February 11, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 26 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session
All in House sectionPrev45 of 69Next
ISSUES OF THE DAY; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 26
(House of Representatives - February 11, 2019)
Text available as:
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 H1509-H1512] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] ISSUES OF THE DAY The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2019, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. General Leave Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of this Special Order. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina? There was no objection. Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend our deepest sympathies, prayers, and certainly our thoughts to the family of John Dingell and Walter Jones. I did not know Mr. Dingell and only came after and served with his lovely wife, Debbie Dingell, but certainly wish all of their family our extended prayers. And the same goes for one of our North Carolina delegation members, Walter Jones, and his family, Joe Anne and Ashley, who served faithfully for North Carolinians for a quarter of a century. Certainly, we will remember those, as we already have tonight, in our Prayer Caucus in praying for both families. I don't really have any speeches written out tonight but do want to talk about a couple of areas that I believe are continuing to impact our country, maybe two of the foremost areas: border security, and then I want to talk a little bit about where our country stands in the pro- life movement. Let me start with border security. This seems to be happening in real time. In fact, just last night, Mr. Speaker, I received a phone call from a local sheriff who is part of the 3,000 sheriff representatives in the National Sheriffs' Association. You see, they are becoming more and more concerned as we get less and less, as a body, concerned about border security. They reached out to me last night and said: Fifty of us would like to deliver a letter to the Capitol to Members of Congress, specifically Chairwoman Nita Lowey and Ranking Member Kay Granger. Our plans weren't to arrive until this afternoon, but we quickly made arrangements to be here this morning. If these 50 sheriffs were going to travel all over the country, States from Massachusetts to Arizona to Washington to Texas, the least we could do would be to be here and to greet them, which we did. On a very cold, rainy morning this morning, we met these 50 sheriffs on the Capitol steps, at which time they handed to me this letter, and I would like to read it this evening. It says: Dear Chairwoman Nita Lowey and Ranking Member Kay Granger: On behalf of more than 3,000 sheriffs represented by both the National Sheriffs' Association and the Major County Sheriffs of America, we write in opposition to Congress' most recent deliberation to place an artificial cap on Immigration and Customs Enforcement's detention capacity. Now, I am going to explain this in just a little bit and get into detail. Capping the number of detention beds utilized by ICE not only jeopardizes the integrity of the immigration system, but would cripple ICE's ability to detain criminal aliens and other aliens who pose a risk to public safety or are a flight risk. They continue: Any legislation that reduces ICE's detention capacity would hinder its ability to perform its national security and public safety missions but, also, impact local law enforcement's ability to protect the communities they serve. You know, we have heard a lot from some of our Democratic colleagues who say the people who should be making these decisions or the people who should be informing us of these decisions are the people with the most experience. Well, here is our National Sheriffs' Association, 3,000-strong, sitting representatives here. They go on to say: In order to meet the cap being tentatively proposed by Congress, ICE would be compelled to release thousands of aliens from custody. Now, listen to this data point: To achieve the 16,500 adult average detainee population-- ADP--caps for the remaining 7 months of the fiscal year, a net reduction of 9,264 adults by the end of this fiscal year would be required. Now, what does that mean? It means, if you are not meeting the caps, these folks, these criminal aliens, are going to get released. You say, well, are these criminal aliens? Here is the number: Approximately 72 percent of ICE's current detention population is subject to mandatory detention due to the alien having certain convictions or having committed certain acts. So, of that number, 72 percent we know of, we are just going to say, or the Democrats want us to say, Mr. Speaker, that we just need to release these because we want to put a cap, just pick a number out of the air because we don't think we should have [[Page H1510]] more than that, no matter what kind of crimes they committed. This is ludicrous. They conclude by saying: Placing a cap on ICE detention beds would undermine the efficacy of the immigration system and reduce the number of aliens who are removed from the United States. They use these words: This dangerous congressional proposal not only jeopardizes the risk of our national security, but hinders our law enforcement officers from effectively enforcing and upholding the law and protecting their communities. There you have it. They are saying the reduction of these detention beds, which is just a backhanded way of defunding Immigration and Customs Enforcement, would hinder them from doing their job. So tonight I am reminding my Democratic colleagues that, by pushing for the reduction of detention beds, these sheriffs, who serve for little pay and serve in dangerous situations in many places, in many remote areas, they are telling my colleagues: Don't do this. This puts us in a dangerous situation. This puts our communities in a more dangerous situation when we allow thousands of criminal aliens to be put back in the different communities on the streets. This is preposterous. The National Sheriffs' Association and the Major County Sheriffs of America oppose the current budget proposal and urge Congress to consider the dangerous ramifications that passing this depreciated budget could have on the citizens of America. Mr. Speaker, these aren't my words. Mr. Speaker, these aren't the words of our minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, or our whip, Steve Scalise, or our chair, Liz Cheney. These are the words of our local county sheriffs, urging and pleading: Do not continue to push for this. It is a real shame that these sheriffs have to come to Washington, D.C.--33 degrees outside, in the rain--to plead with a Member of Congress to try and stop such a preposterous suggestion. As they stood today--and I brought them inside the Capitol, gave them a quick tour, even took them over into the Rayburn Room, and we talked a little bit. We talked about how structures work, how steel slats work. We talked about the places of San Diego and El Paso, where there has been a drastic reduction in crime. You see, these sheriffs get it. These sheriffs are elected officials themselves and have a duty to uphold the law, much like the same oath that Members of Congress take to protect and serve the American people. Structures work. Now the Democrats, at the last minute, are trying another ploy by trying to come up with some crazy suggestion that we should reduce the amount of detention beds, putting a cap on it, automatically releasing criminal aliens. It is time for my Democratic colleagues to put up or shut up when it comes to being genuine about border security. One of the things that we have seen recently is not only a lackadaisical approach about border security, but we have also seen it in the protection and the sanctity of human life. {time} 1945 Many Members are very passionate and should be so. You see, this isn't about an argument over how much funding a certain project should receive. This isn't about a preference on a particular issue that comes out of committee. The reason this has brought so much passion over the last 50 years is because this has to do with human life. I can tell you, as a former pastor and being in the hospital room when a loved one breathed their last breath, I have seen how families had yearned for just another hour, another day. It is a very sad and tragic situation. They would have given everything they had for another few precious minutes with that loved one: a son, a daughter, a dad, a brother, a sister, a mom. Yet we have cheapened life to the place, in these Hallowed Halls, that it has simply become a political pawn, a bargaining chip. How did we get to this place? The other night, the night before the National Prayer Breakfast, I was speaking with a wonderful representative, a lady from the country of Latvia, who was appalled at our abortion laws, who are so much further than anything we see in Europe. When we have to begin to talk about only six other countries that have such extreme abortion laws as ours, is that not a wake-up call? When the Governor of New York, Mr. Speaker, continues to advocate with such lack of respect for human life, is that not a wake-up call? When Governor Ralph Northam begins to talk about infanticide, is that not a wake-up call? What does it take for everyday Americans to say enough is enough when it comes to human life? Right now, we are trying to bring to the floor a Born-Alive Abortion Protection Act. What does it say? Well, it is not overwhelming too much. It basically says, if a baby survives a botched abortion, then the providers would be required by law to sustain its life. Yet we can't get it to the floor. The reason why is because, when it was introduced last time, last cycle, we had several brave, strong Democrats who had the courage to step forward and vote for a piece of legislation that would require providers to sustain life during these times. I remember I was so moved by that kind of courage nearly a year or so ago that I went back to my office and wrote thank-you cards to those Democrats who were willing to stand up for the sanctity of human life. What is it worth to us? Not only is the Born-Alive Protection Act something that is important; I would even add another bill that was passed out of the House, not taken up before the Senate, the Pain- Capable Child Protection Act, that would limit abortions after 20 weeks to only specific circumstances. What is it going to take for our country to put the kind of concern and the favor that God's creation deserves? Speaking of God's creation, Mr. Speaker, our Speaker of the House, just 3 days ago, sent this tweet out that I will read. She said: ``We have a moral responsibility to protect God's creation for generations to come.'' That is why, today, she was naming a select committee not on the sanctity of human life, but on climate control. We need to take a look at all the issues, but we need to stand as Members of Congress for those who cannot stand for themselves. We need to be a voice for those who have no voice. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to continue to remind us that God's creation isn't just what we see in nature. God's creations are also these unborn babies. May we come to the place that we protect. So tonight, as I talk about border security and pro-life issues, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho), a large animal veterinarian from the Gainesville, Florida, area, to share his thoughts on what we need to do secure our border. Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding and putting this together. It is such an important issue. I just left another meeting, and we were talking about border security. There shouldn't even be a fight, because what we are talking about is what we are charged with in Congress, Republicans and Democrats, and the President. We have all taken that oath, and that oath talks about protecting our country and upholding our Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. When you look at border security, that should not be a partisan issue if you focus on border security and take politics out of it--not Donald Trump's fence, not a party's fence; this is security for the American people. Just last week, there was a bust of drugs coming in from Mexico in a load of bell peppers that had over 1,000 pounds of methamphetamines. It was valued at $1.2 billion, coming from our southern border. That came through a legal border checkpoint. That is border security that we are not doing that we should do that erodes the very social fabric of this Nation. Two weeks before that, there was a bust of a legal truck coming in carrying cucumbers from the southern border through Mexico that had over 200 pounds of fentanyl. In fact, it had enough fentanyl to kill an estimated 55 million Americans--55 million Americans. Again, it came through a legal checkpoint. So when we talk about border security, take the narrative and the argument off of Donald Trump's border wall [[Page H1511]] and put it on Americans' border security. If we as Republicans and Democrats come together as Americans, we will have border security. It is not racist. It is not trying to keep anybody out who wants to come here legally, which there are ample places for people to come legally. This is about securing the people in our country, the men and women who get exposed to these drugs. In addition to that--and I don't understand why the Mexican Government hasn't done more about this. They are growing over 22 hectares of poppy fields. Poppy is used for heroin production. There is not a medicinal use in that quantity that needs to come into this country. The only way that is coming in is illegally, through either illegal checkpoints or no checkpoints, or it is coming through legal checkpoints where we are not emphasizing border security with the new technologies we have. So it pains me to think of this country going through another shutdown that it doesn't need to because people want to play party politics. You think of the young men and women in DHS, with border security, our TSA employees, our Coast Guard, Customs and Border Patrol, and ICE agents. They show up for work, and we here in this body can't come to an agreement about America's border security. It is shameful for us. It is embarrassing. But when you try to tell the people who are in those situations--I know people very well who are in the Coast Guard, and when you say, ``Well, you just don't understand. They are holding up. They don't want Trump to have a wall,'' they say, ``I don't care whose problem it is. Fix the problem.'' In fact, one of them said, ``You know where you need to build a wall around first is around Washington, D.C. so you guys can't leave until you solve this problem.'' It is just a shame that we, together, as Republicans and Democrats, can't solve this problem. But, unfortunately, politics gets put into this. If I may talk about the other issue the gentleman was talking about, being a veterinarian, I have come to believe, and my Christian values say, that life begins at conception. There is no doubt in my mind. The good Lord put it there, and I am blessed that I have had the experiences I have had. In fact, I have been able to do embryo transfers in the equine, in the horse world, and I can withdraw an embryo from a female horse between 5 and 7 days of pregnancy. Even at that size--when you look at it under a microscope, it looks like a golf ball--it is a baby horse developing. I think it is ironic and it is sad that in this country we have laws on the books that will protect the unborn turtle in an egg or the eagle within an egg, in a nest, and we have laws that say that it is a Federal offense and you will go to prison for it, that we will protect species, but yet when it comes to our own kind, the human species--that if you believe like you and I do and the majority of Americans that we are created in the image of God--I have seen an erosion of our society, and it pains me. I know, every 100 years they say there is a breakdown of our society; but I can only think that this time around, when you are saying it is okay to kill a baby, full term, that is a breathing, living, creature of God, it is okay, that something is wrong in our society. I think of that verse in the Bible--the gentleman will know the number and all that--that says: If my people will turn away from their wicked ways and humble themselves and get down on their knees, I will forgive them. And He says: If they do that, then I will continue to bless them. So, I appreciate the gentleman doing this. I have got some more facts and figures if he has time. Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Yoho. I appreciate his wisdom and his experience in this area. As we continue to talk about these two issues tonight, I think back to the border security issue and how this has become more of a campaign against the President of the United States, when just a few short years ago, the majority of Senators, who were Democrats at the time, voted for a structure at that time, voted for a wall. It wasn't politically incorrect at that point to call it a wall. But we see how quickly in Washington, D.C., things do become politically correct. Why? It is because we see the numbers. We see the work of our border agents. We see the work of ICE, which, in 2017, was able to ascertain over 800,000 pounds of drugs. Think about that, 800,000 pounds of drugs. Enough fentanyl to kill every man, woman, and child not just in our country, but in all of North America was ascertained. A week ago tomorrow night, sitting right up to my left in the second row there, was my sister-in-law. Her brother was an Army veteran, wonderful young man, played basketball in college with my youngest brother. Scott Aaron was his name. One day, he injured his knee, and he had to have an operation. From that operation, he was given painkillers. Painkillers went to opioids; opioids obviously included heroin, to the place where he became a full- fledged addict. He tried multiple times to overcome that addiction to heroin but, in the end, failed and realized that, in his mind, he did not have hope, which brought him to the place of committing suicide. Now, Scott is not by himself, to the tune of 300 families per week that are having the funeral of a loved one due to some kind of tragic overdose, mostly heroin. Now heroin is laced with fentanyl, and we are seeing more and more epidemic proportions. We are doing everything we can in Congress to provide the funding to combat the heroin crisis, but why wouldn't it make sense that we also put up some structures, specifically in hot spots along the border, to help reduce and maybe even, in some cases, eliminate? On this floor, I have talked with more than a dozen of my Democratic friends and colleagues who have told me time after time after time: We have no doubt that a structure works. So why not move forward? Why not come to an agreement--a compromise, if you will--to be able to begin to lay out the places where a structure, a fence, a wall could work? How many lives would need to be saved to make it worth it? How many families could be reunited without an empty chair this Thanksgiving or this Christmas? How many would it take for it to be worth it? How many would it take for us to get past the political jargon of being able to use this as some kind of pawn to argue back and forth? I would say just one. The case could be made for thousands. {time} 2000 Border security: It is time we come together. We don't even need to be talking about another shutdown or CR. We need to be able to resolve this. This is a commonsense solution to be able to resolve this. Republicans aren't talking about a border from San Diego to McAllen, Texas. We understand there are places where drones, where technology, where surveillance may be the better way. We don't believe in eminent domain and blocking people's views of the Rio Grande River with a wall, but there are things that we can do immediately. Yet I believe it has come to the place where we put personalities and politics over the people themselves. Border security: It is time we do something. Mr. Speaker, I yield again to my friend, Dr. Yoho, to have a few more data points on border security. Then I will close out in just a few minutes. Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, as I was talking earlier about the drugs coming in, the methamphetamine and the fentanyl that is coming in, these aren't coming in by the honest farmer or ranch hand or farmworker in Mexico. These are orchestrated by drug cartels. Keep in mind, the methamphetamine and the fentanyl coming into this country primarily comes via China, so you have nation-states that are sending products into this country. China is trying to re-create the Opium Wars of the 1800s with our youth in this country. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Walker brought up the deaths, and I feel really bad for his family to have his brother-in-law go through that. I can't imagine the pain and the horror. [[Page H1512]] There are 300 opioid deaths a week in this country alone, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. A good friend of mine, he is a heart surgeon in Gainesville, Florida. He said: Ted, that is just the tip of it. I have a young lady in, and it is her fourth heart valve replacement. At 25 years of age, the fourth heart valve replacement, because as they use the drugs, they don't use sterile techniques. They get infected. Their immune system goes down, and the bacteria will grow on the heart valve. Her fourth one. I said: Tom, what is the cost of that? He said: The average heart valve is close to $100,000. $400,000, and if she dies, she doesn't die from a drug overdose. In the records, it is from heart failure. So the 300 a week who we know are dying from drug overdoses, that is just the tip of the iceberg. We talk about the cost. You can put a monetary cost on the deaths and the EMTs and all the emergency support staff and the ERs that we as taxpayers are funding, because, as he said, guess who paid for that? I said the hospital. He said: Absolutely. No insurance. We can put a price on that, a monetary price, but you can't put a price on the disruption and the loss of a family member, as Mr. Walker's family went through. The price of that goes on forever. If we look at just numbers, from a typical number standpoint, we get 2,000 inadmissible migrants arriving at our southern border daily. That means, since January 2, when the Democrats took over, 41 days approximately, that means there were 82,000 inadmissible migrants who came into this country or were trying to. Of the family units--that is a spouse, a husband and wife, or just a mother and father with their children--in the last 41 days, that equates to 36,395 family units. If you look at the illegal aliens arrested for homicide charges just in the last 41 days, it is more than 228 arrests. Let's take politics out of this argument, and let's do what is right by the American people: fund our government, fund DHS, secure our borders with any means from above. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his passion about this. Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Yoho for his comments tonight. I appreciate that. Mr. Speaker, just a couple more thoughts on border security as we move forward. America was built on immigration. Nearly everyone within the sound of my voice, even though the halls have emptied out tonight, can go back and trace, from some ancestry point, the impact that immigrants had on this country, but it is legal immigration. Now, somebody might ask, how are we doing in that area? Thank you for asking. America has the most generous immigration laws in the world. In 2017 alone, we took over 1.1 million immigrants who raised their right hand, who took an oath to pledge allegiance to this great country of America. We are doing pretty good there, and the President has even made proposals to increase that amount. It is the illegal immigration. We don't want our hearts to get lost in this, as Republicans, and specifically speaking for myself, having worked in refugee camps, having worked internationally to understand the plight and the struggle that goes on, to be able to expand America as fast as we can, to legally allow people to be part of the greatest country in the history of the world. Yet, as Members of Congress, when we raise that right hand to do our best to protect, we need to take that seriously. The crazy calls to abolish our law enforcement, agencies like ICE, which in 2017 rescued 904 children who were being exploited, how many children would it take for it to be worth it, for Immigration and Customs Enforcement? How many of those children would we measure any success by this? To go as far as calling for abolishment, that is not America. That is crazy political speech. Speaking of crazy political speech, the recent absurd language that has become acceptable to talk about third trimesters and to talk about infanticide, what are we coming to in this country? Listen, we don't pass judgment on the young woma who is making sometimes a life decision. Working with our own Greensboro Pregnancy Care Center, sometimes these young ladies don't even realize they have another option. We don't pass judgment. Do not believe the lies that this is about hating or judging these mere innocent souls. The problem that I have tonight is the political leaders who are providing the pathway to cheapen the sanctity of our human lives. That is where the focus needs to be. It needs to be that colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, are willing to stand up for those who simply don't have any rights. Who advocates for the baby? Who speaks out on behalf of the baby? It is all about reproductive rights. It is all about choice. It is all about what is now called women's healthcare. Who voices or who stands up for the baby? As we talked about a little earlier tonight in our bipartisan prayer caucus where a dozen or so Members were gathered, I brought up the point it wasn't too long ago that I remember sitting in a prestigious place with my wife, being the honored guests. To add to that, I think back over the last 4 years I have served with the United States Congress. I have sat down with Prime Ministers and royalty all across this world to have opportunities to talk policy. But I am well aware that, in our life, the remembrance of a Congressman lasts about 15 minutes, maybe 20 minutes, once you are gone from these hallowed halls. We are judged, in some ways, by our policy. But ultimately, what we do for God, to me, matters the most, when it comes to eternal values. One day, when we all stand before God, we will be judged not by just whatever button we pushed on the back of these chairs but, ultimately, what we did, I believe, with life. That is why it is important to me. It is why it is important to millions and millions of Americans. Let's get back to the place where we are willing to stand up, where we are willing to raise our voices for a child who cannot raise its own. Tonight, let's get back to a place where we have a respect for the Almighty, for God, who, as I read in a tweet earlier, is the giver and the creator of life. I think of David's writing in the Old Testament. I think of Psalm 139, where David captured quite poetically the words how we are ``fearfully and wonderfully made,'' how that even when we were formed, the beginning of our substance, God knew us. Not only did he know us, it is that he had a purpose and a plan for every life born and unborn. May we never grow weary, and may we never tire of doing all that we can in the United States Congress to protect, stand for, and defend the sanctity of human life. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. ____________________
All in House sectionPrev45 of 69Next