tv U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN January 30, 2019 3:00pm-3:40pm EST
for the country. i don't know anybody on our side of the aisle that loves shutdowns. but there were some claims made .n the bill that went too far so most of us voted no. we don't want a shutdown. same way, we don't want anybody in our military dying. . but if we never had any military willing to risk their lives, we wouldn't have the freedoms we have today. if we didn't have a president willing to put a stake in the sand saying we got to do something to secure our border, we need some barrier, wall, whatever you want to call it, in some places, and i'll negotiate. the amount's negotiable. he came down by a fifth what he
said. and yet there was no negotiation on the other side. i know there was one dollar mentioned, apparently in just. oh, i'd give a -- apparently in jest. oh, i'd give a dollar for a wall. it is so hypocritical that we had leader -- leaders that would not negotiate in good faith, which caused a shutdown. one side willing to negotiate on everything except we have to have some barrier someplace, no negotiation on the other side, and then we come in here with a bill today to condemn shutdowns that were caused by a refusal of one side to negotiate. like i said, i know that's not the case. there's an article here that says from "the washington examiner," anna, it says that
house republicans say at least 60 democratic lawmakers have indicated in the past few weeks that they support some type of barrier, wall, fence at the u.s.-mexico border. even as democratic leaders say they won't agree to prutch's border wall -- president trump's border wall. so it is -- it is just amazing that that ends up being the climatic bill today, condemning shutdowns after the leadership on one side says we're not compromising, we're not moving an inch. it causes a shutdown, we'll blame that on you. we'll even pass a bill. we got a majority. we can pass a bill, you know, that condemns shutdowns. they took out the language, thankfully, that blames republicans. but i would like to recognize my very dear friend -- hopefully that doesn't hurt my very dear friend -- but my friend from pennsylvania for
his comments and oh,s. -- and observations. >> madam chair, we're here to talk a little bit about what we saw which is what the gentleman from texas is talking about, this vote we just had with the condemnation of a shutdown. let's be clear, nobody, nobody in this house that is democrat, republican, conservative, liberal, anywhere in between, nobody votes for a shutdown. mr. perry: there is no vote that says, are you voting yea or nay to shut down? it's an appropriations bill and appropriations is a fancy way saying we're taking your tax dollars and this is what we're spending, this is our priority. there is a disagreement. we can't come to an agreement, nothing happens. that's the problem. nothing happens. so the federal government shuts down. now, we had a discussion earlier on when i said, look, we're having this vote today to condemn this horrible thing. that doesn't fix anything. doesn't solve a thing. it's just theater.
it's just -- and we -- the american people and our country have big issues at stake that we need to get to solving. this doesn't solve anything. this is just, you know, let's make sure we place blame where we think blame is so we can pound our chest and feel good and oh, by the way cover for some of our members that voted no on paying federal employees that were working. that's what this was all about. when we should be really talking about right now -- it's in the past. it's in the past. but right now we should be talking about the negotiation which caused this whole thing in the first place and quite honestly, you should be able to talk and chew gum at the same time which is, let's have a discussion which is appropriate at the border and keep all the federal government open at the same time. but we said, no, we can't do that because we're not interested in securing our border. that's really what this is all about. this is the homeland security appropriations bill, and if you're not talking about securing the border and the
homeland security appropriations bill, i don't know where you are going to talk about it. so, again, no one wants a shutdown. no one voted for a shutdown. but i reminded the majority party that in december, this house, under republican leadership, voted for a bill that would have kept the government open and in walking and chewing gum at the same time provided for border security that the president would have signed and the majority leader said you guys voted on a bill after a year and -- waiting for a year that you knew couldn't pass. well, during that period of a year, the reason it couldn't pass is the reason it didn't pass in the senate. because senate democrats refused to fund border security. i bheeb they're for border -- i believe they're for border security but if it says the wall, well, that's president trump and we certainly can't have any of that. i would say we got to get past -- look, you can dislike the president all you want.
that's your prerogative. don't translate your dislike for the president into not caring for the security of the american people. and that's what's happened here. that border -- in november, which we're now in january. we're at the end of january. we don't know what the numbers for january are. we don't know what the december yet. but homeland security reported in november, between the ports of entry, between the points of entry, 51,000 people were apprehended coming across our border. we don't know how many weren't apprehended. we know we got 51,000. and my friends on the other side of the aisle say, well, we're for border security so we want to have some drones and some more technology and beef up the points of entry. we're not opposed to that. we're saying, but generally that's the status quo. we're talking about fixing the status quo. we're not talking about doing anything in between the points of entry which is what the discussion really is all about. and the president is willing to do things at the points of
entry and in between. but some folks are not. and that's where we're having a problem. mr. gohmert: if the gentleman will yield? mr. perry: i will yield. mr. gohmert: you mentioned the 51,000. that's just as i understand those who were apprehended. mr. perry: in one month. mr. gohmert: in one month. that's not everybody that's coming in. my friend, being a general in served d states army, ur country so meritoriously, we had a situation under president woodrow wilson where a small part of pofrpblo villa sess gang came across the -- poncho villa's gang came across the united states, killed some families, and then went back the devout nd democrat that woodrow wilson
was, he apparently saw that small incursion as an invasion. he sent -- and i've asked the congressional research service for their best numbers, and the estimate, taken from articles and information they had gotten, probably around 75,000 of a new group called the national guard. 1900's, in the early sent them down to stand guard on the border, 75,000. and sent the general down into mexico pursuing poncho villa's troops. they never did get him. they got a lot of his lieutenants, but apparently when 75,000 people were put on the border, there was no more invasion. and if you look at the u.s. constitution, article 4, section 4, this is our constitution that says the united states shall guarantee
to every state in this union a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion. now, 51,000 in a month is a whole many, many times more than the folks that poncho villa had come in and killed americans. would the gentleman consider that an invasion what we have going on in our southern border? mr. perry: i'm not sure -- and thanks for yielding time. i'm not sure what else to call it. we are a generous people and i myself am the product of legal immigration through ellis island and we want to remain that way. the united states is the most generous. legally admitting 1.7 million people into our country last year. all we're saying, listen, please just knock on the door. we have a process here. we got to do it the right way. don't just barge in. just ring the doorbell. right? but these folks are saying,
well, we don't want to ring the doorbell and you can clearly see why if you're trafficking in little girls or young men, if you're trafficking in the 90 plus percent of heroin coming into every single town laced with fentanyl, if you're trafficking in ms-13. you are not going to say, hey, mr. border patrol man, i have this stash of drugs. would you mind if i bring this into your country? they will go where they are not. the president is saying we need to secure the border as well as the points of entry. again, i don't understand why we're in this mutually exclusive position. i don't think that democrats don't want to secure the border, but securing the border has to be more, something more than putting a drone up in the sky so we can see them coming. the point is to not get across the border, not just to see them coming, but they don't get into our -- onto our side of the border with whatever they're bringing and that we
interdict them and that's the issue here. so i think we should be closer than we are, and i would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to just appeal to their better angels. we don't have to side with the cartels. republicans and democrats can be together in siding with the american people and securing america and its people from this unsafe circumstance, whether it's gang members and gang-related violence, whether it's -- whether it's drugs coming into our community or whether it's low-skilled labor that puts our low-skilled labor -- there are people in america, believe it or not, that don't graduate high school, right, and they have a hard time finding a job because they don't have an education. not only are they competing against the things they have in their own circumstance, right, not having an education in their own country, but now they're competing against other people that don't have a high school education from another country who are willing to work less -- for less than they are. if we don't stand up for those
in our community, the least of those in our community who have the least, who have the worst disadvantage against them, if we don't stand up for those people, our constituents, who is going to? so i would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, it is really time to stop with the theater here and the blame game. it is what it is now. nobody votes for a shutdown. nobody votes for a shutdown. but stop with all that and let's get to real, live negotiations. you don't have to side with the cartels. you can side with the american citizens. you don't even have to consider siding with the president of the united states if you find that unpalatable. but you can side with the citizens in your community who don't want ms-13, who don't want heroin, fentanyl, who don't want people stealing their wages from the citizens in their community. and so i would just appeal to them. i know their heart is good, and so we just -- we just ask them to negotiate in good faith and the good gentleman from texas and i will be here when they
come up with their plan. we've asked, right, for 30-some days, what is your plan? we don't -- we know you don't like the president. we got that. but what is your plan? have we've seen it? i haven't seen anything yet. i haven't seen their proposal yet. with that i want to yield the balance of the time to my good friend from texas and let him go ahead and speak on our behalf. mr. gohmert: i appreciate that very much. i do want to hit one point that you made about the drones. they can help. the television cameras, all of the sophistication, the technology can help. the gentleman from pennsylvania was not here when $8 billion, as i recall, was passed in the house and senate, signed by the president, and given to protect our southern border for a -- terminology i recall was a virtual wall. and that was not a wall but
cameras, aerospace, drones, whatever they could -- airplanes, drones, whatever they could get, whatever they needed, whether it was microphones, listening -- it was whatever the secretary of homeland security thought appropriate. there was a provision that was added in the senate that came part of the law that says if the secretary of homeland security decides that money is not going to accomplish the purpose of securing the border, then she can waive that off and spend the money elsewhere. and that's what secretary napolitano did, as i recall. she waved it off. i have been trying to find out for a number of years, where did the $8 billion go that was supposed to be for this technology that we're hearing from some across the aisle? that's all we need is that -- well, not one single democrat did i ever hearsay, you know
what, napolitano shouldn't have waved off a virtual wall. they agreed that just wasn't going to do it, and secretary napolitano said, that's not going to do it. that's not going to help secure the border. and now that's all we hear in response to president trump saying, wall, barrier, whatever you want to call it, it's what we need there. mr. perry: well, as you know, if the gentleman will yield, i can't speak to what happened in the past and i don't know where the money went either but i know where we are today, and i know that our communities are in peril for these issues we already discussed and i'm sure coming from texas you can name people's names. i can name people's names that have been -- that have been murdered, that have died of overdoses, that have been -- even if you're just an average tax-paying citizen. in pennsylvania -- i don't know about other states -- in
pennsylvania we pay $1.3 billion annually just for illegal immigration in the commonwealth of pennsylvania and that doesn't include health care and social services. that's education and incarceration. and we're 2,000 miles from the border. if you're a senior citizen in pennsylvania where our property taxes are high, you paid your mortgage, you're no longer working, you're on a fixed income, you're counting our your retirement and social security and savings and the price tag keeps going up because people keep coming to your community illegally and you are in peril of losing your home you look to your representative, sir, ma'am, what are you doing about this problem? we cannot accept this. we don't want to lose our home to pay for this problem that shouldn't be happening. so regardless what happened in the past, i can't fix that. but what we're saying in this house as republicans is the status quo of 51,000 people in one month, getting caught between the entry points cannot continue. it is too much. it must be stopped. we must do something. and if the other side has a
better plan, god bless them. i'm ready to sit down and look at it, but we haven't -- we've been waiting for it since december, 20-something. this is the end of january. we are prepared. the gentleman from texas, the representative from texas and i are willing to consider whatever they got. but we don't have anything so far, and this president has offered i think four, five times, things they wanted and said, let's come to the table. we can't fix ton our own. we need their -- we can't fix it on our own. we need their involvement. let's beseech them, let's get down to saving our community. with that i yield the time. thank you. mr. gohmert: i appreciate the gentleman from pennsylvania sharing his thoughts. it continues to be a problem every day. n article here from "the hill" by madison says, the mexican
government is doing more to combat illegal immigration into the united states than the entire democratic party put together. while the democrats continue to pretend the crisis on the southern border is imaginary, mexico is heavily investing in border security, in anticipation of yet another massive caravan of migrants heading for the united states. it goes on, hundreds of-douran migrants began their journaly -- of-turn migrants began their journey at hopes -- honduran high grants began their journey in hopes of getting asiloam at our border. instead of dismissing the new caravan as a mfed crisis, as the democrats did after president trump made his appeal, mexican authorities sprang into action. announcing a list of strengthened requirements to address the problem. according to the latest reports,
the mexican government's reinforcing all entry points along its own southern border with additional immigration enforcement agents and is stepping up surveillance of known illegal crossing points. it also plans to enforce strict immigration protocols such as requiring the migrants to undergo biometric scans and acquire immigration documents before they can enter the country. so, that's mexico. we've worked on a bill in the past that said, ok, if you think the mexican law is so much don't we ours, why just adopt the policies, the laws of mexico with regard to immigration? and the bottom line is, if we , we wouldn't
have millions of illegal immigrants in our country. have to give the president some credit here. when we see, as this article from reuters, an unlikely source, but points out that the united states sent the first central american asylum seeker back to mexico through a crossing at the border city of tijuana on tuesday as part of a hardened immigration policy, an official at mexico's national migration institute said. somebody has been doing some amazing negotiating in order to make that happen, where mexico would agree to take back some folks that are claiming asylum. as i understand, we may have more people going back to mexico pending their hearing. as we heard from secretary nielsen back in december, before ur committee, where walls,
barriers in place, it cuts illegal immigration by 90% to 95%. that is something that works. nothing's going to work 100%. but that is amazing at how well it works. and i would like to recognize and yield to my good friend, congressman gaetz, for such time as he may use. mr. gaetz: i thank the gentleman from texas for yielding. and as we gather here on the floor, the gentleman from texas and i would note that most americans are working on a wednesday afternoon at 3:20 eastern time. most americans are trying to advance their careers, their lives, their families. and i'm just tragically disappointed at the lack of work going on in this congress. i think one of the reasons why we haven't been so productive is that we have not seen the democratic majority put on this floor what their border security
legislation even is. i know what the republican view is. as we head into conference. i know that because speaker pelosi in the white house told the president we could not pass a border security bill here. and directly following that challenge, we came to the floor, we prioritized our borders, our laws, the rule of law, we prioritized the wages of american families, the safety of communities throughout our country, and we passed $5.7 billion for border funding for a barrier, and sent that over to the senate. i just don't understand, madam speaker, why the challenge you gave republicans is one you are unwilling to meet yourself. if you've got a bill, put it on the floor. show us what your ideas are. now, madam speaker, there's been a conference committee that's been appointed and they're going to get together and i sure hope that conference report produces something that looks like a whole lot of border security. a whole lot of barrier and wall
and fencing. but i can only imagine the challenge my republican colleagues must have because the democrats know what we want. and we don't know what they want. and so it's kind of hard to negotiate. now, we're going to have to have a win-win to get out of this system where we seem to careen from shutdown to shutdown and crisis to crisis as a mechanism to gain leverage against one another for our respective priorities. but the right thing to do is to just put on the floor what you believe in. i know what we believe in. because we voted for it. and that seems to be a fair challenge back to those who are currently in the majority. i thank my colleague from texas for yielding and i yield back the time. mr. gohmert: very grateful to my friend, congressman gaetz, that insightful comment. you're right. when you're right, you're right. i would also like to comment on
something else that's been in the news and that's the longest war in which the united states has ever been engaged. for a little history, it took a few weeks for the united states to find out where the training, preparation for 9/11 came, where it came from, and that the taliban, saddam hussein, were behind it -- osama bin laden, were behind it. and they had control of afghanistan. the taliban did. , it was an amazing bit of negotiation by president bush, incredible help from intelligence and special -- ations, and special to special ops people interest our
-- from our military. they were able to negotiate and agree -- an agreement with tribal leaders that ended up being called the northern alliance. contained of people who have become friends. people that love their country. and by october, we were putting in about 300 special ops, military, there's a great book called "horse soldiers" that delves into this issue. and a movie, "12 strong." although the ending wasn't quite accurate. our american forces were never to lead an operation, they were to support operations, which is what they did heroically. and by the end of february,
2002, there apparently was no organized taliban left in afghanistan. they had done an amazing job. the heroic fighting of those in the northern alliance, the didans, led by the general, an amazing job. we provided some weapons, we gave them aerial -- well, there were b-52's flying, but only our special ops guys could call down bombs and the leaders could tell the americans, look, there's a bunker, there's a problem. and they would get the cordnant it's, -- cord nantz, call down the bomb, -- cord nantz, call call -- - cordinans,
cordinants, call down the bomb. that's how we hadn't lost a single american and the taliban was defeated. unfortunately at that point we became occupiers. we sent in a lot of american military and in the seven years-plus of commander in chief george w. bush we lost just over 600 precious american military ives in afghanistan. during the eight years of commander in chief obama, i believe personally it was because of the tough rules of engagement, our people not being able to defend themselves until it was sometimes too late, we lost over three times, about three times as many people under commander in chief obama as we did under commander in tcheef bush.
whatever the problem, the buck stops with the commander in chief. and we lost three times as many when the war was supposed to be virtually over. but what happened once we became cupiers, then more afghans were joining the taliban and i've talked with an individual that was part of the inner circle, was being made at the state department, on what kind of government we would give the afghans. that shouldn't have been our job. we defeated the taliban or the northern alliance did with our help, they should have been the ones deciding what kind of government. and the people i've talked to in afghanistan, friends i've made there, they said, look, there is not much better place on earth fitted for a federalist form of government, where the power is
in the states or provinces, and in the localities. we don't need a big, powerful dictator, we need strong states or provinces and yet the constitution we hoisted onto the who n people, led by a man is now in the state department once again leading efforts, as i understand it, he's the guy that said, let's give them a centrist government. and that's what the constitution gave afghanistan. the president of afghanistan appoints the governors. he appoints the mayors. he appoints the police chief. and the people in afghanistan have said, look, this is horrendous, this is a formula for corruption.
for heaven's sake, at least let us elect our governors, elect our mayors, let us choose our own police chiefs. but that's not the constitution that we gave them. but there has been an amendment movement for some time, the obama administration would not support it, because they had some of the same state department people that said, no, let's keep this corrupt centrist -- they didn't say corrupt, but that's exactly what it gave them, and the afghan people don't like what america forced on them. the solution is, encourage them, and since we spend billions of dollars there, look, you want another dime, amend the constitution, allow an election of governors and mayors, local selection of police chiefs, let's return the power to the provinces. and as my friend, former
minister, there has said, look, if you will help us get that amendment done, then whenever america leaves, we've got power back in our local areas, so if the taliban takes over one province or tries to take over the national government, all the other provinces can rise up and come after them and kick them out like we did last time. . as long as we have this coerced, very centralized government, all they have to do is knock off a few people at the top, which is why we have people that shouldn't still be in the state department who are negotiating with the taliban, not even our friends. our friends are going to be dead when we pull out because we're leaving all this power for easy reach of the taliban. we ought to be negotiating with our former allies, the ones that defeated the taliban
within six months, and get them that amendment, push them to get that, help them have those first elections under the amended constitution, and then get the heck out of afghanistan. and in that regard, we have a man who is not here on the floor this week, hasn't been in january named walter jones. he wanted us out of afghanistan, and he asked for a very long time. he's not going to be around to see that happen, is the indications, but, minneapolis -- but madam speaker, there are many of us that love that guy. was sad to see him in hospice last friday. prayers are with his family,
because walter is going to go me and be better off, but we miss him. i was heartened to see our friend, alcee hastings, on the floor a while ago. he's been going through a difficult bout of pancreatic cancer, being going through chemo, and i know my friends on both sides of the aisle will continue to pray for and encourage him. we can have strong disagreements. we don't wish anybody to go through what walter, alcee have been going through and one other friend that i spoke to in the last week. , ann been in my prayers raham lotz, what an incredible gift to america billy graham's children have been and our prayers will continue to be for
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. gohmert: madam speaker, i move that we do hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until noon tomorrow. o.
in 1979 c-span was created by america's cable television companies. and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c., and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> a look now at our prime schedule on -- primetime schedule on our c-span networks.
>> this weekend the c-span cities tour takes us to california with the help of our comcast cable partners. >> we are the largest -- one, two, three in the nation for agriculture. we're the largest county in the nation for dairy products. so we're a -- as a result of that, we have a lot of industry here that's based on agriculture needs. >> saturday, on "book tv" at noon eastern -- a visit with talks uthor terry, as he about the most notable criminals.
>> it was remote. it had the mountains right next door which made great hideouts for people on the run. the swamps east of visalia, for example, were also great hideouts for people on the run. and so if you're going to practice criminal activity, you want to be able to do that without getting caught. so it made tulare county, made it pretty convenient for outlaws to hide out. >> and on sunday at 2:00 p.m., on "american history tv," we'll explore the city and history of the region's agriculture and its impact today. watch c-span cities tour of visalia, california, saturday at noon eastern on c-span's 2 "book tv" and sunday at 2:00 p.m. on "american history tv" on c-span3. working with our cable affiliates as we explore the