Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Pages H1247-H1248]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BORDER WALL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock) for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I believe the President's decision to
temporarily resolve the shutdown was the correct one. The Democrats'
refusal even to discuss a path forward had created a crisis of
governance, in addition to our ongoing crisis on the southern border.
The President had offered many compromises to the Democrats. He
reduced his funding request, altered the design, and added nearly $1
billion of humanitarian aid. Yet, the Democrats spurned all of these
good faith overtures.
When the President invited congressional Democrats to the Oval Office
to hear their views, they refused to go. They had plenty of time to
vacation in Puerto Rico with 100 lobbyists during the shutdown, but
they couldn't seem to fit a simple meeting with the President into
their busy schedules in order to resolve it.
Based on their past behavior, I am skeptical their position will
change over the next 3 weeks.
They tell us there is no crisis. Well, the facts speak for
themselves. Between 16 million and 29 million people now are living
illegally in the United States, costing American taxpayers well over
$100 billion a year to support. Sixty thousand more are illegally
crossing our border every month. In 2017, illegal aliens murdered 1,800
Americans and violently assaulted 48,000 more.
The congressional Democrats who oppose the President's wall insist
that they support border security, but they say a wall is a costly and
ineffective way to stop illegal immigration. Well, it is hard to take
either of their claims seriously.
These same politicians have long advocated for providing a wide range
of services for illegal immigrants, ranging from healthcare and legal
counsel to education and housing, all at taxpayer expense. It is hard
to believe they want to discourage illegal immigration while they
reward those who illegally immigrate.
The Democrats long ago ceased to call illegal immigration what it is:
illegal. Many have gone so far as to advocate abolishing the agencies
that defend our borders and enforce our immigration laws. They have
enacted sanctuary laws that protect dangerous criminals from
deportation. They have opposed mandatory employment verification to
hold employers accountable for hiring illegals. And they have opposed
visa tracking of foreign nationals entering our country.
They tell us that walls are medieval and what we really need are
sophisticated cameras. Well, we don't want to watch them crossing our
border; we want to stop them.
Walls have been used for thousands of years to impede unauthorized
entry for one reason: They work, and they still work. When Israel built
a 143-mile wall to protect its southern border, illegal immigration
fell 99 percent. The cost of building a wall is a fraction of the cost
incurred by American citizens every year to support the illegal
population already in our country.
It doesn't address the whole problem, but a wall would be a
tremendous force multiplier for border enforcement agencies. It would
protect them from the violent attacks to which they are constantly
subjected and allow them to apply their slender resources more
efficiently and effectively.
If the Democrats continue to oppose serious measures to defend our
borders and enforce our laws, I urge the President to use the authority
Congress granted in 1976 to reprogram already appropriated but
unobligated military construction funds for the defense of our Nation.
What is more fundamental to national defense than the security and
integrity of our own borders?
Some argue that this would divert money from other Defense Department
projects. Well, it is an odd logic that argues that defending the Iraqi
border is more important than defending our own.
Others have worried that a Presidential order would provoke a
protracted legal challenge. Isn't that true of any course the President
could take?
Others worry that leftist activists would misuse this precedent.
Well, let me ask you: When have such activists
[[Page H1248]]
ever relied on precedent to expand their power?
Using this authority would not only build the wall, it would avoid
the need to meet any demands to further diminish or dilute our current
immigration laws.
If the next 3 weeks produce the unreasonable demands and
intransigence that we have come to expect from the Democratic
leadership, I strongly urge the President to use his existing
authority. Countries that either cannot or will not enforce their
borders simply aren't around very long. Let that not be America's
epitaph
____________________
