[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.
____________________