The Daily - A Republican Congressman From Texas Who Opposes the Wall

Episode Date: January 17, 2019

As the government shutdown approaches its fifth week, a few congressional Republicans are publicly breaking from the president in his push for a border wall. We spoke with one of them. Guest: Representative Will Hurd, Republican of Texas. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today, as the government shutdown approaches its fifth week, a small number of congressional Republicans are publicly breaking from the president in his campaign for a border wall. A conversation with one of them, Representative Will Hurd of Texas.

It's Thursday, January 17th. Hello? Congressman. Hello, is anybody there? Yes, hey, Congressman, it's Michael Barbaro from The Daily. How are you? Hey, Michael, I'm doing great Michael Barbaro from The Daily. How are you? Hey, Michael, I'm doing great. Thank you for spending some time with us this morning. I know it's early, so we appreciate it.

Early? Who's it early to? 10 o'clock? Well, we have long nights. At any rate, Congressman, I was surprised to learn that you are the only member of the House whose district is along the southern border who is a Republican. Why do you think that that is? It's a good question. I know that I represent the largest section of the border, almost half of the U.S.-Mexico border, 820 miles. It's a 71% Latino district. This is a district that prior to me getting into it flopped back and forth every cycle. And so I can only speak to my district and why I won. And part of it is because I represent everybody in that district, not just the folks that voted for me,

but the people that didn't vote for me and the folks that didn't vote. Well, tell me about the people who voted for you, because it sounds like this is a kind of a classic swing district. Who are your constituents beyond 70% Latino? Tell me about them. You know, everybody always asks, how does a Black dude represent a Latino district, right? And a Black Republican at that.

And look, I have San Antonio, the seventh largest city in the United States of America. Then in the middle part of my district, you have more cows than people. So agriculture is important. And then on the other end, I have El Paso. And along the border, you have communities where border trade is important, where border security is actually a public safety issue, and you have folks that have ties on both sides of the border. So that's a perspective that's hard to get if you live somewhere else in the country and have never been down to the border.

So would you say that people in your district, their views on the wall and the whole debate around the wall, views on the wall and the whole debate around the wall are less defined by politics and by political identity than by their experience of living on the border. I think that's right. So let's talk about a lot of adjectives have been used to try to describe this issue. Some want to say a crisis. When you say the word crisis, that means people don't want to leave their homes or they're afraid to walk outdoors. And that's not the case in many of the communities that I represent. El Paso is frequently one of the safest cities in America based on its size. And people always think about Juarez, which is on the other side.

And yes, in 2007, 2008, it was the murder capital of the world. And that's not necessarily the case now. And you weren't seeing that spill over onto the United States side. Yes, 400,000 people came across the border illegally last year in 2018. That's a decrease in 80% from 2000. However, 400,000 people coming into the country illegally is still a pretty high number. You know, and everybody getting focused on, is this a crisis? Is this not a crisis? This is a problem that has transcended multiple administrations. This is a problem that we can solve and get under control. And we need

to be defining what the actual problem is and the tools we should be using to stop it, right? That's where the focus should be. I have noticed that in the last few weeks, the president has moved away from talking about a crisis defined by caravans or murder or rape by people who have come to this country without documentation. And he's now talking about a humanitarian crisis involving migrants making these treacherous journeys to and across the border and people affected by drug trafficking. I wonder why you think that is. Well, you'll have to ask him that question. And ultimately, it is a perilous journey. Think about this.

If you are a parent and you think the only way for your child to have a future is to do this perilous trek to the United States, which would potentially cause you to have to spend time in, you know, in essence, a jail or a prison, right? And you think that's the only way for the future of your child, right? Imagine a scenario there. So we don't talk enough about how do we address the root causes that is causing illegal immigration. And that is violence and lack of economic opportunity as of right now, primarily in the Northern Triangle. That's El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. So these are

the areas that we should be focusing on, on addressing that root cause before it gets here. It sounds to me like the focus of the issues at the border has shifted in recent weeks to more closely resemble the problems that you actually see at the border. Do you think that that's a positive development in this conversation we're having? Whenever we're talking about real problems, then I think that's always a positive because then you can focus on the actual solution. I think everybody wants to see the amount of illegal drugs coming into our communities decrease. So $67 billion, that's what most of the Mexican cartels are making. And that's a conservative number. And I mean that with a little c, right? So you're not bringing in that kind of product into the country in bags in between

the ports of entry. You're bringing that in in bulk. And Coast Guard is an important tool in this fight against drugs. And they're only able to action 25% of the known drugs coming into our country, which means 75% of the intelligence we get on, there's a boat going from this point to this point that has drugs on it. We can't stop because Coast Guard doesn't have the people, they don't have the resources in order to stop known intelligence coming in here. So this is another problem that we should be focused on. And when we talk about how to secure the border, this is a critical piece. And just to be clear, you're saying a wall has little or nothing to do with giant shipments of drugs coming on boats or the testimony of drug traffickers

in the El Chapo trial saying nearly all of their trafficking happened through legal ports of entry. Exactly. Ports of entry is important. Technology is important. Making sure the men and women in Border Patrol, that their cell phones and push-to-talk radios work. People don't realize 2,000 miles is a pretty big area. And in some parts of the border, Border Patrol's response time is measured in hours to days. So if your response time is measured in hours to day, a wall is actually not a physical barrier. You need something that can detect a threat and track that threat until you're able to deploy your most important resource, the men and women in border patrol, to do that interdiction.

I would love to lay a fiber optic cable from sea to shining sea. It's either sensing tools that can be used off of a fiber optic cable. And then guess what? Some of the rural communities along the border that don't have access to really high-speed internet would be able to tap into, and you could allow kids and schools in the city of Presidio to have access to high-speed internet. So this would be an underground fiber-optic wall of sorts. It's one tool, right? A fiber-optic sensing can help you identify somebody coming across the border. I don't hear you saying wall, so I just want to be really clear. You don't think a wall is the solution here, as the president does?

Well, a wall from sea to shining sea is the most expensive and least effective way to do border security. A physical barrier in some places does make sense, whether it's urban to urban contact, right? But it's not along all 2,000 miles of the border. And there's probably only a handful of miles where something like that is needed.

It's interesting you're describing a wall across all of those miles, because I spoke a few days ago to a sheriff who works along the border in Arizona. And he told us that he supports the president's position on a wall because he doesn't really believe the president wants a wall

the entire length of the border, even though that's what the president has said over and over again. Do you hear other people taking that position? And perhaps this is your constituents as well. They continue to support the president because they don't think he's being literal when he's asking for the wall. So I think there are some people that believe he's not being literal. I think there are people that say he is being literal. I think there are people that say he is being literal. I think there are people that want the Great Wall of China, you know, on the southern border. So the fact that there is not precise language being used in what is the plan to secure our border, I think that is

what creates this political uncertainty. So you've outlined why you don't think a wall is a solution. Recently, you did something that very few Republicans have, which is you broke away from the president on the shutdown and you voted to reopen the government without funding the wall. Can you help me understand why you cast that vote? Let's reopen the government. We should not be negotiating on the backs of these men and women that are keeping us safe.

We talk a lot about the southern border, but I spent nine and a half years as an undercover officer in the CIA. I was a dude in the back alleys collecting intelligence on threats to our homeland. I've chased bad guys all over the world, stopped terrorists, nuclear weapons proliferators, drug trafficking organizations. And I've spent almost my entire adult life trying to defend this country. And we don't talk about our airports enough. And our men and women in TSA are an important piece to keeping us safe. Yet we're forcing them to work without being paid. That's the problem that I have. So I don't believe we should be using a shutdown

for political leverage. And that's why I'm going to continue to ensure that we open the government. And then let's talk through these problems. It's interesting. We have come to think at this moment in American political life that breaking from your own party

is among the hardest things to do in Washington. Have you gotten a lot of heat from within your own party for doing this? Or maybe less than we might think because Republicans no longer control the House, so it might not feel as potent. Look, I have a real simple philosophy. Agree when you agree, disagree when you disagree. My boss is not the president. My boss is not the speaker. My boss is not the minority leader.

My bosses are those 800,000 people that I represented and sent me up here. And so those are the people that I talk to and listen to. And so I focus on trying to be thoughtful and smart and articulate solutions. And that's what I'm continuing to do regardless of pressure that I may or may not get. And so I don't focus on that. You know, listening to you, Congressman, I have to say that you seem uniquely positioned to break through this stalemate as the only Republican on the border. Do you believe that you have a kind of obligation from your unusual position to help solve this? Well, that's why I've been trying

to solve this problem. That's why, you know, there's only one piece of bipartisan legislation that addresses border security, DACA, root causes in the Northern Triangle. There's only one piece of bipartisan legislation, and that was the USA Act that Pete Aguilar, a Democrat from California, and I had worked on. This is the elements of an actual solution. This is why I'm trying to educate my colleagues. This is why I've been on the Homeland Security Committee talking about this issue,

because I think we can achieve true border security and restart the government and make sure the men and women that are keeping us safe every single day get their paychecks. Do you think that your party is doing enough to bring you, given your unique circumstances, into the solution? Or are you kind of inherently being kept out of the core discussion because of your votes, because you've broken from the president and the party leadership? No, I'm not being kept out of any discussions. And I've made clear my opinions. And look, you know, there's a lot of talk about the Secure Fence Act. And that required, you know,

at a minimum of 700 miles of physical barrier. 650 miles of that has been built. All of the current leadership within the House majority on the Democratic side supported that legislation. So can you complete the Secure Fence Act, replace some of the miles that are already there with upgraded physical barrier? Then we need to have technology. This is the smart wall. You know, the fiber optic cable, the radar, LiDAR, high infrared cameras, things like that. Can we make sure that we have all the tools necessary within the ports of entry? And then, you know, the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for the Northern Triangle, you do those things. And I think that is the outline of a solution. So, have you spoken to the president about all of this, and especially this plan of yours?

As the only Republican on the border, that would feel like a very natural conversation for him to have and for you to have. I've had many conversations with all the key players on this topic about how we can potentially solve this problem. Does that include the president? I have not spoken directly to him, no. That is intriguing, given that you are the lone member of his party on the border, and he talks about the border a lot. You know, there's a lot of issues. And like I said, I'm pretty confident that all the key players that are involved in understanding this topic, you know, are aware of some of

the things that I've talked about. Mm-hmm. What you just described is a very clear vision for border security. But what is, in your mind, the actual way out of this to enact that, to get it moving forward? Because it can feel very hard to imagine when the president says wall or nothing, that any alternative plan has much of a chance, especially because Democrats

say absolutely no to the wall. So what's the way forward? The way forward is going to be, I think, rank and file members in Republicans and Democrats in both the House and the Senate coalescing around a plan or something that can be brought to the negotiators and say, this is what should be done. And that prevents the negotiators from looking like they have moved away from their negotiating positions. Do you think that will work? That's the only idea I have. And so we're going to continue to try to push that. So can I just ask you honestly, how you think this will play out given the reality in Washington,

the extreme positions and the utter lack of trust? Until one side or both sides come to the conclusion that they're not winning, right? That the winning means coming to a solution and reopening the government. And what that requires, I wish my crystal ball gave me that information. But I think that is going to be the political environment in which we have to be in to see some solutions. And why do you think it hasn't yet reached a pitch? So 75% of the government is open. So we are talking about a smaller percentage of the population than I think has been the case in other shutdowns. And so ultimately, is it outrage?

Is it people thinking it's crazy that Coast Guard officers go to food pantries in order to survive. We have cyber threats every single day. And I've been told about 60% of the folks dealing with cybersecurity within the Department of Homeland Security are on staff. That is concerning. So the second and third order effects of a shutdown are starting to seep in, and maybe that will be enough to get people to realize it's time to come to a solution. Just a final thought. What if everyone agreed to give the president the wall, but then worked to build all the other measures that you think are necessary to attain border security?

What is the wall? And that's ultimately what needs to be defined. And I think if that was defined with some level of clarity, and it can be done within the confines of the Secure Fence Act. I think you will see Democrats being willing to start having negotiations. Congressman, I really want to thank you for your time. I've learned a lot, and I'm grateful to have met you. Well, I appreciate you taking the time to talk about this and try to understand the details. And maybe the next time we do this, we do it along the border.

And I'll show you the stuff up close and personal. I will eagerly take up that offer. Awesome. Thank you, sir. The rest of the day. Bye-bye. Bye. We'll be right back.

We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know. The Islamic State is claiming responsibility for a suicide bombing in northern Syria on Wednesday that killed at least 15 people, including several U.S. soldiers who were patrolling the area. 15 people, including several U.S. soldiers who were patrolling the area. The bombers seemed to deliberately target a restaurant popular with U.S. soldiers just weeks after President Trump ordered the withdrawal of all U.S. troops in Syria because ISIS, he said, had been defeated there.

And… We would have the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the entire Congress of the United States House and Senate. On Wednesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked President Trump to postpone his State of the Union address

or deliver it in writing, citing security concerns since those who would protect the hundreds of officials at the event remain either furloughed or unpaid during the government shutdown. This requires hundreds of people working on the logistics and the security of it. Most of those people are either furloughed or victims of the shutdown, the president's shutdown. Victims of the shutdown, the president's shutdown.

So far, Trump is still scheduled to deliver the annual address inside the Capitol on January 29th. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.