[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 30, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H1321-H1325]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ISSUES OF THE DAY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2019, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, it has been an interesting day, perhaps
more than most.
We have heard over and over again about Republicans supposedly
causing the shutdown, but in my days as a trial lawyer, judge, chief
justice, it is always good to look at the evidence. And the evidence is
very clear.
You had Republicans in the House and Senate and the President
actually pass a spending bill in the House before the end of December,
and the only thing that was keeping it from getting through the Senate
was that Democrats there, led by Senator Schumer, would not negotiate.
They arrived at no agreement to get 60 votes so that it could go
forward with debate. That wasn't the Republicans.
In the position of the White House, President Trump made clear: This
is negotiable, but we do need wall, we need barrier. Call it whatever
you want.
He moved from talking about concrete to talking about the steel
barrier. And having spent time with some other Members of Congress,
invited by Congressman Biggs and Congressman Gosar down to the Arizona
border, we saw a lot of it. And then it would just end. And then you
saw a clear path right around the end of it as people kept coming,
invading this country illegally.
From the border patrolmen, it was clear some were carrying big loads
of drugs. Sometimes they are able to catch them, sometimes they are
not. And it sounds like, from the times I spent on the border south of
McAllen, southeast of McAllen, the Texas quadrant, more often than not,
they don't catch the drugs coming in. It is an invasion. It is a huge
problem.
And I was hearing people, friends across the other side of the aisle,
some Senators who are Democrats, acknowledging: Yes, we need to do
something. But when it came to negotiating, there was no negotiation.
So we had this bill today decrying how horrible shutdowns are. But if
you look at the tactics, when the tactics of the leaders--and I say at
least some of the leaders--of one party are ``we are not going to
negotiate; we are not going to compromise; we are not going to do what
is best for the country,'' in effect, as they have stated on prior
occasions, as they have voted on prior occasions, some of them, that is
what causes a shutdown.
You know, we did not need this shutdown. We shouldn't have had to
have this shutdown. It should have been agreed back in December by at
least some of the Senators so that we could have gotten a spending
bill.
Of course, we had spending passed on three-fourths of the government.
It was about one-fourth of the government that was not funded. So we
talk about a shutdown. It wasn't a full shutdown. But, still, it did
harm to those who were not getting paid.
But as I would go through airports--and TSA agents would know who I
was--numerous times I was told: We are hurting not getting paid, but we
are all right. We are going to be a whole lot worse off if we don't get
a wall or a barrier or something built and start securing the border.
We heard from teachers who were saying: We love our kids, we want to
teach them, but it is so unfair to the students who are already there
to have people brought in and say you have got to educate these, and
they don't speak English. And the teachers would say it really did
damage, it does damage to those students that we are supposed to also
teach. And now, all of a sudden, we have people we have to teach who
don't speak English.
There are some school districts that have done a great job of trying
to work around that and teach English in an immersion-type setting so
that we can help people not be relegated to manual labor the rest of
their lives, but help them speak good English so that they can get good
jobs.
But we need a barrier in some places on the border where we don't
have it, and that is clear. You can't just have a 20-, 30-foot barrier
just proceeding along that is stopping the drugs, stopping the sex
trafficking, stopping the human trafficking, and then just stop it.
Because, as we saw down the Arizona border, the path goes for miles and
miles, and it comes right up to the point where the barrier ends, and
it goes right around.
In one place, there is a little barbed wire gate that is held to the
barrier. This massive barrier is held with a little, probably a
quarter-inch, nylon rope. And they leave it in a slip knot so you can
open the gate and the drugs can come pouring in that will kill
Americans.
Something had to be done. And yet what happened was the President was
willing to negotiate, Kevin McCarthy and the Republicans were willing
to negotiate, Senator McConnell and the Republicans in the Senate were
willing to negotiate, and yet the word from our Speaker was: We are not
negotiating at all on a barrier, a wall.
So we continued to have people in the interim, while the government
was shut down, continue to die as a result of us not securing our
border.
We were told by Border Patrol, every day, there are women who are
pulled into sex trafficking. Every day, there are women--often young
girls. We are told about one-third of the girls who are brought up to
bring them into the United States illegally are raped at least once
and, normally, multiple times.
As long as we keep our border so unsecured, that is going to
continue. I mean, how much lack of compassion do you have to have to
say: ``We are fine with the rape trees; we are fine with one-third of
the girls coming into the United States illegally having been raped. We
are fine. We just leave things like they are. That is fine, but we are
not going to negotiate because.
Apparently, from what we are hearing, even though many of the people
who refuse to negotiate have talked about the need for barriers and
talked
[[Page H1322]]
about the need for securing the border, they were very concerned that
the President would get a political win by getting even part of a wall
or barrier. So people are just going to have to keep suffering, getting
raped and dying.
So we didn't secure the border, there is no additional wall, so they
can claim the President didn't keep his promise on the wall. That was
more important than saving lives, saving rapes from happening. It is
all about politics.
And that is not across the aisle. I have talked to too many friends
across the aisle that, if we had been left to our own resources, we
could have worked something out.
{time} 1500
But apparently, at the top, it was more important to keep a political
win from the President than it was to do what was right for the
country.
I don't know anybody on our side of the aisle who loves shutdowns,
but there were some claims made in the bill that went too far, so most
of us voted ``no.''
We don't want a shutdown, the same way we don't want anybody in our
military dying. But, if we never had any military willing to risk their
lives, we wouldn't have the freedoms we have today.
If we didn't have a President willing to put a stake in the sand and
say: We have got to do something to secure our border. We need some
barrier, wall, whatever you want to call it in some places. And I will
negotiate. The amount is negotiable--he came down to about a fifth of
what he had been saying and what we are told really needs to be spent,
$25 billion or so. Yet there was no negotiation on the other side.
I know there was one dollar mentioned, apparently in jest: Oh, I
would give a dollar for a wall.
But it just seems so hypocritical to have a leader, or leaders, that
would not negotiate in good faith, which caused a shutdown, with one
side willing to negotiate on everything except we have got to have some
barriers someplace and no negotiation on the other side.
Then we come in here with a bill today to condemn shutdowns that were
caused by a refusal of one side to negotiate. Like I said, I know that
is not the case.
There is an article here from the Washington Examiner, Anna
Giaritelli. It says: ``House Republicans say at least 60 Democratic
lawmakers have indicated in the past few weeks that they support some
type of barrier, wall, or fence at the U.S.-Mexico border, even as
Democratic leaders say they won't agree to President Trump's border
wall.''
It is just amazing that that ends up being the climactic bill today,
condemning shutdowns, after the leadership on one side says: We are not
compromising; we are not moving an inch. It causes a shutdown; we will
blame that on you. We will even pass a bill. We have got a majority. We
can pass a bill, you know, that condemns shutdowns.
They took out the language, thankfully, that blames the Republicans.
But I would like to recognize my very dear friend from Pennsylvania
for his comments and observations.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Perry).
Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, we are here today to talk a little bit
about what we just saw, which is what the gentleman from Texas is
talking about, this vote that we just had with the condemnation of
shutdown.
Let's just be clear. Nobody--nobody--in this House, whether it be
Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, anywhere in between, or in
the Senate, nobody votes for shutdown. There is no bill that says: Are
you voting ``yea'' to shut down the Federal Government or are you
voting ``nay''? That is not how this goes.
What happens is we are trying to fund. It is an appropriations bill.
And ``appropriation'' is a fancy way of just saying: We are taking your
tax dollars, and this what we are spending. This is our priority. This
is how we are spending it.
There is a disagreement, and we can't come to an agreement. Nothing
happens. That is the problem: nothing happens. So the Federal
Government shuts down.
Now, we had a discussion earlier on when I said: Look, we are having
this vote today to condemn this horrible thing. That doesn't fix
anything. It doesn't solve a thing. It is just theater. And the
American people and our country have big issues at stake that we need
to get to solving. This doesn't solve anything.
This is just: Let's make sure we place blame where we think blame is
so we can pound our chest and feel good and we can--oh, by the way--
cover for some of our Members who voted ``no'' on paying Federal
employees who were working. That is what this was all about.
It is in the past. It is in the past. But right now we should be
talking about the negotiation which caused this whole thing in the
first place.
Quite honestly, you should be able to talk and chew gum at the same
time, which is: Let's have a discussion about what is appropriate at
the border and keep all of the Federal Government open at the same
time. But, no, we can't do that because we are not interested in
securing our border.
That is really what this is all about. This is the Homeland Security
appropriations bill. And if you are not talking about securing the
border in the Homeland Security appropriations bill, I don't know where
you are going to talk about it.
So, again, no one wants a shutdown. No one voted for a shutdown.
But I reminded the majority party that, in December, this House,
under Republican leadership, voted for a bill that would have kept the
government open and, in walking and chewing gum at the same time,
provided for border security that the President would have signed.
The majority leader said: You guys voted on a bill after waiting for
a year that you knew couldn't pass.
Well, during that period of a year, the reason it couldn't pass is
the reason it didn't pass in the Senate: because Senate Democrats
refused to fund border security.
Now, I believe they are for border security, but if it says ``the
wall,'' well, that is President Trump, and we certainly can't have any
of that. I would say we have got to get past that.
Look, you can dislike the President all you want. That is your
prerogative. But don't translate your dislike for the President into
not caring for the security of the American people. And that is what
has happened here.
We are now in January, at the end of January. We don't know what the
numbers for January are. We don't know the numbers for December yet.
But Homeland Security reported in November, between the ports of entry,
between the points of entry, 51,000 people were apprehended coming
across our border. We don't know how many weren't apprehended. We just
know we got 51,000.
My friends on the other side of the aisle say: We are for border
security, so we want some drones and more technology and beef up the
points of entry.
We are not opposed to that, but we are saying, generally, that is
status quo, right? We are talking about fixing the status quo. We are
not talking about doing anything in between the points of entry, which
is what the discussion really is all about.
And the President is willing to do things at the points of entry and
in between, but some folks are not, and that is where we are having a
problem.
Mr. GOHMERT. The gentleman mentioned the 51,000. That is just, as I
understand, those who were apprehended.
Mr. PERRY. In 1 month.
Mr. GOHMERT. In 1 month. That is not everybody that was coming in.
My friend, being a general in the United States Army, served our
country so meritoriously. We had a situation under President Woodrow
Wilson where a small part of Pancho Villa's gang came across the border
into the United States, killed some families, and then went back into
Mexico.
Devout Democrat that Woodrow Wilson was, he apparently saw that small
incursion as an invasion. He sent--and I have asked the Congressional
Research Service for their best numbers, and the estimate, taken from
articles and information they had gotten, was probably around 75,000 of
a new group called the National Guard--new back in the early 1900s.
He sent them down to stand guard on the border--75,000--and sent
General John Pershing down into Mexico pursuing Pancho Villa's troops.
They
[[Page H1323]]
didn't ever get him; they got a lot of his lieutenants. But,
apparently, when 75,000 people were put on the border, there was no
more invasion.
If you look at the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4--this is
our Constitution--says: ``The United States shall guarantee to every
State in this Union a Republican form of government, and shall protect
each of them against invasion.''
Now, 51,000 in a month is many, many times more than the folks that
Pancho Villa had come in and kill Americans. Would the gentleman
consider that an invasion, what we have going on on our southern
border?
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Perry).
Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, I am not sure what else to call it.
We are a generous people, and I, myself, am the product of legal
immigration through Ellis Island. We want to remain that way. The
United States is the most generous nation on the planet in that regard,
I think last year admitting, legally, about 1.7 million people into our
country.
All we are saying is: Listen, please just knock on the door. We have
a process here. We have got to do it the right way. Don't just barge
in. Just ring the doorbell.
But these folks are saying: Well, we don't want to ring the doorbell.
You can clearly see why, if you are trafficking in little girls or
young men, if you are trafficking in the 90-plus percent of heroin
coming across the border and into every single town, laced with
fentanyl.
If you are trafficking in MS-13, you are not going to go to the point
of entry and say: ``Hey, Mr. Border Patrolman, I have got this stash of
drugs here. You don't mind if I bring this into your country.'' No, you
are going to go where they are not.
The President is saying this is where we need to secure our border as
well, as well as the points of entry.
Again, I don't understand why we are in this mutually exclusive
position. I don't think that Democrats don't want to secure the border,
but securing the border has to be more, something more than putting a
drone up in the sky so that we can see them coming.
The point is that they don't get across the border, not just to see
them coming, but that they don't get onto our side of the border with
whatever they are bringing and that we interdict them. That is the
issue here.
So I think we should be closer than we are, and I would urge my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to just appeal to their
better angels.
We don't have to side with the cartels. Republicans and Democrats can
be together and siding with the American people and securing America
and its people from this unsafe circumstance, whether it is gang
members and gang-related violence, whether it is drugs coming into our
community, or whether it is low-skilled labor that puts our low-skilled
labor--there are people in America, believe it or not, who don't
graduate high school, and they have a hard time finding a job because
they don't have an education.
Not only are they competing against the things that they have in
their own circumstance--right?--of not having an education in their own
country, but now they are competing against other people who don't have
a high school education from another country, who are willing to work
for less than they are.
If we don't stand up for the least of those in our community who have
the least, who have the worst disadvantage against them, our
constituents, who is going to?
I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: It is
really time to stop with the theater here and the blame game. It is
what it is now. Nobody votes for a shutdown. Nobody votes for a
shutdown. But stop with all that, and let's get to real, live
negotiations.
You don't have to side with the cartels. You can side with the
American citizens. You don't even have to consider it siding with the
President of the United States if you find that unpalatable. You can
side with the citizens in your community who don't want MS-13, who
don't want heroin, who don't want fentanyl, who don't want people
stealing their wages from the citizens in their community.
So I would just appeal to them. I know their heart is good, so we
just ask them to negotiate in good faith.
The good gentleman from Texas and I will be here when they come up
with their plan. We have asked--right?--for 30-some days: What is your
plan? We know you don't like the President. We got that. But what is
your plan? Have we seen it? I haven't seen anything yet, right? I
haven't seen their proposal yet.
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I do want to hit one point that the
gentleman made about the drones. They can help. The television cameras,
all of the sophistication, the technology, can help.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania was not here when $8 billion, as I
recall, was passed in the House and Senate, signed by the President,
and given to protect our southern border for, the terminology I recall,
a virtual wall. And that was not a wall but cameras, airplanes, drones,
whatever they could get, whatever they needed, whether it was
microphones, listening--it was whatever the Secretary of Homeland
Security thought appropriate.
There was a provision that was added in the Senate that became part
of the law that said, if the Secretary of Homeland Security decides
that money is not going to accomplish the purpose of securing the
border, then she can wave that off and spend the money elsewhere.
That is what Secretary Napolitano did, as I recall. She waved it off.
I have been trying to find out for a number of years now: Where did
that $8 billion go that was supposed to be for this technology that we
are hearing from some across the aisle: That is all we need is that?
Well, not one single Democrat did I ever hear say: Do you know what?
Napolitano shouldn't have waved off a virtual wall.
{time} 1515
They agreed that just wasn't going to do it. Secretary Napolitano
said that is not going to do it. That is not going to help secure the
border.
That is all we hear in response to President Trump saying wall,
barrier. Whatever you want to call it, it is what we need there.
I yield to my friend, Mr. Perry.
Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, I can't speak to what happened in the past,
and I don't know where the money went either, but I know where we are
today.
I know that our communities are in peril for these issues that we
have discussed already. I am sure, coming from Texas, you can name
people's names. I can name people who have been murdered, who have died
of overdoses. Even if you are just an average taxpaying citizen in
Pennsylvania--I don't know about other States--but in Pennsylvania, we
pay at least $1.3 billion annually just for illegal immigration in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and that doesn't include healthcare and
social services. That is education and incarceration. And we are 2,000
miles from the border.
If you are a senior citizen in Pennsylvania, where our property taxes
are high, you have paid your mortgage, you are no longer working, you
are on a fixed income, you are counting on your retirement and maybe
your Social Security and your savings, and the price tag keeps going up
because people keep coming into your community illegally. You are in
peril of losing your home, you are looking to your representatives and
saying: Sir, ma'am, what are you doing about this problem? We cannot
accept this. We don't want to lose our home to pay for this problem
that shouldn't be happening.
Regardless of what happened in the past, I can't fix that. But what
we are saying in this House, as Republicans, is the status quo of
51,000 people in 1 month getting caught between the entry points cannot
continue. It is too much. It must be stopped. We must do something.
If the other side has a better plan, God bless them. I am ready to
sit down and look at it, but we have been waiting for it since December
20-something. It is now the end of January. We are prepared. The
gentleman from Texas, the Representative from Texas, and I are willing
to consider whatever they have, but we don't have anything so far.
This President has offered, I think, four or five times things that
they
[[Page H1324]]
have wanted and said: Let's come to the table.
We can't fix it on our own. We need their involvement. We need their
input.
We just beseech them: Let's get past all this theater. Let's get down
to brass tacks here and start saving our community.
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Pennsylvania
so much for sharing his thoughts. It continues to be a problem every
day.
An article here from The Hill, by Madison Gesiotto, says: ``The
Mexican Government is doing more to combat illegal immigration into the
United States than the entire Democratic Party put together. While the
Democrats continue to pretend the crisis on our southern border is
imaginary, Mexico is heavily investing in border security in
anticipation of yet another massive caravan of migrants heading for the
United States.''
It goes on: ``Hundreds of Honduran migrants began their journey in
hopes of seeking asylum at our southern border, a goal that proved
elusive to the previous caravan. Instead of dismissing the new caravan
as a `manufactured crisis' as the Democrats did after President Trump
made his appeal . . . Mexican authorities sprang into action,
announcing a list of strengthened requirements to address the problem.
``According to the latest reports, the Mexican Government is
reinforcing all the entry points along its own southern border with
additional immigration enforcement agents and is stepping up
surveillance of known illegal crossing points. It also plans to enforce
strict immigration protocols, such as requiring the migrants to undergo
biometric scans and acquire immigration documents before they can enter
the country.''
So that is Mexico. We have worked on a bill in the past that said, if
you think the Mexican law is so much better than ours, why don't we
just adopt the policies and the laws of Mexico, with regard to
immigration? The bottom line is, if we were to do that, we wouldn't
have millions of illegal immigrants in this country.
I have to give the President some credit here. When we see this
article from Reuters, an unlikely source, it points out: ``The United
States sent the first Central American asylum seeker back to Mexico
through a crossing at the border city of Tijuana on Tuesday as part of
a hardened immigration policy, an official at Mexico's National
Migration Institute said.''
Somebody has been doing some amazing negotiating in order to make
that happen, where Mexico would agree to take back some folks who are
claiming asylum. As I understand it, we may have more people going back
to Mexico, pending their hearing.
As we heard from Secretary Nielsen back in December before our
committee, where there are walls and barriers in place, it cuts illegal
immigration by 90 to 95 percent. That is something that works. Nothing
is going to work 100 percent, but that is amazing at how well it works.
I now yield to my good friend, Congressman Gaetz.
Mr. GAETZ. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding.
As we gather here on the floor, the gentleman from Texas and I would
note that most Americans are working on a Wednesday afternoon at 3:20
eastern time. Most Americans are trying to advance their careers, their
lives, their families. I am just tragically disappointed at the lack of
work going on in this Congress.
I think one of the reasons that we haven't been so productive is that
we have not seen the Democratic majority put on this floor what their
border security legislation even is. I know what the Republican view is
as we head into conference. I know that because Speaker Pelosi, in the
White House, told the President we could not pass a border security
bill here. Directly following that challenge, we came to the floor. We
prioritized our borders, our laws, the rule of law. We prioritized the
wages of American families, the safety of communities throughout our
country. And we passed $5.7 billion for border funding for a barrier
and sent that over to the Senate.
I just don't understand, Madam Speaker, why the challenge that the
Democrats gave Republicans is one the majority is unwilling to meet. If
Democrats have a bill, put it on the floor. Show us what the majority's
ideas are.
Madam Speaker, there has been a conference committee that has been
appointed. It will get together, and I sure hope that conference report
produces something that looks like a whole lot of border security, a
whole lot of barrier and wall and fencing.
I only can imagine the challenge my Republican colleagues must have,
because Democrats know what Republicans want, but we don't know what
Democrats want, so it is kind of hard to negotiate.
We have to have a win-win to get out of this system where we seem to
careen from shutdown to shutdown and crisis to crisis as a mechanism to
gain leverage against one another for our respective priorities. But
the right thing to do is to just put on the floor what you believe in.
I know what Republicans believe in because we voted for it. That
seems to be a fair challenge back to those who are currently in the
majority. I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding.
Mr. GOHMERT. I am very grateful to my friend, Congressman Gaetz, for
that insightful comment. The gentleman is right. When you are right,
you are right.
I would like to comment on something else that has been in the news,
and that is the longest war in which the United States has ever been
engaged.
For a little history, it took a few weeks for the United States to
find out where the training and preparation for 9/11 came from, and
that the Taliban and Osama bin Laden were behind it. They had control
of Afghanistan, the Taliban did.
It was an amazing bit of negotiation by President Bush, with
incredible help from intelligence and special operations. The special
ops people from our military were able to negotiate an agreement with
tribal leaders that ended up being called the Northern Alliance. It
contained some people who have become friends, people who love their
country.
By October, we were putting in about 300 special ops military. There
is a great book called ``Horse Soldiers'' that delves into this issue,
and a movie, ``12 Strong,'' although the ending wasn't quite accurate.
Our American forces were never to lead an operation. They were to
support Dostum in his operations, which is what they did, heroically.
By the end of February 2002, apparently, there was no organized
Taliban left in Afghanistan. It had done an amazing job. The heroic
fighting of those in the Northern Alliance, the Afghans led by General
Dostum, did an amazing job.
We provided some weapons. We gave them aerial--well, there were B-52s
flying, but only our special ops guys could call down bombs.
The leaders could tell the Americans: Look, there is a bunker. There
is a problem.
They would get the coordinates, call down the bomb, take care of it.
Dostum and his folks would go in and clean up. That is how, by the end
of October, we had not lost a single American, and the Taliban had been
defeated.
Unfortunately, at that point, we became occupiers. We sent in lots of
American military, and in the 7-plus years of Commander in Chief George
W. Bush, we lost just over 600 precious American military lives in
Afghanistan.
During the 8 years of Commander in Chief Obama--I believe,
personally, it was because of the tough rules of engagement, and our
people not being able to defend themselves until it was sometimes too
late--we lost about three times as many people under Commander in Chief
Obama as we did under Commander in Chief Bush. Whatever the problem,
the buck stops with the Commander in Chief, and we lost three times as
many when the war was supposed to be virtually over.
What happened, once we became occupiers, was then more Afghans were
joining the Taliban. I have talked with an individual who was part of
the inner circle that was being made at the State Department about what
kind of government we would give the Afghans.
That shouldn't have been our job. We defeated the Taliban, or the
Northern Alliance did with our help. They should have been the ones
deciding what kind of government.
The people I have talked to in Afghanistan, friends I have made
there,
[[Page H1325]]
they said: Look, there is not a much better place on Earth fitted for a
federalist form of government where the power is in the states or
provinces and in the localities. We don't need a big powerful dictator.
We need strong states or provinces.
Yet, the constitution we hoisted onto the Afghan people, led by a man
who is now in the State Department once again leading efforts--as I
understand it, he is the guy who said let's give them a centrist
government.
That is what the constitution gave Afghanistan. The President of
Afghanistan appoints the governors. He appoints the mayors. He appoints
the police chief.
The people in Afghanistan have said: Look, this is horrendous. This
is a formula for corruption. For heaven's sake, at least let us elect
our governors, elect our mayors. Let us choose our own police chiefs.
{time} 1530
But that is not the constitution that we gave them. But there has
been an amendment movement for some time. The Obama administration
would not support it because they had some of the same State Department
people that said: No, let's keep this corrupt centrist--they didn't say
corrupt, but that is exactly what it gave them. And the Afghan people
don't like what America forced on them.
The solution is, encourage them. And since we spend billions of
dollars there, look, you want another dime? Amend the constitution;
allow an election of governors and mayors, local selection of police
chiefs. Let's return the power to the provinces.
As my friend, former Minister Massoud, there has said: Look, if you
will help us get that amendment done, then whenever America leaves, we
have got power back in our local areas. So if the Taliban takes over
one province, or tries to take over the national government, all the
other provinces can rise up and come after them and kick them out like
we did last time.
But as long as we have got this coerced, very centralized government,
all they have got to do is knock off a few people at the top; which is
why we have people that shouldn't still be in the State Department who
are negotiating with the Taliban, not even our friends. Our friends are
going to be dead when we pull out because we are leaving all this power
for easy reach of the Taliban.
We ought to be negotiating with our former allies, the ones that
defeated the Taliban within six months, and get them that amendment,
push them to get that, help them have those first elections under the
amended constitution, and then get the heck out of Afghanistan.
In that regard, we have a man who is not here on the floor this week,
hasn't been in January, named Walter Jones. He wanted us out of
Afghanistan, and he has for a very long time. He is not going to be
around to see that happen is the indication.
But, Madam Speaker, I know there are many of us that love that guy,
and I was sad to see him in hospice last Friday. Prayers are with his
family, because Walter is going to go home and be better off. But we
miss him.
I was heartened to see our friend, Alcee Hastings here on the floor a
while ago. He has been going through a difficult bout of pancreatic
cancer; been going through chemo, and I know my friends on both sides
of the aisle will continue to pray for and encourage him.
We can have strong disagreements. We don't wish anybody to go through
what Walter and Alcee have been going through.
One other friend that I spoke to in the last week, she has been in my
prayers, Anne Graham Lotz. What an incredible gift to America Billy
Graham's children have been. And our prayers will continue to be for
Anne, Alcee, and my friend, Walter, and his family.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________