visa overstays. ``But we really do want border
security, so we should address that.''
Last year, H.R. 4760, in June, was brought to this floor, which
actually made visa overstays a Federal misdemeanor, but my colleagues
on the other side--every one of them--voted against that bill.
The Department of Homeland Security also put out the statistic that
17,000 adults were detained at the southern border with criminal
records. The other side has made the argument that these are just
families that want a better life.
Again, they have rejected the facts. So my question is: Do they
really want border security? Are they really willing to come to the
table and lay out what their priorities for border security really are?
Is it port security at our airports? Well, obviously, they opposed
the President when he took that route.
Is it addressing visa overstays? Well, obviously they voted against
that bill when we brought it forward.
Do they really want to keep the government open and address border
security? Well, they all voted against the continuing resolution the
Republicans brought to the floor back in December and opted to close
the government.
Do I believe that my colleagues want terrorists to come into the
Nation? No, I do not.
Do I believe they want more gang members to infiltrate our
communities? No, I don't believe that is what they want.
I don't believe they don't think that there is a crisis at the
border. I just think that they are happy with the status quo.
You see, this city often runs on people who have learned how to
navigate the swamp. They learn how to use the status quo to their
advantage.
And if you go back and you look over the history of this Nation,
especially the modern history of this body of Congress, we are still
debating several of the issues that we were debating 10, 15, and 20
years ago. It seems that these become campaign issues more than they
are issues that we want to resolve for the American people. Why?
Because we don't want to address the status quo.
What we have in the White House right now is a President whose main
objective is to change the status quo in Washington, to change the way
we do things. Those ideas I support because what we are doing now is
broken. The way we are doing it now is broken.
There is only one way out of this situation. It is for my colleagues
from the other side of the aisle to actually agree to attend the
meetings.
In fact, the President opened up the White House today for another
meeting to start discussing and hopefully get to negotiations, but the
leadership on the Democratic side refused to even show up.
We offered several compromises last year in December to avoid the
shutdown, but the resounding response we received from the other side
was ``no.'' Every attempt that we have brought to this floor to try to
resolve the situation at the border has been met with a resounding
``no.''
At some point, we have to get away from our own partisan political
wrangling and understand that what we are doing is for the safety and
the security of the American people. It is time to quit just saying
``no'' and say ``but if.''
I appreciate every person who was elected to represent the American
people, but now is the time to sit down, to have a discussion, and to
begin to negotiate so we can reopen the government and, more
importantly, ensure the safety and the security of all Americans.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________