The Daily Signal - #491: Reps. Dan Crenshaw, Mike Johnson Share How They Want to Tackle Border Crisis

Episode Date: June 25, 2019

Republican Study Committee chairman Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., and Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, join us to share their thoughts on immigration, socialism, bipartisanship and more.We also cover these stories on the podcast:•President Trump sends a sharp warning to Iran.•A British court overrules an earlier ruling requiring a mentally disabled woman to have an abortion.•Illinois becomes the eleventh state to legalize recreational use of marijuana.The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [e-mail]. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Wednesday, June 26. I'm Rachel Dahl Judas. And I'm Kate Tranko. Today we feature Rachel's exclusive interview with Republican representatives, Dan Crenshaw, and Mike Johnson. They talk about the border crisis, the Green New Deal, Medicare for all, and much more. By the way, if you're enjoying this podcast, please consider leaving a review or a five-star rating on iTunes and encourage others to subscribe. Now on to our top news. The Customs and Border Protection will soon be seeing. new leadership, as John Sanders, its acting commissioner, plans to resign in July.

Sanders' resignation came after it was announced that over 100 kids were moved back to a troubled Border Patrol station in Clint, Texas. A location where a group of lawyers who visited recently said hundreds of minor detainees had been housed for weeks without access to showers, clean clothing, or sufficient food, as the New York Times reported. Sanders had been the acting commissioner since President Trump chose former Customs and Border Patrol Commissioner Kevin McAleinen to be the acting Homeland Security Secretary. President Trump isn't seeking a cool down when it comes to relations between Iran and the U.S. He tweeted Tuesday, Iran leadership doesn't understand the words nice or compassion.

They never have. Sadly, the thing they do understand is strength and power, and the USA is by far the most powerful military force in the world. And any attack by Iran on anything American will be met with great and overwhelming force. In some areas, overwhelming will mean obliteration. No more, John Kerry and Obama. In an interview at the Hill, Trump reiterated he doesn't need Congress's approval for any military action regarding Iran.

I like the idea of keeping Congress abreast, but I wouldn't have to do that. Sure. Bansi Pelosi actually said you must have congressional approval. So you disagree with her on that? I disagree. I think most people seem to disagree, but I do like keeping them. they have ideas that intelligent people, they'll come up with some thoughts.

I actually learned a couple of things the other day when we had our meeting with Congress, which were, I think, helpful to me. But I do like keeping them abreast, but I don't have to do it legally. President Trump has tapped First Lady Melania Trump's spokeswoman, Stephanie Grisham, as the next White House press secretary to replace Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Melania Trump made the announcement about Grisham, who has been her communications director for the past two years on Twitter saying, quote, Potus and I can think of no better person to serve the administration in our country.

Excited to have Stephanie working for both sides of the White House. President Trump isn't a fan of reparations. In a new interview with the Hill, Trump was asked about whether he backed reparations for those who are descendants of slaves. The president responded, it's been a very interesting debate, and I don't see it happening, no. Good news for the United Kingdom. an appeals court has overturned a previous ruling that required a mentally disabled woman who is 22 weeks pregnant to have an abortion that she didn't want. Her mother, according to reports, is willing to raise the child.

I am acutely conscious of the fact that for the state to order a woman to have a termination where it appears that she doesn't want it is an immense intrusion, said Justice Natalie Levin of England's Court of Protection in her ruling last week, according to Catholic News Agency. The mother of the pregnant woman, who has renamed, unnamed, challenged the judge's ruling, and three court of appeals judges overturned it, according to the New York Times, which cited the mother's lawyer John McKendrick as the source. Illinois became Tuesday the 11th state making it legal to use marijuana recreationally. Governor J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat, also said it would affect criminal records, saying, quote, this legislation will clear the cannabis. related records of nonviolent offenders through an efficient combination of automatic expungement,

of gubernatorial pardon, and individual court action. Today, we're giving hundreds of thousands of people the chance at a better life. Next up, we'll have Rachel's interview with representatives Dan Crenshaw and Mike Johnson. If you're tired of high taxes, fewer health care choices, and bigger and bigger government, it's time to partner with the most impactful conservative organization in America. We're the Heritage Foundation, and we're committed to solving the issues America faces. Together, we'll fight back against the rising tide of homegrown socialism, and we'll fight for conservative solutions that are making families more free and more prosperous, but we can't do it without you. Please join us at heritage.org. Hello, everyone, and welcome

to the third episode of the Republican Study Committee's Elephants of Room. I have the great pleasure of moderating a discussion today with Congressman Mike Johnson from Louisiana and Congressman Dan Crenshaw from Texas. Thank you both so much for being with us today. Happy to be here. Thanks for having us. Well, we'd love for you all to follow along. So if you would like to submit questions, feel free to submit questions on Twitter with the hashtag Ask the Elephants. You can also watch live on Facebook at the Republican Study Committee Facebook page. So let's just dive right in. The House and Senate will be voting later this week on competing funding packages to give humanitarian aid at the border. Democrats have been opposed in this. Why is this so controversial to them?

It's a very good question. It shouldn't be controversial. We have gone from a humanitarian and national security crisis to what I like to refer to now as an outright catastrophe. That's what we have. I mean, if you look at the data, it's irrefutable. Everybody sees the heart-wrenching situations with families and unaccompanied minors who come across the border. The apprehensions of the border through customs and border control is almost twice what it was last year. The first six months of this year, we've apprehended twice as, or as many as we did in all of last year combined. So we have to address it. Congress needs to take this action. And unfortunately, there's some in this town who want to use it as a political football. And it's just, it's very unfortunate.

They want to keep this issue alive. They're going to continue to want to keep it alive. And they keep it alive by being against any kind of enforcement or security measures. So unfortunately, the reality is we don't have the same goals anymore. You can compromise on something when you have the same end goal, but you have very different ways to get there, you know, and there's plenty of issues you can point to like that. But immigration is unfortunately not one of them because they want less enforcement. And unfortunately, I think we're seeing that the potential of poison pills being put into these spending bills that do just that.

Okay, we'll give more humanitarian aid at the border, but you have to give it. us something. And we're going to say, why would we need to give you anything? That's insane. Why don't we all just agree at least on that, at least on improving the conditions at the holding facilities, but they don't actually want people there in the first place because they don't want enforcement? That's exactly right. So we've reached an impasse. And, you know, the president's tried to exert his word and his will and this thing. But every time he requests additional funding, there's a further backlash from the Democrat side. So we find ourselves in this very unfortunate and really immoral situation and we've got to address it. And Congressman Johnson, you just introduced legislation

that would address fraud and abuse in our asylum laws. Can you tell us a little bit about that? That's one of the root problems of our immigration crisis that we have is the abuse of our asylum program. Look, we're a very benevolent country. We're the most benevolent country in the world and we serve as a place of refuge for people who are legitimately being persecuted in their hometown. They're in, they have a credible fear of their own life or their family's life. For example, if they're on the run from a drug cartel and their Central American nation or what have you. But what's happened is over the last several years is the standard for that to qualify for asylum in our country has been watered down. And so we have a bill that will fix that.

It will increase the standard of credible fear to make sure that those who claim it are actually the persons who should be availing themselves of that protection. And it's not just being abused by people who just want to come here for a better opportunity. That is illegal immigration. abuse of our asylum program, and it really hurts the most the people that actually need it. Congressman Crenshaw, you come from a border state. What specifically in your state in this immigration crisis we're seeing, how have you seen people in your state impacted? Yeah, you mean for people from Louisiana? Well, I'm from Texas in a border state. He had to go there. No, it's a massive impact. It's funny, we're having a hearing this week in the budget committee.

And the name of the hearing is the benefits of immigration. not the cost of immigration, but the benefits. And we're talking past each other because Democrats tend to conflate illegal immigration with legal immigration. There are benefits to legal immigration. We like legal immigration. There's actually quite a few economic benefits to that. And they're generally good people. They're very likely to start a new business.

That's all great. But they lump all that into the same category. And they're not the same category. There's actual costs when you have massive inflows of illegal immigrants, the best majority of which do not come with skills, the best majority of which, are more, are costing more to our economy and our society than the taxes they might pay, which are usually in the form of just sales tax. That's about it. So only give you one example. In my district, there's a hospital that is designated for

low-income Americans, okay? It uses special funding. It is for people without insurance. 25% of the money they use goes to illegal immigrants. And this is one of those places where they can actually measure this because it's a low-income hospital, meaning you have to prove that you're a low income, therefore we're looking at your documentation when you show up. That's a lot of money. That should be going to our low income citizens, and it's not. So, I mean, the costs are great. Our Border Patrol agents are overwhelmed. It's amazing they even get up in the morning and go to work because they're not there to secure the border anymore. They're there to process massive amounts of people who are abusing the asylum system. And that is the double down on that. That is the most

important aspect of fixing this is fixing the asylum loopholes. That is the draw. That is the draw. that brings people in and you fix some very simple things on that you if you create a system where once you arrive you are held and your and your cases adjudicated even by the laws we have now for for the standards of asylum if we if we just did that instead of catch and release I think we would have a massive reversal of this problem and it would happen very quickly because the word would get out there's no doubt about that and it's true that when those cases are adjudicated in the current system it takes two years sometimes to get

hearing. So when the people are released out into the country, wherever they go, many of them never return for that hearing. There's no incentive to come back. The DHS secretary said 90% are not showing up. From those three countries, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, 90% aren't showing up. So the word's gotten out amongst other people in those nations, go to America. As long as you get over the border, you're home free because they won't deport you. They won't find you. And so that has had a very perverse incentive for people to come here. And I saw, I think one of the polling organizations, Maybe it was Gallup. They did a poll or some estimate, and they figured out there are tens of millions of people in Central America alone who want to make that journey to come here. Because why wouldn't you, right? And look, we're the most benevolent people in the world, but we cannot take care of everyone. We've got to have some limits, and we have to have the rule of law, or else we'll lose our own sovereignty and what makes us the great nation that we are.

That's right. Texas is Governor Greg Abbott. He just announced that Texas is going to be dedicating about a billion dollars to help security. the border. Why is Texas having to do Congress's job essentially right now? Because we're one of the last states that has governed well and using common sense and basic rule of law, I suppose. And, you know, we also spend our money very carefully, which means we often have extra for emergencies like this. But no, it is not correct. There's not that many things I like the federal government doing, but international border security is definitely one of them. It's a very clear federal government.

role and responsibility. And it is sad that Texas taxpayers have to pay for that. And it frustrates us, but it is something we have to do. And for all the reasons we've just stated. Well, immigration is a hot topic. We're going to come back to it in a little bit before we end the show. But another hot topic right now on the hearts and minds of our viewers, I know your constituents of socialism. We've seen a rise in interest among it, among lawmakers in Congress and elsewhere in human progress,

which is a project of the Cato Institute. They recently released the survey that found that 42% of millennials would rather live in a socialist country. Why are statistics like these so concerning and how can we respond? It's the lack of information. I mean, the people that are responding to those polls

don't understand. What they're responding to is a question that's presented something like, would you like the government to provide you with free health care and a place to live in a car and a phone? I mean, you know, most people say, sure, that sounds great.

They don't talk to them about the ultimate extreme costs that is associated with that, not just in terms of dollars, but in terms of the sacrifice of your individual liberties and your freedoms. If you turn everything over to state ownership, that's ultimately what happens. And it is the antithesis of everything that we are in America and everything we have been. The reason we are the exceptional greatest nation in the world is because our system and our principles are the opposite of everything that those people are promising right now. we just have to say that and articulate it in a way that millennials and all Americans understand it, that it resonates with it, that they understand what it is that is being suggested here

and the terrible price that would have to be paid for those kinds of regimes. Yeah, and it's really hard to nail them down when you're trying to discuss socialism with somebody because they'll jump from definition to definition. I think the well-meaning millennials who like socialism are probably referring to Nordic countries. And so it's just up to us to say, that's not socialism. By many markers, they have a more free market economy. They have a flatter tax system than we do, like a far flatter tax system than we do. They just have very, very big government welfare programs.

How do they pay for those programs? They tax the middle class. They tax the middle class exponentially higher than we do. And so that's a better, that would be a more honest question to ask them, not do you like socialism, but do you want to raise your own taxes by 10 or 20 basis points, but you also get these things for it? do you want that? And most will say, well, that's actually quite a big cost. I'm not so sure about that. And it changes the form of the discussion rather greatly. But it is education. So there's other polls, too, that the same people who say they prefer socialism also answer that they want less government

intervention in their lives. So that's, that that gives us a good, a good connection with them, actually. As long as we can redefine socialism to them and kind of embrace them with open arms in a teaching moment as opposed to saying how stupid they are for liking socialism, I think we can bridge that gap because I think the younger generation is highly libertarian at heart. If you really start to delve down into issues with them, they tend to be more libertarian, and I think we've got to take advantage of that as Republicans. And we have great success when you're with a crowd like that, that's sort of their philosophy, and you say you explain why those two pursuits are mutually exclusive.

You cannot be for individual freedom and liberty. and be for socialism, you can't have both. And so once you break that down, it's easy to make them kind of see the light on it. And we have to explain to them why that is. Right. Okay, so, you know, if we want to give you something, we have to infringe on the rights of others to give you that.

And you have to be okay with that. You have to be okay with taking. And we have to explain to them too. Like socialism totally misreads human nature, right? And an individual freedom and basically, I would say capitalism does not, a free market does not. What socialism forgets is that you need a series of incentives to make the economy work properly.

You need those incentives. You need the forces of the market to tell you how much something costs, how much is needed, how much isn't needed. It relies on two things that can't be true. The fact that you don't need human incentive and the fact that you can actually plan an economy from a centralized location, that you can plan very complex institutions from a centralized place, which is just fundamentally not true. And also that human nature is essentially good. And I mean, remember all this is rooted in Marxism and the original philosophers who proposed all this, they thought of socialism as a means to the end of the communist utopia.

This was just one step in the whole progression. Obviously, we know that that's an impossible thing. And it just takes a while to break this down. And a town hall format is helpful for that. But we need other ways to be able to explain these things so that people understand what it is. We're actually having a discussion. in a debate about. Exactly.

And going off of that, as a millennial, Congressman Crenshaw, with the connection to millennials, what are some ways that you've seen just viable ways to go in and reach young people who are sort of attracted by this shiny object of socialism, but, you know, a way to reach them where we can draw them in and not let them be led astray. Yeah. Well, the question we're always going to be asking, it's platforms on social media, it's going to the college campuses. and, you know, I work with Turning Point USA a lot on that

because they can create that infrastructure that I need to get into the college campus and then have a lot of people there and answer the hard questions and reach out to the groups that call themselves socialist groups, have them come answer questions, ask questions, and let's just hammer it out and get that message across. And I think it's just important not to demonize them right away because oftentimes they don't mean actual socialism. All right, and that's important to note as we engage in that debate.

And these opportunities are so important because if you look at the data, you realize the reason that, for example, the Republican Party is attracting less and less more highly educated voters is because they spend so much time in the academy. And the universities are run at the faculty level, the administration level, usually by liberals almost entirely, and sometimes by radical liberals, right? Socialists and others. And so these students are being indoctrinated instead of education. So these voices and these opportunities are so critically important just so that they're exposed to the other side.

And if we abandon those forums, then we effectively yield that whole marketplace of ideas to one side. And that does not serve the interest of the country, short term or long term. So these are initiatives that we have to dig into much more of. Congressman Johnson, on the last episode of Elephants in the room, we talked a lot about the Green New Deal, why that's such concerning policy. for listeners who aren't as familiar with it, socialism, we were talking about that. How is this bill and this legislation being pushed by so many Democrats in Congress? Why is it so dangerous to our way of America in life?

Well, because it would be the full implementation of this radical leftist dream for the country, and it's completely impossible to implement. Not only do, we've all heard the punchlines about how they were proposing that we'd get rid of planes and trains and automobiles and cows, for that matter. but we had a lunch discussion today, and one of my colleagues said in the Republican conference, we did the math. It would actually take nearly the GDP of the entire planet

to implement the Green New Deal in America. I mean, you know, it's staggering numbers, and it's completely unworkable. And we talked about on the episode, just one example, they want to get rid of fossil-based fuels and oil and gas entirely in a 10-year window to be replaced by wind and solar, which is highly unreliable,

which would drive the cost of, every household up on average $600, I think it was a month, to do it, to have the amount of wind that you would need to replace our frostor fuel reliance, you would need a landmass the size of the state of California. And ironically, one of the highest contributors to carbon emissions is concrete, the production of concrete. To produce the amount of concrete it would take, to put all those windmills in, would dramatically increase the exact problem that they say they're trying to correct.

So it just goes on and on and on. They're going to use the sun to build the wind. That's right. Yeah, they're going to figure that out. Oh, and all the might have three birds that they're going to kill with the windmills, too. I mean, the whole thing, it would be a joke, and we would laugh about it and we have, except that. They have over 90 co-sponsors on that legislation, that resolution in the House. It's a very serious thing, and I think even some of our colleagues, well-intended as they may be,

they don't even understand what it is they're advocating with this thing. So our job is to educate people and to put the details out there. Our podcast was a great way to do that. We're looking for more and more avenues to do it. And we have a counter resolution that we're introducing in the House to just draw more attention to this. Because we want Americans to understand what it is they're advocating for. It's impossible, and it would be a great hardship for every American, every single person in this country. Well, in terms of shiny objects of socialism and legislation, another thing we're seeing being pushed by Democrats as Medicare for all.

Bernie Seners and others are wanting to push that through. In The Washington Post, interestingly enough, they had a piece published over the weekend with the headline, quote, Voters have big healthcare worries, but not ones Democrats are talking about. And there's actually a Democrat being quoted in this piece of voter who said, I'm really not interested in Medicare for all. That's not the answer. Why is that not the answer? Well, there's a lot of reasons it's not the answer.

Look, Americans are concerned because our health care costs are skyrocketing. Our choices are dwindling. You have more professionals leaving that profession, healthcare providers because of all the complexity of the regulatory environment and everything else. That is a ballooning crisis still. The American people want us to go in, members of Congress, and fix this problem. They want to make sure that preexisting conditions are covered. They want to make sure that they can have choices, that they can have health savings accounts,

they can have mobility so that everybody gets coverage. They can actually afford that is reliable. Medicare for all goes in the opposite direction on all those things because you put the government in charge of everything. They want to get rid of your private insurance, the ability to have an employer provided plan. Americans love those plans. They favor those over government-run health care. And there's so many problems with it that I think that some of these presidential candidates on the Democrats side who say there for that, I'm not even sure they actually, some of them believe it themselves. They just feel like it's a talking point for the election cycle. It would be

almost impossible to implement. They like these aspirational ideas, whether it's a Greener Deal or Medicare for all. And I think they couldn't pass a polygraph when it comes to stating that it's actually workable, but they don't care. And this is the problem with even moderate Democrats. Their rhetoric gives way to the far left. And so I don't think it's even right for us to give them that space and distinguish between the moderate left and the far left. They've become the same thing because they're saying the same things, even though, and I think the moderate Democrats just rationalize it and they tell themselves, it's just aspirational. It'll just get us moving in that direction. Well, it's irresponsible. It's irresponsible talk. And you're a thing about Medicare for

you have to cut prices to doctors and hospitals, meaning you have to cut supply, meaning you have to cut quality of care. And there's this notion that it all becomes simpler and easier, which is a really nonsensical notion. Just because you remove the private insurer from the equation doesn't mean there's now not a government bureaucrat there to then triage the case and decide what form of care is proper to use for that patient. And if you increase the prices, well, then you've increased the price tag of Medicare

for all drastically. you have to be honest with the American people about what that will cost them. And again, it always goes back to if you want more government services, you also have to tell people what they're going to cost. And Democrats like to gleefully leave that part out. This one has a prize tag of $32 trillion. That's the lowest end. That's the low end.

Just pocket change. Yeah, pocket change. So what it means to the average American, we have to be able to say, look, this means much higher taxes for less quality of care, less access to care, long waiting lines and all the problems they have in these other countries. By way of comparison, we have the best system. We just have to enhance it and make sure it works better and that we keep the cost under control. Thank you both for your insights on those issues.

Congressman Crenshaw, your first bill just recently passed the House, and this bill delays inefficiencies in the Department of Homeland Security. Can you tell us a little bit more about it and what it was like to have your first bill pass? Sure. It feels great. You know, it's good to get some bipartisan support for a little, even small wins. You know, what this bill does is it's an acquisition review board bill. puts that into law at DHS so that they have to be much, they have to make much better use of taxpayer money as they put, as they put out these contracts and big acquisitions for DHS. So it's a,

it's a win, but it's a win nonetheless for taxpayers and what we do with taxpayer money. And Congressman Johnson, you're working in bipartisan too in the Honor and Civility Caucus. Can you tell us a little bit about what that caucus is about and how you're trying to forward conservative policy issues even with unlikely allies? Yeah, you know, Dan's been a great example of this with the whole Saturday Night Live thing that brought him to national prominence. We love how he handled that, and I called him shortly thereafter and said that's exactly what we've been trying to accomplish. So the honor and civility caucus came about because my class, which is the one before Dan's, we came in January 2017. We had 55 members in our class and at our first freshman retreat.

We sat around at the end of that three-day event, and Democrat and a Republican, everybody gave their parting comments. And I struck me that everybody said, gosh, I hate that. the tone of our politics and I wish we could do it differently. So I was just inspired enough to go back to the office and draft this one-page document called the commitment to civility. And it's just a simple statement of principles that says our opposition on the floor is not our enemy, right? Our enemy are rogue nations and terrorists trying to take us down. That's our fellow American. We had to treat one another with some basic level of dignity and respect. We can disagree in an agreeable manner. We need to be able to work things out, work towards consensus on these important issues that face the

country. And to my delight, I think all but two members that are 55 member class signed on, Republican and Democrat. We then brought it Congresswide after Steve Scalese's tragic shooting that next June. And to date, we have over 150 members of Congress signed on of this commitment to civility. And I mean, it's leaders and luminaries from Kevin McCarthy, the top Republican, all the way over to John Lewis, legendary civil rights leader on the Democrat side. So some influencers and people that have that influence and that we can stick by our convictions and never compromise our core principles, but still treat one another with dignity and respect. By the way, we're supposed to be set in an example for the next generation and our own children, right?

So we started the, Charlie Christ and I started in a bipartisan fashion, the Honor and Civility Caucus in December of 2017, and we've been building towards that idea of just having people, we can have impassioned arguments and debates on the policy, on the issues, but that at the end of the day, we can slap each other on the back and say, hey, man, no hard feelings. That's the way it used to work in this Congress, and we need to get back to that. Well, thank you so much for sharing that perspective. Congressman Crenshaw and Congressman Johnson, we have been talking about socialism, Green New Deal, immigration. What other policies that we have not hit on that you guys are working towards that you would like to highlight? Well, some of the things we're working on actually have to do with health care and environmental response to the Green New Deal.

I mean, especially if you're my age, if you're under 40 for millennial, you really care about the environment. We do have to have a response to that. And I think the Republican, the response is going to look a lot like this. It's going to be implementing carbon capture technology. It's going to be talking about how to export more natural gas to dirty coal-burning countries. It's going to be talking about new forms of nuclear, miniaturized nuclear, making that easier to permit. These things would actually reduce emissions. And our talking point is this.

You can implement the Green New Deal at great costs, and you can tackle 15 percent of the global emissions problem. 15% because that's what America actually produces. Or you can look at 100% of the problem. When we'll get 100% of the problem, then you've got to look at the technology that is exportable and creates reliable clean energy. Natural gas would do that. So that's one thing. On the healthcare side, I'm looking at direct primary care. This is a very cool system that only about 3% of primary care physicians use right now. It's free market-based. It is a direct relationship between the doctor and the patient. They basically have a subscription service.

You pay $85 a month, and that's your doctor. We can look at ways to actually universalize that. That should be our answer to health care. And I think that will be especially promising because the cost will be vastly lower. It will have trickle-down effects that improve the entire health care market, gives you that preventive care, and gives people back that relationship between the patient and the doctor. I think this is a very cool thing that we're working on.

Those are big issues. And you know in the Republican Study Committee, we have task forces working in a number of different areas among those issues, including the American Worker Task Force, which is looking at all aspects of workforce development and how we provide for that need going forward the next 10 or 20 or 50 years in this country. We have to plan those things now to work on it. Then we've got ideas on infrastructure and all these big issues that the American people, it's top of mind for them. And it's important for us, as Dan's articulating here, to see. say, conservatives, Republicans are for these things. I mean, you know, environmental policy, one of our core principles is stewardship, as being a good steward of the earth that God's given us to take care of, right? We have ideas on that, and we need to not be boxed into a corner. We need to be thinking, you know, ahead and going out and projecting these ideas, presenting them, putting them on the table for debate and discussion. And we're grateful that we have smart members working on all this, and we're doing it individually and collectively. And in the weeks and months ahead,

you'll be hearing a lot more about all that. So looking back on immigration before we wrap up, you've been to the border, you've seen the situation there, live in Texas from a border state. What are the top three things you would say border patrol agents would need to help them do their job better,

given the influx of all the numbers we're seeing? Well, they need barriers where that makes sense. I mean, if you're not going to put a 2,000-mile wall, that was actually never the plan, but Democrats love to repeat that as the plan. And because what that allows border patrol to do is say, okay, we've got the barrier over there. We can focus our efforts right here. You know, they need more agents because they're being, they're being asked to do more overtime.

I mean, they're being exhausted. They need obviously more resources at the processing centers, which are run by them. And they need more, I think, civilian personnel to outfit those processing centers. Right now, border patrol agents are there, you know, doing laundry, getting food, things like that. That's not a border patrol agent job. Border Patrol agent should be looking around with their binoculars around the border, looking for people trying to get away. Not there processing people who are not trying to get away. What they really need, and the third thing is was the most important thing by far.

We've already hit it, which is asylum reform. They want to feel like when they process people, they're not just going to be released. I mean, if you're a border patrol agent, I honestly don't know how you get up and do this every day. Because they know that all the work they're doing doesn't matter at all. These people are just getting released and probably not coming back to their court hearing, which is vastly unfair. In addition, all those things, what they need more than all of that is the support of the U.S. Congress. And we've got to get beyond the partisan bickering, using this as a political football issue going into the election cycle.

These are real people's lives. This is a serious catastrophe that we're facing out. It's beyond a humanitarian crisis. It is a catastrophe. And we have to address it. And it takes political will to do that. that's what they need more than anything. Well, Congressman Crenshaw, Congressman Johnson,

thank you so much for joining us today. We'll see you next time. And that'll do it for today's episode. Thanks for listening to The Daily Signal podcast, brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation. Please be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or SoundCloud, and please leave us a review or a rating on iTunes

to give us any feedback. We'll see you again tomorrow. You've been listening to the Daily Signal podcast, Executive produced by Kate Trinco and Daniel Davis. Sound design by Michael Gooden, Lauren Evans, and Thalia Rampersad. For more information, visit DailySignal.com.