[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 29, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H1247-H1248]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              BORDER WALL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I believe the President's decision to 
temporarily resolve the shutdown was the correct one. The Democrats' 
refusal even to discuss a path forward had created a crisis of 
governance, in addition to our ongoing crisis on the southern border.
  The President had offered many compromises to the Democrats. He 
reduced his funding request, altered the design, and added nearly $1 
billion of humanitarian aid. Yet, the Democrats spurned all of these 
good faith overtures.
  When the President invited congressional Democrats to the Oval Office 
to hear their views, they refused to go. They had plenty of time to 
vacation in Puerto Rico with 100 lobbyists during the shutdown, but 
they couldn't seem to fit a simple meeting with the President into 
their busy schedules in order to resolve it.
  Based on their past behavior, I am skeptical their position will 
change over the next 3 weeks.
  They tell us there is no crisis. Well, the facts speak for 
themselves. Between 16 million and 29 million people now are living 
illegally in the United States, costing American taxpayers well over 
$100 billion a year to support. Sixty thousand more are illegally 
crossing our border every month. In 2017, illegal aliens murdered 1,800 
Americans and violently assaulted 48,000 more.
  The congressional Democrats who oppose the President's wall insist 
that they support border security, but they say a wall is a costly and 
ineffective way to stop illegal immigration. Well, it is hard to take 
either of their claims seriously.
  These same politicians have long advocated for providing a wide range 
of services for illegal immigrants, ranging from healthcare and legal 
counsel to education and housing, all at taxpayer expense. It is hard 
to believe they want to discourage illegal immigration while they 
reward those who illegally immigrate.
  The Democrats long ago ceased to call illegal immigration what it is: 
illegal. Many have gone so far as to advocate abolishing the agencies 
that defend our borders and enforce our immigration laws. They have 
enacted sanctuary laws that protect dangerous criminals from 
deportation. They have opposed mandatory employment verification to 
hold employers accountable for hiring illegals. And they have opposed 
visa tracking of foreign nationals entering our country.
  They tell us that walls are medieval and what we really need are 
sophisticated cameras. Well, we don't want to watch them crossing our 
border; we want to stop them.
  Walls have been used for thousands of years to impede unauthorized 
entry for one reason: They work, and they still work. When Israel built 
a 143-mile wall to protect its southern border, illegal immigration 
fell 99 percent. The cost of building a wall is a fraction of the cost 
incurred by American citizens every year to support the illegal 
population already in our country.
  It doesn't address the whole problem, but a wall would be a 
tremendous force multiplier for border enforcement agencies. It would 
protect them from the violent attacks to which they are constantly 
subjected and allow them to apply their slender resources more 
efficiently and effectively.
  If the Democrats continue to oppose serious measures to defend our 
borders and enforce our laws, I urge the President to use the authority 
Congress granted in 1976 to reprogram already appropriated but 
unobligated military construction funds for the defense of our Nation. 
What is more fundamental to national defense than the security and 
integrity of our own borders?
  Some argue that this would divert money from other Defense Department 
projects. Well, it is an odd logic that argues that defending the Iraqi 
border is more important than defending our own.
  Others have worried that a Presidential order would provoke a 
protracted legal challenge. Isn't that true of any course the President 
could take?
  Others worry that leftist activists would misuse this precedent. 
Well, let me ask you: When have such activists

[[Page H1248]]

ever relied on precedent to expand their power?
  Using this authority would not only build the wall, it would avoid 
the need to meet any demands to further diminish or dilute our current 
immigration laws.
  If the next 3 weeks produce the unreasonable demands and 
intransigence that we have come to expect from the Democratic 
leadership, I strongly urge the President to use his existing 
authority. Countries that either cannot or will not enforce their 
borders simply aren't around very long. Let that not be America's 
epitaph

                          ____________________