[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 26, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H2806-H2812]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




TERMINATION OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY DECLARED BY THE PRESIDENT ON FEBRUARY 
     15, 2019--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of March 
18, 2019, the unfinished business is the further consideration of the 
veto message of the President on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 46) 
relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 
15, 2019.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on 
reconsideration, pass the joint resolution, the objections of the 
President to the contrary notwithstanding?
  (For veto message, see proceedings of the House of March 18, 2019, at 
page H2750.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves), 
the ranking member of the House Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert 
extraneous material on the veto message of the President of the United 
States to the joint resolution, H.J. Res. 46.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, today, we will vote to override the 
President's veto of Congress' bipartisan action to terminate his so-
called national emergency declaration. The bottom line is that this 
emergency declaration is nothing more than an end run around a 
majority, a bipartisan majority, of both the House and the Senate, in 
complete disregard of our constitutional system of separation of 
powers.
  There is no doubt that we have a broken immigration system, and 
comprehensive reform should be a subject of congressional deliberation. 
But today, in particular, we have a new crisis. It is a humanitarian 
crisis, but the President has said that this wall will solve 
that problem.

  He also says that this is about drugs. Well, let's talk about that, 
if we could.
  Here we have walls that are static. It is very old technology that 
has been used for many centuries, as we know. Most recently, when the 
French built the Maginot Line, the Germans went around it in 24 hours, 
similar to what the President is proposing. He wants a wall on part of 
the border.
  If the problem were people illegally crossing, they would cross in 
other areas where there is no wall, but that is actually not the case. 
He says that this will stop the flood of people who are coming to the 
border. These are not the historic people who were crossing the border 
legally to come to the United States for the purposes of work and to 
remit funds home or those who were illegally smuggling drugs through 
remote areas. This is a humanitarian crisis.
  This is recently in Tijuana, a photo of a flood of people coming to 
actually two areas where we have walls and fences, wanting to surrender 
to the Border Patrol and claim asylum, or coming to places where we 
don't have walls and fences, searching for Border Patrol agents so they 
can claim asylum.
  A wall is going to do nothing to deal with the humanitarian crisis, 
and we need to take a much more thoughtful approach to that.
  Secondly, he says it is about drugs. He makes a big deal about this 
contributing to the deaths in the opioid crisis, fentanyl, and all 
that. Of course, the Chinese are shipping in fentanyl in other ways. It 
is not coming across the Mexican border. Maybe we ought to do something 
about that.
  We have tried with walls to prevent the smuggling of drugs. The drug 
smugglers are very creative. They have used rather primitive devices. 
That is a catapult. They have used drones. They frequently use tunnels.
  We found out, in the trial of El Chapo Guzman, that their preferred 
route is not some remote area that is unwalled but, actually, to come 
across at the legal border crossings here. It is such a big business, 
they can modify a semi tractor-trailer, put in a fake floor, and send 
10 in a day. We only inspect 1 out of 10. Therefore, they get nine 
through. They lose one truck, millions of dollars' worth of drugs in a 
truck, and they don't care. It is a multimillion-dollar business.
  We need new tools and technology at the legal border crossings. In 
particular, we need that so we can scan 100 percent of the vehicles. We 
are going to have to reconfigure the border crossings. We have to bring 
in the equipment. We have to hire more personnel. These are very 
expensive undertakings.
  Instead, we are going to waste money on a static wall, which isn't 
going to stop the drugs. Even more than that, the former Commandant of 
the Coast Guard testified that they have actionable intelligence, they 
think, on about 80 percent of the maritime drug shipments targeting the 
U.S., mostly from Central America, some from other Asia-Pacific areas.
  They can only act on one-fifth of the actionable intelligence because 
they don't have the personnel. They don't have the ships. They don't 
have the helicopters. They don't have the tools they need to interdict 
those maritime drug shipments.

[[Page H2807]]

  We are going to waste money on a stupid, static wall. Meanwhile, the 
drugs are going to flood in on a maritime basis or through the legal 
border crossings.
  Last year, the Republicans--this is supposedly a crisis, and somehow 
it wasn't a crisis when the Republicans controlled the Congress up 
until the beginning of this year. They refused to appropriate funds for 
the wall. Then the President shut down the government for 35 days, the 
longest government shutdown in our Nation's history. More than 800,000 
people were either denied coming to work or had to work without pay.
  Finally, the President agreed to open the government with a short-
term continuing resolution, and he said that lawmakers should come up 
with a comprehensive border security proposal.
  Congress did that. A bipartisan group delivered compromise 
legislation that rejected the proposed border wall as ineffective. 
Alternatively, it made effective, robust investments in border 
security. Congress overwhelmingly passed the legislation. The President 
agreed to sign it. Then he issued a national emergency declaration in 
order to raid funds from other departments to secure funding for a 
border wall, which Congress has repeatedly voted against.
  As I already said, he has made it about drugs; the wall will be 
ineffective. He made it about the humanitarian crisis; the wall will be 
ineffective.
  How is he going to pay for it? Well, he is going to take money that 
the Department of Defense was going to spend on high-priority military 
construction projects, which will ultimately undermine the training, 
readiness, and quality of life for our men and women in the Armed 
Forces.
  In fact, General Robert Neller, Commandant of the Marines, has 
detailed that the ``unplanned/unbudgeted'' shift of funds to deploy 
troops to the southern border last fall has forced him to cancel or 
reduce training exercises, delay urgent repairs, posing an 
``unacceptable risk'' to our Armed Forces' training and readiness.
  Then he is also going to take, ironically, money from the DOD drug 
interdiction program, which will further inhibit the capability of the 
DOD in effectively interdicting drug shipments, in favor of a stupid, 
static wall.
  This emergency declaration also violates a number of existing laws. 
The Military Construction Codification Act only authorizes the 
Secretary of Defense to reallocate funds for construction projects 
during a national emergency if the project is ``necessary to support'' 
a ``use of the Armed Forces.''
  Our Armed Forces are not responsible for enforcing our immigration 
laws. Using these funds in this way is a direct violation of existing 
law.
  The administration would also need to seize thousands of acres of 
private property by eminent domain to build this wall. This is the 
party of private property rights and local control, and they are going 
to support that activity, or some are.

  Currently, more than two-thirds of border property needed to build 
the wall is owned by private parties or relevant States. In 1952, the 
Supreme Court held in Youngstown Sheet & Tube that President Truman's 
declaration of a national emergency, even in the midst of an 
international armed conflict, did not permit him to unilaterally seize 
private property.
  It is unlikely that this thing will get built anyway, but we are 
going through this process. Because of this likely illegal overreach, 
the House passed a bipartisan resolution to terminate the national 
emergency declaration. Even the Republican-controlled Senate passed the 
resolution, with 12 Republican Senators breaking with the President.
  With the President's decision to override this resolution, we must 
send a strong, clear message to the President that we live in a 
constitutional, representative democracy, and the President and his 
administration cannot ignore Congress and existing law when they don't 
like our actions.
  We must stand up and defend our constitutional system, separation of 
powers, and Article I of the Constitution of the United States.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the President's veto of H.J. Res. 
46. Keeping our Nation secure should be this President's very highest 
priority, and it is this President's very highest priority.
  With President Trump, there is no question that he has, and he will 
continue to carry out, this priority. I support his efforts to build a 
wall on the southern border to protect our country.
  He has very clearly laid out the case for a declaration for a 
national emergency. There is a crisis at the border, a crisis that 
could have been addressed much sooner or even prevented, for that 
matter. The open border policies in the last administration compounded 
this growing problem.
  We are seeing the highest rates of illegal immigration since 2007. In 
February, there were more than double the number of illegal migrants 
coming into this country, as compared to last year.
  Border Patrol has apprehended over 268,000 individuals since the 
beginning of this fiscal year. That is a 97 percent increase from the 
previous year.
  Schools, hospitals, and other services have become overcrowded. The 
American workers have been hurt by reduced job opportunities and lower 
wages. At the same time, human and drug traffickers are thriving.

                              {time}  1245

  In many of our communities, the notorious MS-13 gang has grown, and 
we have seen tragic cases of crime committed by illegal aliens who have 
been deported multiple times.
  In my own home State of Missouri, an individual who was previously 
deported returned here illegally and was charged in several violent 
incidents. He is now suspected of murdering five individuals--or five 
Americans.
  That should never have happened, but these kinds of tragic--and 
preventable--events are happening across the country. That is the very 
definition of a crisis.
  Last Congress, we enacted legislation to deal with the devastating 
opioid crisis because that is, in fact, also a crisis. We can and we 
must slow the flow of illegal drugs into this country. The men and 
women who put their lives on the line every single day to secure our 
borders deserve all the tools they need to do the job--including a 
border wall.
  Through President Trump's proclamation and his veto of H.J. Res. 46, 
he is acting decisively to finally address this crisis under the 
authority provided him by Congress. The National Emergencies Act is 
crystal clear. The provisions the President will use under title 10 
explicitly provide the President with that authority. The President is 
well within his legal authority that Congress has provided him. That is 
the bottom line.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with the President and 
to stand with law-abiding Americans and law-abiding immigrants to 
sustain this veto.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler), who is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of overriding the President's 
veto of H.J. Res. 46.
  One month ago, the House passed a bipartisan resolution to terminate 
the so-called national emergency declared by President Trump. The 
Senate has likewise voted on a broad bipartisan basis to reject that 
emergency declaration, leaving President Trump to issue the first veto 
of his Presidency.
  I am more convinced than ever that the President's actions are not 
only unlawful, they are deeply irresponsible. A core foundation of our 
system of government--and of democracies across the world going back 
hundreds of years--is that the executive cannot unilaterally spend 
taxpayers' money without the legislature's consent.
  The President shredded that concept when he declared an emergency 
after he failed to get his way in a budget negotiation. As he often 
does, he announced his intention to ignore Congress in plain sight for 
all the world to see.
  Meanwhile, hundreds of Americans have started receiving letters from 
the Federal Government demanding entry

[[Page H2808]]

onto their land. Soon our fellow citizens' backyards may be seized in 
order to build a medieval border wall that Congress and the American 
people do not want.
  The senseless diversion of military resources to the southern border 
has also created concerns about our troops' combat readiness and their 
ability to implement other key priorities, and the Trump administration 
appears to be deciding on the fly which military construction projects 
they are planning to raid, leaving our men and women in uniform and 
everyone else who might be affected in a prolonged state of 
uncertainty. This type of chaos and confusion is the inevitable result 
when the President ignores the express will of Congress.
  The Judiciary Committee recently held a hearing to discuss the 
National Emergencies Act and to begin considering reforms to check 
abuses of this power. I was heartened by the enthusiasm on both sides 
of the aisle for such efforts, and I look forward to continuing to work 
with my colleagues on these proposals.
  But these longer term reform efforts should not detract from our 
responsibility to address what the President is doing right now. 
President Trump's invention of a so-called national emergency to suit 
his political goals and to get around Congress' refusal of the funding 
request is intolerable, and I will be proud to cast my vote to override 
his veto.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), who is also the lead Republican 
on the Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for 
his leadership on this issue.
  Madam Speaker, today the House will vote on whether or not to 
override the President's veto preserving the emergency declaration 
regarding the ongoing crisis at the southern border, and I am glad we 
finally acknowledged on a bipartisan basis that there is, in fact, a 
crisis on the southern border. My friend from Oregon mentioned that 
this humanitarian crisis exists, and I couldn't agree more.
  There is also another crisis at the border. There has been a 295 
percent increase in apprehensions of illegal immigrants crossing our 
southwest border from beyond Mexico--particularly Guatemala, Honduras, 
and El Salvador--over the last 10 years, roughly. There have been 266 
arrests of criminal aliens in the last 2 fiscal years alone, and these 
include criminal aliens charged or convicted of assaults, sex crimes, 
and killings, and those are hardly victimless crimes.
  In 2017, more than 70,000 Americans died of drug overdoses as 
methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl are flooding across the 
border, and I would say that probably the families of those 70,000 
would argue that we certainly do have a crisis attributed to the 
problems at our southern border. Since fiscal year 2012, CBP has seized 
more than 11 million pounds of drugs between ports of entry, that is 
compared with only 4 million pounds at ports of entry.

  Make no mistake, there is a crisis at our southern border. Since 
October of last year, illegal crossings have spiked. In February alone, 
the month President Trump declared the emergency, 76,000 people 
illegally crossed the border. Just yesterday, the Border Patrol took 
the highly unusual step of closing inland border checkpoints in 
response to abnormally high apprehensions. All of this goes to show 
that we need a border wall.
  The Customs and Border Protection Commissioner put it best when he 
said that this is clearly both a border security and a humanitarian 
crisis. The President attempted to remedy this crisis by declaring the 
emergency, an action well within his statutory authority and 
constitutional obligation to protect our country.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this veto override.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Espaillat).
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Madam Speaker, President Trump continues to push for 
his useless, medieval wall along the southern border in defiance of 
Congress, despite a bipartisan vote in the House of Representatives and 
the Senate to reject this fraudulently invoked emergency declaration 
which would rob taxpayers' funds from other programs. Congress has 
asserted its authority, but the President is using every tool he has in 
his toolbox for his pet project.
  Let me remind the American people: There is no emergency at the 
southern border or anywhere else that warrants this wall.
  The head of the U.S. Northern Command, who is responsible for troops 
on the border, testified that border crossings do not pose a military 
threat. The refugees arriving on our border are families: mothers and 
fathers with their children. They are willingly turning themselves in 
to request asylum from the violence and harassment from gangs they face 
in their home countries. No wall no matter how high it is built would 
change that reality.
  Madam Speaker, this is nothing more than a naked power grab, and if 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle truly stand for limited 
executive power, I expect them all to vote to override the President's 
veto today.
  Madam Speaker, there is no emergency on the southern border.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell).
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, while most Americans--maybe not 
everybody on the other side of the aisle--would not deny we have a 
crisis at the border, some of my colleagues actually recognize the 
crisis, including the humanitarian crisis.
  Last year, I voted for a bill that would have fully funded the wall 
and averted the government shutdown, to no avail. My choice this term 
would have been to pass the six noncontroversial bills and then pass a 
continuing resolution for the Department of Homeland Security so we 
could continue to work and negotiate on a resolution that would not 
have put us at this point.
  Yes, the President declared a national emergency. Speaker Pelosi then 
proceeded to the resolution condemning President Trump's emergency 
declaration, which was a messaging bill by the Democrats. Voting for it 
would have been playing politics, which many in this Chamber chose to 
do. Voting today without the votes to override is yet another messaging 
bill, yet another game of politics which I will not support.
  I agree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle: It is a 
constitutional question, and determination of constitutional authority 
is something left to the courts to decide, something the Supreme Court 
should decide, and not a partisan whack job in the House of 
Representatives.
  If Congress wishes to narrow and define more clearly the National 
Emergencies Act, then we should do so, and, in fact, I am happy to 
participate in doing that. However, in the interim, we still have the 
issue of securing our border. It will not go away.
  The crisis is not going away. As my colleagues over here have 
indicated, it continues to be a growing problem. So why we don't spend 
time addressing that rather than one more messaging vote--which appears 
to be the trend right now in this House since January--befuddles me.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the resolution 
to override the veto, and I urge my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, let's get down to dealing with the problems of the American 
people.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Castro).
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Madam Speaker, I first want to say thank you to 
my colleagues in the House, Republicans and Democrats, and also in the 
United States Senate who voted to terminate the President's emergency 
declaration to build a border wall across the U.S.-Mexico border.
  There is a humanitarian crisis at the border, but there isn't an 
invasion, and there is not an emergency of the sort that the President 
speaks of. What we have here is an act of constitutional vandalism, the 
President trying to take the power away from the House of 
Representatives and the U.S. Senate, the executive trying to steal the 
power of the purse from the Congress.

[[Page H2809]]

  If Congress allows this to stand, then 15, 20 years, 30 years from 
now, we will look back upon this as a time that gave both Democratic 
and Republican Presidents incredible power to ignore Congress and 
completely go around this body to do the things that they will in terms 
of domestic politics.
  There are landowners in Texas who are going to lose their land. This 
is the largest Federal land taking of Texas land, I believe, in 
history. Many people in Texas will lose their land. Many people will 
have their land values devalued, some of them very significantly, 
because of this.
  Military construction projects in Texas are also at stake: $265 
million worth of Texas military construction; projects at Joint Base 
San Antonio, which includes those in my district, $76 million; Fort 
Bliss, over $50 million; $42 million at Fort Hood; Red River, $71.5 
million; Galveston Naval Reserve, $8.4 million gone because the 
President has decided--and this Congress will have submitted to his 
will--to go around Congress and unilaterally build a border wall.

  Even those who support a wall should agree with us that this is not 
the way to do it. Congress funded over $1 billion, yet the President 
has gone around them to do more.
  Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues will stand with us and override 
this veto.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, for 43 years, the President of the 
United States has had the statutory authority granted by Congress to 
declare a national emergency and to reprogram unobligated military 
construction funds to meet that emergency. Fifty-eight times previous 
Presidents have invoked this authority to address such matters as civil 
unrest in Sierra Leone and Burma.
  Only when this President invoked his authority for the 59th time to 
address the most serious national security risk our country has faced 
in our lifetime--the collapse of our southern border--do we now hear 
protests from the left and its fellow travelers.
  Madam Speaker, under our Constitution, the Congress appropriates 
money but cannot spend it, and the President spends money but cannot 
appropriate it. He spends it according to laws given to him by 
Congress. In this case, Congress appropriated funds and delegated to 
the President precisely the authority to spend those funds that he is 
now exercising.
  Now, whether Congress should have delegated this authority is a 
separate question that no one has raised in 43 years. But while that 
authority exists, the President has both a right and a duty to use it 
to defend our country.
  We also hear protests that the President's act will divert money from 
other military projects. Listen to what these people are saying. They 
care more about defending the Iraqi border than defending our own. Such 
people should not be entrusted with the defense of our country.
  I stand with the President, who is acting within our Constitution to 
defend our Nation, and against the radical left in this House who would 
dissolve our borders entirely if given the chance.
  History warns us that nations that cannot or will not defend their 
borders aren't around very long. Let that not be the epitaph of the 
American Republic or the Constitution that created it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Just in response to the gentleman, if he had been listening, he might 
have heard the gentleman from Texas listing bases in Texas which are 
going to lose funds for critical military construction projects, yet he 
launches off into some fantasy about Iraq--I didn't even quite get that 
part--and also that we are proposing open borders. I am not aware of 
anyone on this side of the aisle who is proposing open borders.

                              {time}  1300

  We are proposing effective, 21st century border security at the real 
threats to America, like drug importation through our legal ports of 
entry and maritime drug imports that we can't intercept because we 
don't have the resources, and we are wasting money on a stupid, static 
wall.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Barragan).
  Ms. BARRAGAN. Madam Speaker, my colleague on the other side of the 
aisle said this was a partisan whack job.
  Yet, Congress has come together, which is rare to see these days, on 
a bipartisan basis, in the House and in the Senate, to vote to 
terminate this alleged crisis that is happening at the border.
  This is a constitutional issue. This is about the separation of 
powers. This is about Congress' ability to appropriate money and the 
President saying he wants something, Congress doesn't give it to him, 
and him going around Congress.
  Again, this is not a partisan issue. This should not be a partisan 
issue.
  My Republican colleague in the Senate said: Never has a President 
asked for funding and then had Congress not provide the funding, just 
to have the President come right back to use the National Emergencies 
Act to get around Congress.
  This is a dangerous precedent. This is not a messaging vote.
  Again, on the House and on the Senate side, on a bipartisan basis, 
our colleagues are arguing today that we should stand with the 
President.
  I urge my colleagues: Stand with the Constitution. Stand with the 
Constitution. Let's override this veto.
  A wall will not stop the drugs that are coming in, the majority, 
through the ports of entry; a wall will not stop migrants who are 
coming to present themselves for asylum, legally, at the ports of 
entry; and a wall will not stop the inhumane treatment that migrants 
are receiving at the ports of entry.
  Let's work together on a comprehensive immigration bill. Let's work 
together to address this problem, not to fund a wall against the will 
of Congress which is being done on a bipartisan and a bicameral basis.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, the President made it very 
clear that the wall is critical to address both national security and 
the humanitarian crisis.
  DOD issued a fact sheet of the universe of projects that have not 
been awarded, and they totaled more than what is needed. They total a 
little over $12 billion.
  Just because a project is listed doesn't mean that the funding will 
be used. They only need $3.6 billion.
  I might add, too, that if the fiscal year 2020 budget is enacted on 
time and as requested, there is going to be no military construction 
project that is going to be delayed or canceled.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Abraham).
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam Speaker, the President has a duty to protect our 
borders and our people. He has the Constitution and the law of the land 
on his side to declare this national emergency.
  Democrats have blocked the appropriations for this border security, 
but they had no problem when President Obama built 130 miles of border 
wall. While they played political games, 76,000 people alone, in 
February, streamed across our borders, but the United States has 
endured because we are a land that believes in the rule of law.
  Turning a blind eye to this law and allowing these open borders sends 
the wrong message to the American people and our laws.
  Madam Speaker, I am a country physician who has, unfortunately, been 
in emergency rooms and in funeral homes with the families of those that 
have died of illegal opioid overdoses. When we play political games 
with American lives and American families, shame on us.
  Madam Speaker, 85 to maybe 95 percent of these illegal opioids come 
across the southern border where we have no fence, we have no barrier 
to prevent these illegal people from bringing these drugs in.
  We have got to secure this border with a wall. Let the President 
secure our border; let the President protect our people; and let's vote 
against this veto override.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I was just looking up that most of the deaths--or 
many--

[[Page H2810]]

are due to fentanyl, and the fentanyl, of course, is all produced in 
China. Some of it is shipped via UPS, FedEx, and the international 
postal service. We lack the screening capability to deal with that.
  Much of it does go to Mexico and is then smuggled into the U.S., but 
it is not the classic myth of these people carrying backpacks through 
remote areas of the desert where, if we only put up a wall, the wall 
would stop them from getting the drugs into the U.S.
  If people had paid attention to the extraordinary trial of El Chapo 
Guzman in New York, which I did, there was testimony after testimony 
after testimony that he is bringing and they--his successors--are 
bringing the drugs through our ports of entry, because they deal in 
volume and sophistication.
  And what are we going to do? We are going to build a medieval wall 
over here while they continue to flood this country by modifying pickup 
trucks, passenger cars, and semis to smuggle humans and drugs into the 
United States of America.
  Border Patrol is understaffed. Border Patrol does not have adequate 
technology. They only screen a very small percentage of the vehicles 
coming through, sometimes 6 percent, sometimes as high as 8 percent. 
Wow.
  Well, then, you have got a 92 percent chance, if you are El Chapo 
Guzman or some other scumbag drug person from a cartel in Mexico, of 
getting your product in in an efficient, volumetric way.
  Why would you pay someone with a backpack to go through some remote 
area when you can just ship them in that way, or you can use FedEx or 
UPS if you are Chinese.
  You can go online and find Chinese selling fentanyl, and they will 
give you advice about how you should order it from them and how you can 
get it into the United States.
  Why aren't we doing something about that? The President is making a 
big deal about getting tough on China. They are producing all the 
fentanyl, and it is coming in here in many, many different ways, and 
this wall will do nothing--nothing--to deal with that.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
thank him for his enthusiastic defense of the Constitution of the 
United States.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues to uphold the 
Constitution and defend our democracy once again.
  The House and the Senate came together, in great unity and 
bipartisanship, to pass Congressman Joaquin Castro's resolution to 
reject the President's lawless power grab, yet the President chose to 
continue to defy the Constitution, the Congress, and the will of the 
American people with a veto.
  At the birth of our democracy, amid revolution and war, Thomas Paine 
wrote that ``the times have found us.''
  Once again, the times have found us to defend our democracy.
  The times have found us to restore the Founders' vision of balance of 
power, checks and balances, coequal branches of government, and restore 
Congress' role as Article I, the first branch; Article I, the 
legislative branch.
  The times have found us to honor our oath to support and defend the 
Constitution and protect the American people.
  We all know that the heart of our Constitution, the beauty of it all, 
is that we have a system of checks and balances.
  Our Founders did not want a monarchy. That is what they had rejected. 
They wanted a democracy: coequal branches of government to act as a 
check on each other.
  This Congress of the United States acted to honor the Constitution 
and our responsibility to protect and defend by passing legislation in 
our appropriations bill, showing how, in a bipartisan way, Congress 
would protect our borders.
  We understand our responsibility to do that. We don't take that 
responsibility lightly. We take it seriously.
  Even when the President disagreed with us, he should have accepted 
the bipartisan, bicameral decision to proceed. He had taken pride in a 
shutdown of Government for about 1 month because he didn't get his way 
on the border.
  After 1 month, bipartisan, bicameral action by the Congress sent him 
a bill almost exactly like what he rejected in the first place, and he 
decided to reject Congress' wisdom and Congress' acting within its 
authority to protect our borders in a serious, effective, values-based 
way.
  We don't take this vote here today lightly. Even when the legislative 
branch disagrees with the executive, we respect the office the 
President holds and his right to veto legislation.
  But when those decisions violate the Constitution, then that must be 
stopped. Many of our colleagues from across the aisle joined last month 
to defend our democracy by passing Congressman Castro's privileged 
resolution.
  That happened in the House. That happened in the United States 
Senate.
  We call on all of our colleagues to simply show that same measure of 
respect for our Constitution today.
  We take an oath to the Constitution, not to the President of the 
United States. We take an oath that we must honor.
  The choice is simple, between partisanship and patriotism, between 
honoring our sacred oath or hypocritically, inconsistently, breaking 
that oath.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a strong, bipartisan ``yes'' to override this 
veto.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I just need to point out that, 
according to Customs and Border Protection, there were more illegal 
drugs that were captured in between those ports of entry than there 
were at the ports of entry.
  In 2012, there were 11 million pounds of illegal drugs that were 
seized in between--again, in between--those ports of entry, as opposed 
to 4 million pounds at those ports of entry.
  This is exactly why the wall is needed, so that we funnel that 
illegal drug trafficking to those ports rather than in between those 
ports of entry.
  It is time that Congress gave those individuals that are on the 
border, risking their lives to protect the United States, the tools 
that they need, and that is a border wall.
  Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), who is also the lead Republican on the 
Committee on Homeland Security.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the 
time.
  Today I rise in strong support of securing our borders. There is a 
crisis at the southwest border that can no longer be denied.
  Changing demographics have created unprecedented challenges for 
Border Patrol agents. Today, record large groups of women and children 
from Central American countries are overwhelming Border Patrol 
facilities and undermining the safety of migrants and staff.
  Family apprehensions for fiscal year 2019 are already 800 percent 
higher than fiscal year 2013.
  Customs and Border Protection statistics indicate that border 
apprehensions are on pace to hit a 10-year high.
  Human smugglers are exploiting loopholes in our broken immigration 
system and using children as visas to gain entry into the U.S.
  Further, drugs are pouring through our porous borders. As you just 
heard the gentleman mention, in fiscal year 2018, Customs and Border 
Protection seized almost 900,000 pounds of drugs at the border, the 
majority of which were seized between the ports of entry. That includes 
approximately 2,000 pounds of fentanyl, which equals a lethal dose for 
the entire United States population.
  To address this crisis, we need an all-of-the-above solution to 
border security that includes manpower, 21st century technology, and a 
barrier. With this approach, we will stem the flow of drugs that are 
devastating our communities. We will stop human smugglers and others 
from crossing hundreds of miles of open desert with innocent children.
  Border security used to be a bipartisan issue. I have been on the 
Homeland Security Committee since it was established as a select 
committee after 9/11.

[[Page H2811]]

  


                              {time}  1315

  Not one time in the history of that committee has there been any 
partisan dispute about the need for a barrier, the wall, until Donald 
Trump became President, and now it is a toxic issue.
  I stand by President Trump's actions to keep Americans safe, and I 
encourage my colleagues to do the same. Vote against the effort to 
override the President's veto.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Despite the majority's blind objection to anything this President 
does, the facts are clearly there to show that this is a real crisis. 
President Obama agreed when he requested emergency funding in 2014 to 
deal with the crisis on the border and when he declared a national 
emergency because of the transnational drug traffickers.
  Since fiscal year 2012, Customs and Border Patrol has seized 4 
million pounds, as I pointed out earlier, seized 4 million pounds of 
drugs at ports of entry but more than 11 million pounds of drugs 
between those ports of entry. Nearly three times as many drugs are 
seized in between those ports.
  Many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle recognize the 
need for a border wall. They voted to authorize a wall in 2006 and 
again they voted to authorize, under President Obama, in 2013.
  Last year, we passed bipartisan legislation to address the growing 
impacts of opioids on our communities, drugs that continue to flow into 
our country through our southern border. Make no mistake, the opioid 
crisis is real.
  Earlier this month, the Centers for Disease Control issued a report 
noting that deaths from fentanyl have increased from 1,663 in 2011 to 
18,335 deaths in 2016. This is an increase of over 1,100 percent.
  There was bipartisan agreement that there was a drug-related crisis, 
but now, suddenly, some are calling this a ``manufactured crisis.''
  The National Emergencies Act has been on the books since 1976 and has 
been used dozens of times, but now, suddenly, some are calling it 
``unconstitutional.''
  The National Emergencies Act is clear; it is absolutely clear: The 
President has the authority to act. The President is using the 
authority Congress has given him, and the President stood firm, 
understanding the gravity of this crisis, and issued his first 
Presidential veto.
  I stand with him, and I urge my colleagues to sustain the President's 
veto on H.J. Res. 46.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon has 8\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I won't use that much. I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  I would like to have a quote here from someone who, I think, is quite 
prominent: You go under; you go around; you go through it. What they 
need is more manpower and more technology.
  That was the Acting Chief of Staff for the White House, Mick 
Mulvaney, when, perhaps, he was a little more independent as a Member 
of the United States Congress. That was August 25, 2015.
  I would ask: What has changed since then? Well, he now works for the 
President. That is a change.
  Donald Trump, during his campaign, was real hardline on immigration, 
but he kept forgetting to mention immigration in some of his speeches. 
So his staff came up with a mnemonic. They said: Well, he is a builder. 
If we say ``wall,'' he will remember it.
  And the President did. It was just an afterthought. It was: How are 
we going to get him to give his hard line on immigration during his 
campaign speeches and get rousing going. Let's use the wall.
  The wall then became a life unto its own, as a campaign promise, not 
as something that is effective.
  As we have talked about before, the drugs, use a trebuchet or a 
catapult. Use a drone, tunnels--really common, tunnels--and, of course, 
legal border crossings.
  This is an end conclusion to a campaign promise for his base but not 
what is in the best interests of the United States of America in terms 
of preventing the shipment of illegal drugs.
  Now, I don't know where the gentleman came up with that new statistic 
that three times as many drugs were intercepted outside the ports of 
entry, unless he was using the Coast Guard, which he may have been, 
because the Coast Guard intercepted more drugs than every other agency 
of the Federal Government, combined, in the maritime route.
  Unfortunately, as the former Commandant of the Coast Guard said: We 
can identify 80 percent with our intel, 80 percent of the drug 
shipments coming in on a maritime basis, but the Coast Guard only has 
the resources to intercept 20 percent.
  So I guess that is probably where that statistic came from.
  The Coast Guard is doing a great job with inadequate resources. In 
the bipartisan compromise, they got some additional money for air and 
marine assets, three multi-enforcement aircraft. They could use a heck 
of a lot more.
  Why don't we get that 80 percent? Why don't they have resources to 
get that 80 percent that they know about, and then let's get better 
intel and get the other 20 percent.
  And then let's scan 100 percent of the vehicles coming across the 
border. I have been at the border, when, through intuition, a Border 
Patrol agent found drug smuggling. I just happened to be there that 
day. I mean, it was just sort of a: Whoa, Congressman, you might like 
to see this.
  The guy drove up to the border. He had a birthday cake and a bottle 
of tequila on the seat. The Border Patrol guy said: Hmm, something is 
suspicious. Take the truck over there.

  They scoped out the gas tank. They found big blocks of drugs in the 
gas tank.
  Was that because we had sophisticated technology and when the guy 
pulled the truck up we could use that technology? No, it was the 
intuition of the Border Patrol agent.
  I said: How did you know to go and really search through that guy's 
vehicle?
  He said: Well, there was nothing on his key ring. There was only one 
key in the ignition. He was a throwaway.
  The cartel was probably paying him 10,000 bucks or something to drive 
that stolen or purchased pickup truck across the border concealing 
drugs, and the human element caught that guy.
  There aren't enough Border Patrol agents. They have openings. They 
are not adequately compensated. They weren't paid during the shutdown, 
but they were still working at the border. They are the first line of 
defense.
  But they also need new technology. We can't install all that 
technology to scan 100 percent of the vehicles coming through unless we 
invest a lot of money in improving the border crossing because we will 
have trucks backed up 100 miles back into Mexico because of the amount 
of commerce that comes across.
  So what are we going to do? We are going to build a stupid, static 
wall over there and over there, and we are still going to let, 
probably, 85 percent of the vehicles go through without applying 
technology.
  Guzman, sitting in his jail cell, is probably just chortling over 
this. He is saying: Boy, are those Americans stupid. Why don't they get 
the technology they need to scan the cargo that we are hiding in very 
sophisticated ways in tractor trailers, in pickup trucks, in individual 
passenger vehicles? Why don't they intercept the drugs that are coming 
in through the oceans that they even know about and they are not 
intercepting them?
  No, we are going to build a dumb wall.
  And, by the way, when the Republicans were in charge, we had a vote 
on that and it failed. If this was such a crisis and such a great idea 
when the Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the White 
House, why didn't they make it a priority?
  Well, they didn't make it a priority because they thought it was a 
stupid idea. But now it is a political thing. This is a victory for the 
President. It excites his base. It energizes his base. He has to have 
it, so he declares a national emergency.

[[Page H2812]]

  The emergency is political. It is not national security. It is not 
drugs.
  We have a humanitarian crisis at the border--yes, we do--and what is 
a wall going to do about that?
  They come to the border. They stand there and they say: We want to 
apply for asylum in the United States.
  If they come across in a remote area, they hope they come across a 
Border Patrol agent because they want to surrender at the moment, right 
there, and get some shelter and get medical care. They are now 
organizing busloads to come up from Guatemala and Honduras.
  We are not dealing with the root problems down there, and we are not 
dealing with the smugglers who are now hiring very nice, luxury buses 
as opposed to the old ride on that killer train that people used to 
take to come up, when there were smugglers who would often rape them, 
kill them, rob them, whatever else. Now they have converted to: Oh, 
let's put them in a luxury coach and they will have rest stops and 
everything else.
  This has become big business. Why aren't we doing something about 
that? The wall will do nothing about that--nothing.
  Why, why, why are we going to waste billions of dollars on a medieval 
fortress that won't work?
  I urge my colleagues to vote and override the veto of the President 
of the United States; restore the integrity of the Congress of the 
United States and the appropriations process under Article I of the 
Constitution of the United States.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  March 26, 2019, on page H2812, the following appeared: Madam 
Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: Madam Speaker, I 
yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous 
question.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on 
reconsideration, pass the joint resolution, the objections of the 
President to the contrary notwithstanding?
  Under the Constitution, the vote must be by the yeas and nays.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
will be postponed.

                          ____________________