Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas and appreciate all that she does for the great State of Texas.

I rise in gratitude that this disaster relief bill will be debated and voted on today. It is important legislation that impacts people suffering in the wake of numerous emergencies and natural disasters.

My Democratic colleagues tried three separate times to pass this $19 billion disaster supplemental, which is unpaid for and most Members haven't read, without Members present for a vote through simple consent with, solely, two Members in this Chamber.

I objected, along with my colleagues Mr. Massie and Mr. Rose, to that process because, as I said throughout the past week, Members should cast an up-or-down vote on major legislation that spends a significant amount of taxpayer money.

The American people send their Representatives to Washington to represent them. They deserve to see how we vote.

While I am happy the Speaker chose to go back to regular procedure, I am still troubled that we are poised to spend $19 billion that is not paid for when we are racking up approximately $100 million an hour in national debt. At some point, before it is too late, Congress will get serious about restraining out-of-control spending.

In the 10 days this body recessed since the Friday before Memorial Day, we have racked up approximately $24 billion in additional debt. At least today we are voting, which is what I requested all along.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I am here today primarily because if I do not object, Congress will have passed into law a bill that spends $19 billion of taxpayer money without Members of Congress being present here in our Nation's Capitol to vote on it.

Secondly, it is a bill that includes nothing to address the clear national emergency and humanitarian crisis we face at our southern border.

There is no reason this disaster supplemental should not have included the quite modest $4.4 billion that Director of OMB Vought sent to Capitol Hill to ensure DHS and HHS do not run out of money--which they are slated to do--while managing the over 100,000 illegal aliens crossing our border being apprehended, and the unaccompanied alien minor children being unable to be housed appropriately.

And, finally, this is a $19 billion bill that is not paid for when we are racking up $100 million of debt per hour. And this is a bipartisan problem, to be honest, and it is a problem that we should solve in Congress rather than ignore.

Our Nation is strong enough and compassionate enough to have a responsive and fiscally responsive approach to help people who are hurting in the wake of natural disasters.

We have had months to figure this out and to do our job to secure our border. And we now are expected to let the swamp continue to mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren, making it less likely they will inherit a stronger and better country with a government capable of defending the Nation in responding to disasters such as these.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I respectfully object.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from any further consideration of H.R. 962, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the Speaker to immediately schedule this important legislation that will protect equality of life for the unborn.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Arizona for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, the Violence Against Women Act we are voting on this week is nearly unrecognizable from the legislation originally passed in 1994. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to politicize and expand the legislation far beyond the original scope by adding controversial provisions that undermine the constitutional rights of Americans.

In the name of protecting women, Democrats are exploiting this bill as an opportunity to assault the Second Amendment rights of American citizens. It is despicable that anyone would seize on this as such an opportunity to weaponize a measure that was intended to protect victims.

This body is not meant to fulfill campaign promises that have nothing to do with the legislation allegedly before us. And let's make no mistake, that is what the purpose of this legislation is today. It is being structured intentionally. They are structuring it intentionally to be able to run campaign ads in districts back home, because you have got a piece of legislation that is titled the Violence Against Women Act. So let's just bury stuff in a bill that sounds good to the American people, but which then attacks our fundamental God-given rights reflected in the Bill of Rights.

Now, the gentlewoman from Texas who just spoke, my friend from Texas, just spoke about fiddling while Rome burns. Well, let's talk about the fiddling that is going on on our southern border while women and girls are traveling miles up to our southern border being abused by cartels.

When Amnesty International and when organizations that are nonpartisan are talking about a third of these women being abused, my friends on the other side of the aisle bury their head in the sand and don't seem to care.

When we are talking about violence against women, let's talk about the violence against women that is happening today, right now, just across the border in Reynosa. Just across the border in Mexico, some little girl and some woman is going to be raped and abused, while we sit and vote on legislation that is designed to be a political tool by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle against the GOP for political purposes.

I think we should not be fiddling while Rome is burning and while women are being abused on our southern border.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Arizona for his leadership on this matter, and I appreciate his leadership very much on H. Res. 149, a resolution recognizing the national debt as a threat to our national security.

In February 2000, the total national debt, including intragovernmental holdings, was $5.7 trillion. Federal spending as a percentage of gross domestic product was 17.5 percent. Today, the total national debt now exceeds $22 trillion.

The last balanced budget was signed into law in 1997, and the Congressional Budget Office projects that Federal spending as a percentage of GDP is projected to be 20.8 percent this year. In February 2018, Congress passed a budget agreement that busted the previously established spending caps by almost $300 billion over 2 years.

All those numbers don't mean anything to the American people tuning in to C-SPAN right now. They are giant numbers. They are really difficult for people to understand and comprehend. But we are talking about the future of our Nation and what we are leaving to our children.

We are leaving them with an economy that is anchored by $22 trillion in debt that is going to turn to $25, $30 and $40 trillion because, this year alone, we are going to have a trillion-dollar deficit, with no end in sight.

We are making it to where our children can't comprehend what freedom is like in this country and what opportunity is like in this country because they are going to have an economy that is weighted down by this body's and the Senate's irresponsibility.

Nobody in America balances their budgets at home like this. I assure my friend from Arizona, our States don't balance their budgets like this. Nobody looks at the total number for income you have, then blows it by 25 or 30 percent, and then goes to the bank and wonders why they might not give you a loan or help you finance a car.

My concern is that we are allowing this to happen on the backs of our men and women in uniform. We are saying that, as a need to defend the United States of America and to spend money--which our men and women in uniform deserve to have the resources necessary as we ask them to go around the globe--we are using that as an excuse to continue to bust caps and to bust the limits that we put in place to hold us in check.

Of that $300 billion that I was talking about the last 2 years, about 40 percent of that is nondefense discretionary that rode on the back of what we are trying to do to help our men and women in uniform have the tools they need.

There used to be an adage of guns and butter. We don't have a choice anymore about choosing between guns and butter. Have we cut butter at all while we go and increase money for the guns for our men and women in uniform? Have we even held it in check? No.

We have plussed it up and continued to bust the caps, all while we know mandatory spending--spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--all go up.

The question I would ask is: When are we going to stop? Is it going to take placing a debt clock over the chair of the Speaker? Do we need to have something to remind us, sitting here in the body, what we are going to be leaving to our children? Because it is our responsibility, what we leave behind to our kids.

It is irresponsible when we look at every bill, every one of these little bills that comes across our desk.

People say, well, why did you vote ``no,'' Mr. Roy? Well, it was just another $500,000. It was just another $5 million.

That is not how you spend at home. It is time that this body gets serious about spending restraint. It is time that this body recognize-- as I am very happy that my friend from Arizona has, and I am proud to join him in saying that this is an impact on our national security and a threat to our national security.

When we know right now that the interest on our debt is pretty soon going to eclipse the amount of spending we are spending at the Department of Defense, that is a threat to our national security. We can't sustain it.

When we say now that we are going to spend more money for the tools that our men and women need, how are we going to afford to spend on those tools in 2030 or 2040 when we are spending more, literally, on interest than we are on what they need?

I am proud to join my friend to make the case here that this is a threat to our national security. I call on my colleagues to join us, to join this resolution. I call on them to have the same level of resolve to limit spending and to make sure that we pass down the greatest country to our kids that the world has ever known.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding time, and I thank him for his leadership on this important issue.

We are here because we are discussing the importance of border security for the United States of America, a question of our sovereignty, the basic duty of a sovereign nation to secure its borders.

I had the great privilege of spending some time with the men and women of the Border Patrol in the Rio Grande Valley sector in Texas this past week--2 days--with my fellow Texas freshman Congressman Dan Crenshaw. What I saw was alarming.

What we learned from Border Patrol is that there will be upwards of 400,000 people crossing the border through the Rio Grande Valley sector this year alone. And of that 400,000 people, 200,000 of them, give or take, won't even be apprehended because the men and women of the Border Patrol don't have the tools they need, don't have the fencing and the barriers they need, don't have the ability to drive a vehicle parallel--lateral--to the Rio Grande River, don't have the radio signal to be able to communicate on the border.

We found that, of the 200,000 people who will be apprehended, 90 percent of them will be captured and released because we have judicially mandated capture and release today. We have judges who have told us that we have got to capture people and then release them back out into our communities without going through the proper processes to truly vet asylum and truly vet what we are dealing with. The result of that brings tragic consequences.

The Gulf Cartel in Mexico will make $130 million this year--$130 million--trafficking human beings across the Rio Grande Valley sector. They are integrated with FARC. They are integrated with terrorist networks. They have operational control of our border along Texas, and we are just acting like there is nothing to see.

The Speaker of the House had us in session for less than 48 hours last week with a handful of show votes. What do we have this week? More votes just that are kind of plodding along, suspension votes.

We are not having a robust debate. This Chamber is virtually empty. We are not having a robust debate about our border and our national security and about the lives of American citizens and the lives of the migrants who seek to come here.

There are migrants today who are endangered and enslaved to the cartels. There were 54 people found in a stash house last Friday when I was with Border Patrol, in a house in Houston, who are now being held hostage by cartels to pay their money back because the cartels brought them into the United States.

How is that compassion? How is that somehow beneficial to migrants?

That is the truth. Those are the facts when we talk to our men and women in the Border Patrol.

Let's talk about the women, the young girls, who are abused on the path. I was on the Rio Grande River, and I spoke to a 10-year-old and an 11-year-old girl. My son Charlie is going to turn 10 this year. These girls were traveling with no parents. They want to have a better life.

I want to welcome folks to the United States of America, but you have got to have legal channels to make it work, both for our safety and the safety of the migrants who come here.

It is extraordinary that we are even having this debate. I cannot believe that this body, the people's House, is ignoring this great tragedy that is going on on our southwest border, with real human lives.

And it is not just the migrants. It is American citizens like Jared Vargas in San Antonio, Texas, which I represent and I am proud to represent. Jared lost his life last July at the hands of somebody here illegally. His beautiful mom, Lori, is still brokenhearted, having lost her wonderful son. His twin brother, who goes to college in Kerrville, in my district, lost his twin brother; and his sister lost her brother because an illegal immigrant who was here, who was

caught, released, caught, released, stopped by law enforcement, let go, 2 days later murdered Jared Vargas.

How can we allow this to happen in the greatest country and the most powerful nation the world has ever known? How can we allow American citizens to die at the hands of illegal immigrants who are here who shouldn't be here, who have broken our laws previously? How can we allow American citizens to die at the hands of the terrorists who are moving drugs into and out of our country through cartels, die because of dangerous fentanyl and dangerous heroin that are coming across our borders at the ports of entry and, yes, between the ports of entry, which the data fully backs up?

It is not just coming through the ports of entry. It is, in fact, coming across on loads across the Rio Grande River, which is not policed.

We have a duty to defend our border.

One last point: Fencing, walls work. In the Rio Grande Valley sector, in the eastern section next to the Gulf of Mexico, there is 35 miles of fencing. In the western section, in McAllen, there is far less fencing and far fewer roads. Ninety-four percent of the traffic comes through the McAllen portion of the Rio Grande Valley sector.

We have a duty to defend our borders. American citizens like Jared Vargas, who lost his life, and the Vargas family, who is now without their family member, and the United States of America deserve better. The migrants who seek to come here deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from North Carolina for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what is hard to respond to?

It is hard to respond to my constituents at home who are witnessing the theater of the absurd.

It is hard to respond to Laurie Vargas, a mother in San Antonio, who lost her son, Jared, last summer to somebody who was here illegally, who was captured and released, captured and released, stopped by law enforcement, and then murdered her son.

It is extremely hard to respond to our members of the Border Patrol, who go down to the river, the Rio Grande in Laredo, and are down there with no cell signal, have no radio, can't see the river through the cane, they are down there by themselves, they know the cartels have operational control of the border, they know their lives are threatened if they speak out about the cartels, they know that there are terrorists who are leading cartel organizations across the border in Nuevo Laredo, and we are doing nothing to give them what they need to defend the United States of America.

I can't go home to the people in Texas 21 and explain to them why we are here for 2 days having show votes and then leave on a Wednesday. Explain that. Explain to the people why we are going to leave this afternoon at 1:00 not securing the border.

It makes absolutely no sense to the American people when they watch what happens in this body, and they wonder how the people's House leaves them with an unsecured border and nothing more than show votes, like we are going to have today, for political theater.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Texas's longest tenured and most respected staffers, Mrs. Joyce Sibley of Austin. For 32 years, Joyce has served the United States Senate. During that time, Joyce earned a reputation as a problem solver who always went the extra mile for those she served.

Joyce's resume stands among the most impressive in modem Texas history. She began working in government in 1971 by answering phones for Senator John Tower's Austin office. She later went on to work for Governor Bill Clements, Governor George W. Bush, and the Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison.

There are countless stories demonstrating her willingness to go above and beyond for Texans facing difficult challenges at home and abroad. During my tenure as Chief of Staff for Senator Ted Cruz, I had the good fortune of witnessing Joyce's invaluable expertise. It is often difficult to deal with the bureaucracy of the Federal Government, but Joyce brought confidence and a tenacious attitude to our team, and made tedious work look easy.

Of all the people with whom I have worked in my career, none surpass Joyce with regard to her servant's heart, her grace, and her humility. She was the kind of colleague you could count on to support the Senator, myself, and all the staff. She called to offer support when you needed it--personally or professionally. She truly was one of the best in the business.

She will now have more time to do the things she loves. We happen to share a love of blues and outlaw country that is unique to Austin's storied music scene--from Stevie Ray and Jimmie Vaughan to James Cotton. I am certain retirement will be filled with many live shows in Austin, where I look forward to celebrating the next chapter in your life.

Again, I want to congratulate Joyce on her decades of service and extend my sincere, heartfelt thanks for the dedication and skill she has brought to the people of Texas. Without question, she will have a long-lasting impact on the State of Texas and Congressional staff for years to come.

Joyce is a blessing to all who know her and while I am sad to see her leave this post of service, I know the Lord has much more in store for that great heart of hers. Godspeed, my friend.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I rise today on the eve of the March for Life as a cancer survivor, as someone who appreciates every day that we are given from the good Lord above as a gift.

I want to recount a story from a couple of years ago that my wife and I shared in ``National Review Online''. What do you do when the doctor coldly asks whether you would like to terminate your child? Two years ago this month, this became very real to my wife and I and we wrote about it in the article in ``National Review''.

We received a call from one of our dearest friends. She was pregnant. She asked me if I would be the baby's godfather, but her words of joy were tempered. She then went on to explain a series of harrowing medical concerns, the most significant of which was that the baby might be missing a part of his brain, a part that connects the left and right hemispheres.

She was terrified and she couldn't ask questions quickly enough. Forty-eight excruciating hours later, the MRI was performed and it was inconclusive. She was told to come back again in 2 weeks for another ultrasound.

The next week, her obstetrician, a woman doctor, silently reviewed the file. Then she looked at our friend straight in the eye and asked her if she wanted to terminate the pregnancy.

Now, my friend explained that the doctor had asked her the question in the same tone that she might have used when she ordered a coffee at Starbucks. She didn't blink an eye. She asked the question in front of her two little boys. She asked without her husband there. She offered no explanation or comfort. It was cold.

The doctor told her she had to decide quickly because she was approaching the 22-week limit, which is as long as you can legally seek an abortion in Virginia.

Our friend's response was a source of pride for us. She told us she almost laughed and then politely responded that termination was not an option. She walked out of that doctor's office and never returned.

In a world where everything and everyone seems to be so sensitive about every word that is uttered, we have completely desensitized abortion. We use politically correct words. One is pro-choice. The pregnancy is terminated because no one wants to say that the baby was killed. But if you are ending an innocent life on purpose, I am not sure what other way to put it.

So how did it all turn out? Her ultrasound was completely normal at 24 weeks. Her baby was born. He is my godson. He is healthy. He came here and he saw his godfather get sworn into Congress.

Choose life. Life is not perfect. But each life is perfect.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record this op-ed in its entirety, which was published on January 26, 2017, in ``National Review Online'', coauthored by my wife, Carrah.

[From the National Review, Jan. 26, 2017]

A Mother's Love and the March That Matters

(By Chip Roy & Carrah Roy)

What do you do when the doctor coldly asks whether you'd

like to `terminate' your child?

For many people, January 2017 will be marked by the

inauguration of a president and a march on Washington the

following day. For us, every January is marked by two phone

calls we received in January 2015--and by a very different

march.

The ``Women's March on Washington'' has already been all-

consuming on social media. It was billed as an ``inclusive''

movement with the vision:

We stand together in solidarity with our partners and

children for the protection of our rights, our safety, our

health, and our families--recognizing that our vibrant and

diverse communities are the strength of our country.

Sounds so caring--until you learn that ``inclusive'' and

``diverse'' mean that if you are pro-life, you are not

welcome, and if you don't attend or join in this supposed

solidarity, you are ``anti-woman.'' Doesn't seem as

inclusive, does it?

In deed, it is wholly exclusive. In their zeal to shock and

to trumpet a convoluted notion of freedom to have their

bodies ``left alone,'' these marchers exclude the bodies of

the unborn. What about the rights of an unborn child? What

about the safety of an unborn child? What about the health of

an unborn child?

Two years ago this month, this became very real to us.

We received a call from one of our dearest friends. Then 32

and already mother to two healthy, wonderful boys, our friend

said, with an air of urgency, ``[My husband] and I wanted to

wait a little longer to ask, but something's come up and we

have to ask now. I am pregnant--and we want you to be the

baby's godfather.'' We were thrilled, but the excitement was

tempered by the strange introduction. Here's what she

explained to me.

She and her husband, having two boys already, couldn't wait

to find out whether they would add another boy to the crew or

instead start buying things that were pink. They excitedly

drove to the appointment for the baby's 20-week ultrasound to

find out. A few minutes into the sonogram, the ultrasound

tech excused herself from the room. Immediately, their hearts

sank. Something was .wrong. It was a long wait. Finally, the

radiologist came back into the room and moved the wand around

with a blank look on her face. Then, she told our friend to

get dressed and come into her office. She explained that the

baby might be missing a part of his brain, the part that

connects the left and right hemispheres.

She was terrified but couldn't ask questions fast enough.

Would the baby survive the pregnancy? Live outside the womb?

Were these minor developmental delays or major issues? She

and her husband were sent home without answers and told to

come back so they could perform an MRI of the baby's brain.

The technician thought that the baby might be lying in a

position that didn't allow the doctor to get a good view and

that the MRI could clear it up.

Forty-eight excruciating hours later, the MRI was

performed. It was inconclusive.

They did learn that the condition could range from minor

developmental delays to severe cognitive and life-threatening

issues, but they wouldn't know the specifics for their child

until the baby was born. They were told to come back again in

two weeks for another ultrasound.

None of us stopped praying those two weeks. For our friend

it was a constant conversation with God. She was scared, but

she said that she knew it would be okay. She knew the baby

would be okay. She ``just knew.'' She felt scared of the

unknown but also at peace, saying, ``God gave me this baby

for a reason.'' If the baby needed help, she would do

everything she could and God ``would help'' them. And she

would love that baby just like she loves her two boys.

She had a monthly check up with her ob-gyn the following

week. Her husband had to work, but she took their two boys

with her. They liked going to hear the baby's heartbeat and

the checkups were usually routine and quick. She went in to

the appointment expecting that her doctor would reassure her

and answer more questions than the radiologist had. The

doctor--a woman--silently reviewed the file. Then the doctor

looked our friend straight in the eye and asked her if she

wanted to terminate the pregnancy.

She called us right after that appointment, understandably

angry and terrified. Terminate? What?

She explained that the doctor had asked her the question in

the same tone she might have used when ordering coffee at

Starbucks. She didn't blink an eye. She asked it in front of

her two little boys. She asked without her husband there. She

offered no explanation or comfort. It was cold. The doctor

told her she had to decide quickly because she was

approaching 22 weeks (which is as long as you can legally

wait to have an abortion in Virginia).

Our friend's response was such a source of pride for us.

She told us ``she almost laughed and then politely responded

that `termination' was not an option.'' She walked out of

that doctor's office and never returned.

Yes, there may be some issues. She didn't have a perfect

ultrasound. But it was her

baby who, she told us, ``was growing inside of her, kicking,

loving music, moving when the boys spoke toward her belly,

doing somersaults when she ate ice cream.''

We all realized that God put our friend in this position

for a reason. She has a strong faith. She knew she could

handle it, because God was with her. She told us that the

baby ``would know love, would feel love.'' Facing her fear of

the unknown with faith and love strengthened her as a mother

and a woman. But what if it hadn't been our friend? What if

another woman had listened to that doctor, who made it feel

so easy and acceptable to just ``terminate'' and try again

for a ``better'' outcome.

We use politically correct words . . . The pregnancy is

``terminated.'' Because no one wants to say that she killed

her baby.

In a world where everything and everyone seems to be so

sensitive, we have completely desensitized abortion. We use

politically correct words. One is ``pro-choice.'' The

pregnancy is ``terminated.'' Because no one wants to say that

she kilted her baby. But if you are ending an innocent life

on purpose, we're not sure what other way to put it.

But sadly, even today, more than 3,000 abortions are

performed every day in the United States. That is more than 1

million per year. Since Roe v. Wade inserted unelected judges

into the question of the beginning of life, more than 56

million babies have died at the hands of abortionists--56

million. Just let that sink in.

So how did it all turn out? Her ultrasound was completely

normal at 24 weeks. They just couldn't get a good read at her

20-week appointment. Her baby was born in May of 2015 and is

completely healthy. It was a boy, by the way. None of us--but

particularly his loving and courageous mother--can imagine

life without him.

This week, there will be another march on Washington: the

one that truly matters. This one is to celebrate life, and

all are welcome, including the unborn and those who love

them.

Choose Life. Life is not perfect, but each life is perfect.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding.

Madam Speaker, as a proud Texan, I am proud to give my first remarks on the floor of the United States House of Representatives today on the important issue of border security, critical to my district and critical to the State of Texas and our Nation.

Hundreds of thousands of people seek to come to this country, both legally and illegally, each year. They are drawn to the hope of the greatest free society the world has ever known. But we are in danger of losing that which separates us from the other nations of the world, the rule of law. Nowhere is that more pronounced than the chaos and the lawlessness of our southern border.

Freedom cannot flourish in chaos. Prosperity cannot emerge from fear. Yet, we have failed to secure our Nation because Members on both sides of the aisle have buried their heads in the sand over the last several decades, talking instead of doing. Americans are weary of our opinions and ready to see us do the job we were sent here to do.

This isn't about numbers or statistics. It is about people. It is about Jared Vargas, a vibrant young college student studying computer science with dreams of working in the cybersecurity field. His life was cut tragically short when he was brutally murdered by an illegal alien in San Antonio last June.

Jared's mother, Lori; his twin brother; and his younger sister don't care if I personally believe fences would be more effective than drones, or vice versa. And they don't care if one of my colleagues believes that 2,028 homicide charges against illegal aliens in 2018 is not enough to justify a border wall. For them, one matters enough.

The Vargas family does care that Jared's murderer had been in ICE custody twice and had been arrested for a DWI and released just a month before he killed Jared.

This current debate before us has a face. It has a name. That name is Jared. And his family wants justice for Jared.

But it is also about the little girl who, today, will be exploited by drug cartels who know that sex trafficking can be more lucrative than trafficking drugs.

It is about the young woman in Central America who saves money and pays every last dime she has to someone who promises to take her to a better life in America, only to be forced into a shipping container. She wakes up in Greece to find that she has been sold into the sex trade, and there is no one around her who speaks her language.

According to Doctors Without Borders, roughly one-third of women making their way across the border are victims of sexual assault. I am old enough to remember, as a Senate lawyer, when Senator Tom Coburn spoke on the Senate floor in 2007 about rape trees. I find it unacceptable that today, a decade later, the border is littered with the clothes of new victims because we have failed to do anything as a body, as a Congress.

In my visits to the border, one thing is clear: Dangerous cartels are calling the shots. I was talking to a Border Patrol agent last summer. He said:

I am down here at night. I am by myself. I have no cell, no

radio. I can't see the river

through the thick cane. I can't drive along the river. And

the cartels have operational control of the border.

That is what we are sending our guys down on the river, in the Rio Grande, to do to defend this Nation.

So it is time for us to put partisanship aside and secure our border. Fences, cameras, radios, cell phones, more Border Patrol agents, additional immigration judges, cleared cane, navigable roads along the river, we need all these tools.

To be clear, that is what is in the President's plan. That is what we are fighting to get. To be clear again, fences are a vital and necessary part of that security.

It is absurd for anyone to argue that fences do not work, take your pick of an example throughout history, from the walls around medieval fortresses to the fencing around the White House and our military installations today.

Ask a tort lawyer whether leaving your pool open, monitored by drones, will save you from liability if a child falls in your pool.

The truth is, fences have worked since the dawn of time. Currently, we have 46 miles of reinforced fencing along the San Diego sector of the border. Before construction began in 1986, there were 630,000 arrests. Compare that to almost 32,000 arrests in 2016.

Fences work. Yet, 10 years ago, I heard members of the Senate Judiciary Committee argue that fences don't work because migrants then shifted from California to Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.

Only in Washington is that logic passable. Fences don't work because they worked? That may have been the first time, though it won't be the last, that I heard someone say fencing is a 1st or 3rd or 18th century solution for a 21st century problem.

But in El Paso, in Yuma, in Tucson, in Israel, fencing was put in place, and we have seen reductions of up to 90 percent or more in illegal crossings.

This body has repeatedly authorized foreign assistance to our allies to help them secure their borders. But, at the same time, the House is crippled with inaction at securing our own.

We have repeatedly authorized fencing for the United States of America, but we are here today trying to actually get it funded and get it built. It is time to stop posturing about things that everybody in America knows.

In Texas, let's stop talking. Let's go down to Brownsville. Let's start building the fence where we need it and work our way up the river.

To my colleague who was speaking early about, well, where is the fence going to go? If we face an obstacle, let's discuss it. If a rancher needs access to water, we consider leaving an opening, post a guard, put up a camera, and then continue moving up the river.

Let's work together for one simple goal. The United States of America should have operational control over its borders, not dangerous cartels.

Many on both sides of the aisle like to pretend that we shouldn't build a fence because it might be possible to go over or under it. Of course, that is possible, but that is not a reason not to build a fence.

The fundamental question is this: Are we more secure with agents and drones, or are we more secure with agents, drones, and fences?

This is not a partisan issue; it is a humanitarian crisis. It is time for us to stop bickering or hiding behind excuses and secure the border now.

It is time for America to reclaim operational control of its border, pay Federal workers who are doing their job, and make America secure again.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 23.