Glenn Grothman

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6651) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 603 West 3rd Street in Necedah, Wisconsin, as the ``Sergeant Kenneth E. Murphy Post Office Building''.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this measure.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany), my good friend.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my House colleagues to support this bill honoring a great American war hero and great Wisconsinite. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on a controversy affecting the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee this past week. Wisconsin at Milwaukee, like many universities in America, has been the site of bizarre protests in favor of Hamas. Milwaukee is the second largest university in the State of Wisconsin. While the response to these protests by universities around the country can best be described as pathetic, Milwaukee is one of the worst. Israel has suffered an attack almost unprecedented in its brutality in which Hamas and its supporters reveled in the horrific deaths of civilians, including young children. Israel's response can best be described as very measured, particularly given that Hamas has decided to hide among hospitals and other civilian locations. Certainly, Israel's response was more measured than our response during World War II when you look at what was done to Tokyo and Dresden, so by comparison, there is no comparison. Hamas could end this war tomorrow if they would surrender, show Israel its tunnels and its arms, and surrender the hostages. They are entirely responsible for allowing this war to go on. The university's statement to the protesters appears to blame Israel. Even before the October attacks, it should have been obvious who wears the white hats here. Israel is a modern, prosperous, and tolerant country in which even Muslims can build mosques and are allowed to vote. In Gaza, from childhood on, children are raised to hate Jews. People from Thailand, the Philippines, and Latin America--non-Jewish people--flow to Israel to live and work there. Hamas' leadership, meanwhile, takes their foreign aid from Europe and lives in Qatar and Turkiye. The descendants of Yasser Arafat himself don't want to live in Gaza. They live in Paris. Even with this, UWM feels they should side with Hamas. The university has tried recently to amend their position, but they still display a moral equivalence in which they can't bring themselves to say there is a right and a wrong, a good and an evil, in this conflict. Their bias shows further in that their first impulse was to meet only with representatives of the protesters and not with the broader community, this despite the fact that public opinion polls consistently show the American public as a whole, including presumably the taxpayers who fund the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, have no problem figuring out who is good and who is evil. The university should apologize for developing their own foreign policy and spend some time with the broader community to learn what the vast majority of Americans and Wisconsinites think.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the House and talk about four issues that, per usual, I think have not been adequately covered by our mainstream press corps. The first issue I would like to deal with is their treatment in their public statements by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, which is the second biggest university in the State of Wisconsin, towards what is going on in Israel. They, I think in part because of some Palestinian sympathizers who set up tents on their campus, felt compelled to make an issue on what American foreign policy or at least UWM's foreign policy is. To my great concern and great embarrassment, they have decided to, in their statement, condemn Israel. Also, in addition, to condemning Israel, they called on Israel to begin a cease-fire in the Middle East. If you read their statement, Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that there is some equivalence between Israel and what could be called Palestine, or even treating Palestine in a superior position there. This is completely unacceptable, and it is, sadly, something that is seen too much on university campuses. The thing that makes this uniquely horrible is it is coming from the administration. It is bad enough if run-of-the-mill faculty members of universities around the country can't figure out the obvious difference between right and wrong here. It is particularly disturbing that the administration itself has a problem distinguishing that. Israel was attacked, and over 1,000 people were killed in the most bloodthirsty and callous way possible. Israel responded to this declaration of war by trying to, as carefully as possible, get rid of the Hamas fighters who had tried to destroy them and recapture hostages that at least are claimed to be hidden probably in tunnels beneath the Gaza community. There is a huge difference between the countries. Israel is a modern Western, humane country. It is a country with lots of mosques that has a very diverse population. Mr. Speaker, you will notice when the over 1,000 people were murdered and taken hostage, people from Thailand and the Phillipines were in Israel. They are trying to get people from Ecuador in Israel. People are coming from all around the globe for an opportunity to work in Israel. Meanwhile, Gaza, like too many, sadly, Third World countries, is a corrupt state in which, despite receiving billions of dollars from foreign countries, primarily in Europe, is still stuck in the muck. It is a country that has no synagogues in it. There is not the appreciation for freedom of religion in Gaza like there is in Israel. The people who run Gaza have been corrupt. The leaders have sometimes been in Qatar and sometimes been in Turkiye. The ancestors of Yasser Arafat, who ran Palestine during much of my life, wound up in Paris. The people who get the money here don't even stay in Gaza. It is a country, by the way, that would be well-run and would be prosperous. It is located on the Mediterranean Sea. It was formerly a place where people came to recreate and was a tourist spot. It was a place that used to have greenhouses that were left behind by the Jews when they had to go back to Israel and were destroyed by the people in Palestine. In any event, we have to weigh in as a country and wake up as far as what is going on in our universities. Why do we have universities? Some of the American public will overwhelmingly figure out whom they should have sympathy for. Nonetheless, in the University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee, the administration clearly had more sympathy with Hamas than they did with Israel, which is something of great concern. Another thing of great concern is when they had to deal with the apparent crisis of having tents in their university, they felt compelled to negotiate with the squeaky people who sympathized with the barbaric Hamas military and didn't even talk to people who have had a vested interest and apparently didn't talk to people who had a vested interest in looking out for Israel, which, after all, is fighting for its existence. If Israel would immediately pull out of Gaza, what would happen? It would allow the Hamas group to replenish their arms and to regroup and to someday attack Israel again 5 years, 10 years, 15 years down the line. So, in any event, I realize the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee is not as well-known academically as Harvard or MIT or Northwestern or some of these other universities that embarrass themselves, but I hope the public is paying attention to what is going on in the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. I hope the taxpayers are paying attention, and I hope the chancellor who has made some admission that what he did was maybe not right, would take a bolder stance and say that his university is not going to weigh in or give any sympathy towards Hamas, particularly so soon after they so barbarically killed over 1,000 Israelis. My second issue today is that within the last few weeks, we received, one more time, the monthly totals on the number of migrants who came across our southern border. One more time, it is true almost as far back as you can find, the numbers for April were a substantial increase over last April and a huge increase over the final April under Donald Trump. During the final April under Donald Trump, April 2020, about 6,000 people crossed the border. Last April about 178,000 people crossed the border. We are now at 204,000. So it has been a huge increase, from 178,000 to 204,000 people. This is obviously unacceptable. That increase is understated because what President Biden has done to hold down the numbers is he gives parole to people who are coming here from Cuba and Haiti, which probably would add another 30,000 people to this list, except for it is not included on the numbers released. So the American public and the American press should keep paying attention to what is going on at the border. The biggest problem in our country, if our country goes under, our great country, I think is we anticipate a free press, but to have a free press and have it count for something, it has to be a competent press. When the numbers were released a couple weeks ago, I think it was within the last week, on the number of people who crossed the border from April, it should have been a banner headline in every newspaper in this country. Every 10 o'clock news station around the country should have led with the story that we had another all-time record for an April as far as people coming across the southern border--instead, nothing. They should have pointed out that, one more time, we have just shy of 6,000 unaccompanied minors. There was a time when the press corps cared a little bit about breaking apart families. Now, when a 16- or 15-year-old shows up at the southern border, what does our administration do? Nothing. For all we know, that child is never going to see his parents again. Who knows what his motive is for showing up at the border, but nothing is done. Our administration is settling in where we expect if a young person crosses the border without their parents, we will find them a sponsor, and they will stay here. Quite frankly, what our administration ought to be doing is, even if a child shows up at the border with one parent--in this country, in a divorce case, we will frequently try to keep both parents in touch with the child. So, at the southern border, even if a child shows up with one parent, they ought to be turned around unless we can document where the other parent is and that they are signing off on this situation. Again, I strongly encourage the press corps to pay more attention to the border. By the way, I want to make one more statement with regard to the situation with Israel. There are people who are horrified--and it is horrific--when people die in this war. The war could be ended by Hamas at any time. At any time, they could say they surrender, here are their arms, here are where you are going to find the tunnels, here are where the hostages are held. The war would be over tomorrow. People do die in the explosions and bombings that take place there. I think that there should be a little more attention paid by the protesters before they condemn Israel to see how this country reacted when we felt it was necessary to bomb population centers when war was declared on the United States during World War II. I suggest sympathizers with Hamas look a little bit at the Dresden firebombings and the bombings in Tokyo. That was before we got to the nuclear bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even with traditional bombs in Dresden and Tokyo, you will find, I think, more horrific things happened than anything that is happening near Hamas. Not to mention, the Israelis had been incredibly careful--much more careful than we were in Tokyo and Dresden--about warning civilians and trying to keep them out of harm's way. If anybody in this body wants more sympathy or wants to condemn Israel, I suggest they look at how we handled the situation when we were bombing Japan and Germany toward the end of World War II--by the way, at a time when the conclusion of the war was, to a certain extent, already determined. The third issue that I believe has not been adequately addressed in the paper--and when I get back on the weekends, I try to talk to people about it; they have no clue--is the fact that we have recently begun collecting information regarding Middle Eastern people and people from North Africa for a variety of purposes. I think people believe that by keeping track of these people, we will eventually give them the benefits of affirmative action-type programs or diversity sort of programs. Prior to this, which was only approved in the last few weeks, we gave potential preferences to Hispanic Americans, African Americans, Native Americans, Asians--quite frankly, we give preferences whether you are American or not, just Asians who are here--and Pacific Islanders. The Biden administration, the most divisive administration in this country's history, felt that wasn't enough. I think even without showing a need, they have decided to add Middle Eastern and North African people to the mix. If you look at a map of the world, right now, Pakistanis already have potential preference, but that ends at the Pakistan-Iran border. What they have done is taken anybody who lives between the Pakistan- Iran border over to the Atlantic Ocean, over to Morocco, and said they have the potential for preferences. My guess is it would mean that, right now, if you come here and open a business, and your ancestry is from these countries, you would, therefore, for example, get preferences in government contracting. You may get preferences for the purpose of government hiring. You may get preferences for government bidding. In any event, I think there should have been a lot of discussion in the news media before we added another huge bloc of people who, as a practical matter, were going to get preferences over the native-born. Making this decision even more bizarre, I think the two rationales for affirmative action--neither of which I agree with, by the way--were either because something bad happened to people in this country maybe 100 years ago or that this group maybe statistically was not doing as well when measured by economic metrics. Here, people from the Middle East and North Africa largely have not immigrated to this country until the last 30 or 40 years, so you couldn't say that there has been historical discrimination here. Not only that, at least with regard to people from Iran, they are doing much better than the native-born. If people from Iran who are doing a great job in this country and adding a lot to the United States are making more money than the native-born, why would the government go out of its way to say they are going to get preferences for government contracting? Even more bizarre, like all preferences under these programs, is they don't care how wealthy you are. I can be here. We will say I am from Morocco. If I inherited $10 million from my parents, I still would be helped or given a preference because of my ethnicity, despite the fact that I am wildly wealthy. It doesn't really make any sense. You self-identify, so you could have somebody who is three quarters Irish and one quarter Moroccan, and they would be able to identify as North African and get preferences. The biggest problem is that it continues the Biden policy of trying to create division in Americans. They want people to view themselves forever as not just an American, as we did when I was a child, but for forever as: I am Hispanic American. I am an Asian American. I am picked on. This is a way to, I believe, destroy America. I think that is why the Biden administration is going down this path. I do think, coming back to the mainstream media, we should ask ourselves why I have a hard time finding anybody back in my district who is aware that we have recently given preferences to this whole new body of people, which is a significant policy change. If we had a competent press corps in this country, it is something everybody would be aware of, and we would have had a public discussion about. The final topic, which I don't think has been discussed enough, is the goal to have two-thirds of our vehicles be electric vehicles by 2032. I recently bought a car, a Ford Escape, and it occurs to me now that it is not impossible that this will be the final normal car I will ever own. There are a lot of things that can be said about electric cars, but almost all of them are bad. My major concern--though there are others, as well--is that they are more expensive. When I talk to my insurance agent, he tells me the cost of auto insurance with an electric car could easily be up more than 50 percent. There are other sources who don't say it will be that high, but I think everybody would agree it will be at least a 20 or 30 percent increase in the cost of auto insurance. This, at a time, where due to the excessive spending of the Biden administration, the cost of housing is through the roof and the cost of food is through the roof. Well, guess what? The cost of a car is about to go up. I am told the cost of a new pickup could go up $20,000 as we switch to electric cars. The cost of insurance is going up. In addition to that, we have the problems that our infrastructure is not even remotely ready for electric vehicles and the problems you are going to have in which you are not able to drive as many miles. I happen to be from Wisconsin, where the huge problem will be trying to get these things charged when it is 10 degrees below outside. In any event, it is something for this body to pay attention to and to warn our constituents about so they are aware that as they set aside money for a new car--I think it is a smart thing to set aside money so you don't go into debt--you are going to have to set aside extra money if you plan on buying a new car more than 8 years from now. It is just one more cost that is going to make it more difficult for young Americans to join the middle class and prepare for the American Dream. In summary, I mentioned the four issues I wish the press would pay attention to. In the Wisconsin area, the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee came out with a ridiculous press release, which they have tried to modify, but nowhere near enough, in which they imply that Israel has to do something as far as ending the war in the Middle East, not, apparently, Hamas, the brutal people who killed many Israelis a little over half a year ago now. The second issue to look at is that, one more time, we have a record number of people coming here for a month, a record number of people coming across the border in April, at a time, by the way, when we are hitting in 4-year increments records of people being sworn in as immigrants legally. It is not like nobody is coming in here, but I think the American public ought to be appalled that, one more time, in April 2024, we hit an all-time record for people coming here in April. The third issue almost entirely unreported in the mainstream media is the fact that we apparently are going to give preferences to people from North Africa, Libya, Algeria, whatever, over to the Middle East, Syria, Iran, as far as government contracting and probably government employment. I don't know if it is something we can undo if we get a different President, but it is certainly very divisive. With it comes the bureaucracy that will forever tell people from North Africa and the Middle East that they should identify not just as American but a Middle Eastern American or a North African American. Finally, I hope the press, as the clock winds down to 2032, warns Americans what they are going to have to expect as far as driving a new electric vehicle. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I think one more time today it is important to update the Chamber as far as what is going on with the biggest crisis in America today. That is, of course, the virtual invasion across our southern border. We recently had published an estimate of the number of people who have crossed the southern border in April, the most recent month available. That number is about 204,000. April is usually a low month, but per usual, it appears as though we hit the all-time record number of people coming here in April. A year ago, it was about 178,000, and a year before that, about 160,000. If you go back to the final year that President Trump was President, it was about 6,000. We have gone from about 6,000 people, which is apparently doable, to about 205,000. During that time, President Biden, through executive orders, has changed the policy and is also allowing about 30,000 people here as parolees from countries such as Haiti, Venezuela, Cuba. So, that number of 204,000 is really probably understated by about 30,000. Our country continues to struggle with this. It is very expensive, though that is not the biggest problem, be it schools, be it medical care. Even in my district when I talk to people who try to put together free clinics used to get Medicaid payments, that sort of thing, one of them told me even a majority of people they are having to take care of--in essence, charity--are people who some would describe as illegal immigrants. I assume that the number of illegal immigrants who are unaccompanied minors continues to be a concern. We have about 6,000 of the 205,000 unaccompanied minors. We heard testimony about this recently, but we still do not know exactly where all these folks are. We don't know if they are living with a so-called relative, whether we are consistently giving DNA tests to see whether it really is a relative. We know The New York Times published articles that guessed that there are tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors not accounted for. It would be very easy to solve this problem. You reinstitute the stay in Mexico policy. You get parole. By the way, with parole, you automatically get what we refer to as welfare benefits as soon as you come here. You get rid of these programs and this drive to change America would change almost overnight. We can never forget that Barack Obama, living in the greatest country in the world, the United States, during his term felt that one of his goals would be to fundamentally change America. When you change the people in America, how they are brought up, how they think about things, you will fundamentally change America, the greatest country in the history of the world. The only reason you continue to let, as far as I can see, about a quarter million people coming here every month is because you do want to change it and want it to be different. So, I call upon President Biden to return to the stay in Mexico policy. I think primarily by doing that, you could get that quarter of million figure back down around 20,000 or 10,000 almost overnight. Again, the takeaway for this body and the American public should be, and we should never get bored of saying it, it appears, one more time in April, we hit the all-time high for an April of the number of people crossing into our Nation. What I thought was the biggest crisis in the country when I became a Congressman--now I guess I have to say it is second to the border--is the continued assault on marriage and the breakdown of the family. When I talk to people in my district, they know something is wrong. In some ways, America is different than the America they knew in the 1990s, the 1970s, the 1960s. You ask them what the change is, and they frequently say the number one change is the breakdown of the American family, the end of the old-fashioned mother and father and children at home as we slowly increase the number of children who are born without a father in the household. Of course, this is a problem in two ways. It is a problem for the children by every metric. They would be better off if they had mom and dad at home. It is also a problem for the men in society, as usually men get their self-worth out of supporting their family. We have more and more families in which, as an immigrant in my district tells me, in America, or some communities, the woman marries the government. Because we have a situation in which we are encouraging the woman to marry the government, we have a situation in which we no longer have what is for most men their most important function in life, and that is supporting their wife and supporting their children. I want to point out, by the way, that this is not a coincidence. When I talk to people around my district and say: Why do you think the family is breaking down? Maybe they shrug their shoulders and say: America is less religious or something. They have to realize there are people all along who want the breakdown of the family. That is their goal. In 1848, Karl Marx, who is still read and still respected in some circles, wrote about the need to abolish the family in ``The Communist Manifesto.'' He did not want children to be raised by parents. He wanted the government to assume that role. I think it is not a coincidence that in the 1960s at the time of great subsidy of fatherless homes was also a high tide for feminism. Kate Millett, a very important feminist, that I think some young people don't know, said that destroying the American family was necessary to bring about the leftwing cultural revolution. I think today our children are sometimes taught that the feminist movement was a positive. We can't forget during their power of the sixties their goal was to destroy the American family. Remember a few years ago, at a time when so many Congressmen in this institution would show up at places where Black Lives Matter was having a rally or carrying signs, that at that time, before it was taken down out of embarrassment, they said that they were calling upon the end of the Western prescribed nuclear family. Let's not forget that--despite the fact that on their website Black Lives Matter was calling for the end of the nuclear family--dozens, perhaps hundreds of people in this body, showed up at places showing support for Black Lives Matter, as well as the chief executives of our largest corporations frequently giving money to Black Lives Matter because, apparently, they thought it was the trendy thing the way America was going. Last month, in another bit of evidence that the hard left likes to believe the nuclear family is outdated, there was a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision dealing with adoption laws. This wasn't the reason for the decision; the decision wound up being unanimous. Justice Jill Karofsky of the Wisconsin Supreme Court--and in Wisconsin our supreme court justices are not partisan elections, but everybody knows who the Democrat is and who the Republican is. The relatively new Democrat Justice Jill Karofsky writes: ``The notion that marriage serves as the foundation of society is at best outdated, and at worst misogynistic.'' Think about that. In a State like Wisconsin where frequently Republicans win statewide, we have U.S. Senator Ron Johnson here, but a woman got elected to the Wisconsin State Supreme Court and here she declares that: ``The notion that marriage serves as the foundation of society is at best outdated, and at worst misogynistic'' letting the cat out of the bag that the goal of the left is to destroy the American family. Now, how is President Biden responding to this in his proposed budget? There are many programs out there which are made available, as long as there is not a breadwinner in the family, particularly as long as there is not a man in the family, which I think they are really aiming at, then those programs kick in. Some of these programs, it appears to me, are increased in this budget, which, in other words, further pushes for financial reasons for getting the men out of the household. President Biden tries to increase more low-income housing frequently available to one-parent families, not to married couples. The earned income tax credit is a horrible program which was begun or actually pushed by a Republican Jack Kemp and is another program which discourages marriage. SNAP increases discourage marriage. Things like Pell grants are a program that is much easier to take advantage of, college scholarships, if you don't have a two-parent family at home. It is very disappointing that President Biden has decided to put all this money into programs designed to assist primarily fatherless homes, but we have to stand up as a Congress and say, no, we are no longer going to push one lifestyle over another. It would be a good thing if we went back to a time when the government was not putting their thumb on the scale as to what type of family you have. I hope that my Republican colleagues in the Appropriations Committee, when they see the increase in these programs, make sure that they don't come about, but, in fact, do the opposite, that they turn around and begin to work our way back to the eighties, the seventies, the sixties, the fifties where we did not punish parents for getting married. On the Pell grant thing I want to recount an anecdote I have talked about before. I have spoken about this topic for over 20 years now, and I was once speaking to a group of primarily senior citizens. It was during the Tea Party thing. They were older people, and I went through all the programs that you lost if you married a guy with an income. There was a young gal working at that time. Most of the people who are most familiar with the Tea Party movement know a lot of people there were older, but there was a young gal. I asked her what she thought about my speech and all the benefits out there to discourage people from getting married. She said that, you know, me and my husband, we got married before I had a child, but none of my friends got married, and they get free college. I realized even then that the 24-, 25-year-olds, they had it figured out. Sadly, they already realized that the goal of the American Government was to discourage marriage and do what they can to give programs based upon the idea of not having a man in the family. My hope is we begin to work our way back to a time where the two- parent family--there are wonderful parents raising children in all sorts of circumstances, but the government should no longer create situations in which there are incentives to keep the man out of the household. We had some votes recently with regard to American aid to Ukraine, and I believe that once we have gone down the path we have gone down, we cannot allow Ukraine to collapse. That being said, it bothers me that to this day the Biden administration does not talk about trying to end this war. We have two countries that are actually very closely related. In my district, when you run across someone that is Russian, they very frequently have a spouse from Ukraine or the other way around. It seems to me a real tragedy that a huge number of people, tens of thousands of people of both countries are dying because of that war. Ukraine has the second lowest birth rate in the world. It is always a tragedy when people die, but to have a country in which so many young people are dying is truly a tragedy. They have the same problem in Russia, a birth rate that is too low. Not only is the birth rate too low, but they also have a huge immigration problem. I know in this country having been down at the southern border, it is not unusual to have Russians come in there. I know a few people in my district, including a young couple with children that I am sure Russia would love to have, but they left Russia to come here. That was before the war started. The goal of both Mr. Zelenskyy and Mr. Putin ought to be to try to get more young people to populate their rather large countries, not to have this war going on. I think they both must realize this if they really want what is best for the future of their countries. I would hope that President Biden, in addition to asking for more munitions for the war would find some country, be it Israel, be it Turkiye, whatever country, to try to negotiate an end to this war. It is such a tragedy to see tens of thousands of young people dying on both sides when from what I can see the biggest problem that both countries have is a lack of young people in the first place. I would ask President Biden to spend a little time on that. When I have met in the past with his advisers or his Cabinet on this issue, they really just seem dumbfounded when I ask them about when the war is going to end. It is like they haven't even considered it. It is something we should consider. It is also bad geopolitically for the United States. We saw earlier this week meetings between Red China and Russia. I know going back to President Nixon we did not want close ties between Russia and China, and we have been very careful to make sure that hasn't happened. However, you leave it to President Biden, and those countries have closer ties, as well as closer ties with Iran, another country that we don't like to necessarily see prosper or become part of an alliance against the United States. My third request for this body is that we try to prod the Biden administration in looking for an end to this war, so these two great historical countries do not continue to lose their younger population. To go over one more time, we have to have Americans still be aware that we are hitting records of people coming across the southern border. We have to remind people at home that this breakdown of the family did not just happen; it happened because this Congress continues to dole out money, virtually conditioned upon not having an old-fashioned, nuclear family, and the Biden administration is trying to throw gas on the fire with this budget. Finally, we hope Members of this body will prod the Biden administration towards looking for peace in Eastern Europe. Madam Speaker, as I wrap up, I hope the body proceeds as I would wish, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will make reference to a couple documents before I discuss the bill. First of all, our Pledge of Allegiance, which we say every day, we pledge allegiance to the Republic for which we stand, right, the flag and the Republic for which we stand. Benjamin Franklin, after our Constitution was ratified, he talked about giving us a Republic if we can keep it, and I think people should analyze those two little quotes and wonder why there were references to the Republic in both of them. In any event, it kind of bugs me when people around here don't understand that. Now, back to the bill at hand. I thank the gentleman from Arizona for introducing this bill. I think it is fairly obvious that when we take a Census, there are certain questions you expect to appear on the Census, right? One thing they want to know is if you are a permanent citizen here or whether you are not a citizen. There is a difference between the two. There is a reason why we swear certain people in as citizens. There is a reason why we treat citizens differently than other people. I think it is absolutely bizarre that to this point, we have been sending out Census forms and not asking the first question that you would figure would pop into your head: Are you a citizen? It is kind of embarrassing it has not happened up to this point. We have another problem in that there are some States declaring themselves sanctuary States or some sanctuary cities in which they seem to be encouraging people to come here who really shouldn't be in the country at all under current law. In any event, I think this is a great bill. First of all, we should, in apportioning congressional seats, take into account people who are citizens, not people who are noncitizens, many of which I assume are going to return to the country they came from. Secondly, we expect on the form--the first thing I look at, they put things on, their race. Sometimes in the surveys they put on, do you own a TV or that sort of thing.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona again for giving me 2 minutes.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will get this done in less than 5 minutes. As has been pointed out, anybody around here a while knows that frequently when a bill passes we include requirements that an agency provide reports. Another way for a Congressman to pass a bill is just to pass a freestanding bill that requires another report. Obviously, these reports aren't cheap. There is a great deal of hours spent as the agencies compile the reports. It is time to have a look at these reports and see how many are necessary and how many we can do away with. The President's most recent budget request identified 53 reports that were outdated or duplicative. Some examples: Department of Commerce report on business licensing activities in Iraq. This report was signed into law in 2003 during the start of the Iraq war. As our presence there diminished, the need for regular reporting on Iraq-bound business licenses has outlived its uselessness. There is the Department of Labor report on a community college and career training grant. This is another report that is outdated. The authorization of the appropriations has expired, and no funds have been appropriated for this program since 2014; nevertheless, the requirement for the report lives on. There is the annual FTC report on the market concentration of the ethanol industry. The FTC has submitted the report every year since 2005, but each and every year the ethanol market has not been overly concentrated, entry into the market is easy, and the present circumstances do not justify a presumption that a single ethanol producer could set prices. In other words, the usefulness of the report is no longer in existence. The Eliminate Useless Reports Act simply requires each agency to identify and recommend eliminating, modifying, or reducing the frequency of duplicative reports. Recommendations from agencies will be considered by the relevant committees so they can take appropriate legislative steps. This bill would increase the efficiency of identifying outdated or duplicative reports. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to co-lead the House version in a nice bipartisan effort with my Oversight Subcommittee colleague, Congressman Robert Garcia from California. I am also thankful for the bipartisan Senate cosponsors to this bill, Senators Ossoff and Lankford. I urge adoption of Senate bill S. 2073, an important bipartisan step toward improving the efficiency of the Federal Government.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of question as to why President Biden--or a lot of people in my district wonder why President Biden continues to allow over a quarter million people in this country month after month after month. One of the speculations is that by letting people in here, eventually Congress will make them citizens, or their children or grandchildren become citizens, and they will change the nature of America. America is, of course, supposed to be a country built from moral and religious people and a freedom-loving people, people who do not want a big government, people who want to vote for limited government. It was of great concern that this morning I read an article about what is going on in North Carolina where they found people who are here, not citizens, voting already. This is not surprising, I suppose. In the first place, they give a lot of these people driver's licenses, and they give them other forms of identification. It is not surprising that some would slip through the cracks and vote before they had a chance to be educated on the limited government that is supposed to be the hallmark of the United States of America. I call on this body to crack down on people who are voting in our elections who are not yet legal citizens.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, one of the topics going around America today and around this institution is: What is wrong with DEI? I bring attention to an article in The Washington Times earlier this week in which they pointed out that America's colleges and universities are sometimes having voluntary separate graduation ceremonies depending upon race or sex. The only purpose for this is to put it into people's heads that forever they should be divisive and they are not 100 percent American, but they should always consider themselves Hispanic American or Asian American or what have you. We see the same thing in America's large corporations, where our grossly overpaid CEOs are hiring these people to divide people once they go out in the working world. I call upon the regents, the State legislators, and the boards of directors to take action and get rid of this occupation in their midst, the sole purpose of which is to permanently divide Americans.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to look at three major issues. Sometimes with the minor day-to-day issues one forgets to analyze the major issues that I think are going to determine the fate of our country. In the last week, one more time, we got the results on the number of people crossing the southern border. While the results keep pouring in month after month, it is, in my opinion, and I think in most people's opinion, the most significant issue that Congress has to address. In March of 2024, and these, of course, all are estimates, we believe 220,000 people crossed the southern border and stayed in the United States. This has something in common with every other month this year, and it goes up and down depending on the time of year; one more time, we hit an all-time record of the number of people coming into this country by that month. In March of 2024, it was 220,000. In March of 2023, it was 130,000. In March of 2022, it was 166,000. In the final year of the prior administration, it was 11,000. One more time, we see the increase from 11,000 people coming here in a month to 220,000 people coming here in a month. We recently had a hearing on the border in a subcommittee related to the Oversight and Accountability Committee, and on that committee, the sheriff, Sheriff Waybourn, pointed out that right now about 25 percent of the Venezuelan prison population dropped by 25 percent. This is consistent with concerns raised by the Border Patrol that in addition to just plain taking people we can't afford to take, other countries are dumping their undesirables into this country. Does President Biden care that the number of people in Venezuelan prisons has dropped by 25 percent? That by itself should be a banner headline. The next thing to look at in addition to that drop is an anecdote from Sheriff Waybourn from Texas. He points out that someone asked a member of the cartels: Do they care about the fentanyl coming into this country and all the people who are dying? His quote was that they were okay as long as the fentanyl was killing Americans. Now, think about that, Mr. Speaker. This is consistent with what we think the worst possible motive for bringing fentanyl into this country is. They want to destroy the United States. China itself is playing a role in the amount of fentanyl coming in this country. The young people of this country may feel they are not involved in a war. They never enlisted in the Army, and they never enlisted in the Navy. Be that as it may, like it or not, you are involved in a war. As a matter of fact, more people are dying in the war that you have signed up for than in any of the wars that our armed services have fought in, about 108,000 people a year. They are dying in a war because the Mexican drug cartels and foreign countries that produce the fentanyl do not wish the U.S. well. They apparently like to see young Americans die, and young Americans have to realize that there are people gunning for them. We talked about those 110,000 people. That is about twice the number of people every year who die in the war on drugs compared to the number of people who died in Vietnam. Think about that, Mr. Speaker. I am old enough to remember Vietnam. People were dying all the time. Headlines said that people are dying in Vietnam. Twice as many people die every year as died in 12 years in Vietnam. It is just unbelievable. Now, there are some people who get confused and think, well, we just have to take these people coming here illegally because we are, otherwise, cruel and not allowing enough people into the country. Here is something else that we ought to be talking about a little bit more. The number of people who come into this country or are sworn in as legal citizens goes up and down from year to year. First of all, the last year available, a total of 969,000 new people were sworn in as immigrants in the United States. If you break it down in 4-year increments--things go up and down--at least back to the year 1910, there has never been a 4-year period when so many people from other countries were sworn in, in the United States. There is no reason to feel guilty if we turn these people around because, right now, a record number are coming here. In that 4-year increment, there are a little bit over 800,000 people every year being sworn in. It is kind of interesting. If we go back and look at the 1960s, which I remember well, normally you were around 110,000 to 120,000. Therefore, we have gone up in the 1960s to swearing in about 110,000 new Americans, and now we are well over 800,000. That is before we add in new people who are becoming citizens by birthright citizenship. This is a new thing that barely existed in the 1960s or 1970s, but in which you may have mothers fly over here from China, have the baby in San Diego, and fly back, and that is another citizen, as well. We are kind of changing America more quickly, in my opinion, than at any other time in our history. In summary, when we view the border crisis, we are one more time at an all-time record for March. We are not being callous or cruel because we are at all-time records in the number of people who are coming here legally, as well. We are allowing over 100,000 Americans to die every year because of drug poisoning, and at least there is anecdotal evidence that the countries or the people bringing the fentanyl here want Americans to die. They have declared war on America, and their attitude is: The more Americans who die, the better. There is also evidence that foreign countries are letting people out of their jails and into the United States, taking advantage of our weak and uncaring President, who apparently does not consider it a priority that over 100,000 people die and apparently doesn't see a problem with having other countries emptying their jails into the United States. The border is the number one problem facing this country right now, and this body has no business taking up any other issues until the border is dealt with. Now, one of my colleagues from Texas decided to address the situation in Israel, and I think there is a lack of a narrative being talked about there as well that ought to be addressed at this time. People, such as my colleague, like to tear down Israel, say they have done something wrong, say they must stop fighting, and kind of imply all the way around it is not that nice or a good country. As a matter of fact, if there is one country Israel is probably more like than any other, it is the United States of America. One way we can see it is like the United States of America is that people from all over the country want to come there. Indeed, I was recently at a mosque in my district, and they, with pride, pointed out that their sect of Islam had recently built a mosque in Israel, of all the places in the world that you would want to go. There are many people who, with the whole world to go to, are trying to get into Israel. When you read about the attacks last October, you may remember that some of the people who died were from Thailand, and some of the hostages taken were from Thailand. You might wonder: I didn't know there were so many Jewish people from Thailand. Actually, the reason people are going there from Thailand is because there is so much opportunity there and so much freedom there that, if you wanted to get a job anywhere in the world, people from Thailand or other places in Asia have decided to come a significant way around the world to work in Israel. There were newspaper articles--we don't know what has become of it-- but tens of thousands of people from Ecuador apparently are thinking about coming halfway around the world and work in Israel. Why don't we ever hear about that? There was a time a while back in which Israel began to embark on a, perhaps, two-state solution--something they regretted. In any event, at the time they did it, maps were drawn up so that people could move from one part or the other. Presumably Arabs would want to move to areas controlled by Arabs and Jews would want to move to areas controlled by Israel. To their surprise, the Arabs who were living in Israel proper did not want to move. They would have rather lived in the new country or the new lines. They would have rather lived in Jewish Israel than in a new Arab State. Isn't that interesting? Nevertheless, all we get is criticism about Israel. However, when push came to shove and you see where people want to live, people everywhere--be it in Asia, be it in South America, or be it in and around Israel--want to live in Israel and want to live in Israel more than a new country. You look at it and say: Why aren't things better in Gaza? Has Israel done something wrong? In fact, Gaza has been a corrupt country. Foreign aid which flows into Gaza, particularly from Europe, winds up going to the leaders of Hamas, who may be living in Qatar and may be living in Turkiye and may be living in France. Indeed, many of you know the name Yasser Arafat, who for many years was the voice of the Arabs in Israel. When he died with all the money that he got--I don't know why he got it all, obviously taking money, foreign aid from around the world--his ancestors got out of Gaza. They weren't going to spend money there. They got out of Israel. They are living in Paris, France, right now, another Western country, rather than living in the Arab parts of Israel. Therefore, when people say Israel must call for a cease-fire or stop fighting, in fact, Israel is a very desirable country. They have every right to protect their country from horrible people who try to cut off the heads of little children. If anybody should surrender, it is Hamas who should surrender. They at any time, I am sure, could come out of their tunnels and say: We surrender. We are going to escort the Israeli Army through these tunnels so we see exactly what was here. The war would end. Any killing would end. Instead, people tell Israel they should stop fighting, and I think I know the reason for that. If you look at a parent and they have a 10- year-old child and a 4-year-old child fighting in the back seat of the car, which child do the parents address? They address the 10-year-old child because that is the older child and the more likely one to understand what is right or wrong. I kind of think, when I see these protesters outside of this building every day when we walk by them, that purport to care about the people of Gaza, they ask us to tell the Israelis to stop fighting. They don't have demonstrations to tell Hamas to stop fighting. I think that is because they know, deep down inside, they want to treat Hamas like children and don't expect them to wake up and realize that their behavior is causing some civilians, innocent civilians, to be killed. In any event, to summarize, everybody should remember: People from all around the world are trying to go to Israel, not just Jewish people, but people from Ecuador and people from Thailand. There are mosques of people from Islam who are apparently happy to live in Israel. You do not see Jewish temples in Gaza because that is not a country that naturally wants peace or is willing to live with people other than--or largely other Arabs. In any event, I will call for Hamas to stop their fighting. If they care about their people, just step out of your tunnels and say: Here we are, Israel Army. That will be the end of a war in which, sadly, too many civilians have died. Now, the third critical issue that we should be addressing right now, and we have not talked about enough, is what I will call the war on the American family. I think it is probably the biggest issue facing America today. The war on the American family started in earnest with the Great Society programs in the 1960s. The Great Society programs were programs in which material things were given to families, not always, but usually families without a man in the house. Sadly, there are ideologies which want to get rid of families in which you have a man in the house, families which are self-supporting. The type of programs which are, not always, but usually available to households without a husband or a father around, are many. The big ones are the nutrition programs; very generous housing programs; healthcare programs; education programs, such as Pell grants; other cash programs, like the earned income tax credit. All of these programs require that you not work too hard or make too much money in order to get these programs. All of these programs have in common that, if there is a man in the house making a relatively decent wage, that family is not considered in poverty, and they will not be eligible for their free low-income housing or free food or earned income tax credit, which can result in a check of 10 or $15,000. You are not eligible for special cash benefits that go to parents with disabled children. All the way across the board, we seem to be encouraging the breakdown of the family. Now, you may say: Oh, Glenn, family is like mom and apple pie. Everybody wants families. However, that is not true. If you look at Karl Marx and his ilk, they believe the key to destroying the West, including the United States, was getting rid of the American family. More recently around here, we had the Black Lives Matter group. I realize not everybody who had a sign in their yard agreed with this, but the founders of the group did. They wanted to get rid of what they referred to as ``the Western-prescribed nuclear family.'' In other words, they viewed a family with a husband at home as being a problem. I recently ran across a quote in a book that somebody gave me, and I just opened the book, and I came to a few lines which I think everybody in Congress ought to be aware of. The lines were from a woman by the name of Kate Millett, who, if you are my age, you frequently remember she was a very prominent feminist in the 1960s, the decade which really began to result in the decline of America. Her sister quoted her as saying that a goal of feminism should be destroying the American family. Therefore, one more time, we run across not a huge number of people, but disproportionately influential people saying that a goal should be to weaken the family. Then you look at, one more time, President Biden proposing increases in programs, be it low-income housing programs, be it the earned income tax credit programs, be it the Pell grant programs, all of which are really made for families without a husband earning a decent salary at home. All these programs are being increased by President Biden. In fact, what we ought to be doing is we ought to be doing the opposite. Right now, it is not surprising if a man is not in the house because, in some cases, his family would be materially better off without him being in the house. In particular, some of the low-income housing projects, particularly section 42 projects, are new buildings which are superior to the buildings or superior to the rental units that American families are sometimes living in. Of course, the healthcare programs designed for the poor people don't have sizable deductibles in them. In that regard, they are, in many ways, superior to the healthcare plans the working poor get. There are programs, like I said, for college scholarships. I will recite, again, a quote from a gal I ran across when I talked about the marriage penalties in Wisconsin. I recited all the benefits that people were able to get if they didn't marry a man with a decent income, and I asked her what she thought about my speech. She told me: Well, I am married and have a child, but none of my friends are getting married. They get free college. Here was another program, the Pell Grant Program, designed to encourage the breakdown of the American family. It is important that when we go into the budget negotiations and the appropriations negotiations for the year beginning October 1, that our appropriators and leaders go to bat and say no more special benefits for making sure there is a man not in the house. As a matter of fact, we should go backward because, not surprising after Lyndon Johnson--in my opinion, the worst President of the United States until Joe Biden came along. It is not surprising that what used to be called the out-of-wedlock rate has skyrocketed since the 1960s and with it a variety of problems that come with not having a father in the household. It is time to look at these programs again and, rather than pay people to keep the husband out of the house, encourage people to have the father at home. This is not just a material matter. It is a matter of it is better for the children to have a father at home, and it is better for the father himself to be at home. As George Gilder points out, an author that I think we all ought to be reading, the number one person hurt by the war on the American family, be it Karl Marx's war or Lyndon Johnson's war, whatever you want to say, the number one problem is to men who now don't have a function in life. If you look at certain areas of our society, it is the men who are more likely to do the drugs or commit the crimes. If they were a father with responsibilities at home, I think these crimes would happen a lot less. I think there would be less drinking. I think there would be less drug abuse. I think America would slowly work its way back to the more wholesome, less crime-ridden, less drug-ridden time of the 1960s. I hope both parties pay attention to the impact of incentives or disincentives that their programs have on having men in the household. In any event, there are three issues that we have dealt with today. We have dealt with the border, where we hit record numbers and the fact that it has become apparent that we are not getting the best people. Apparently, other countries are emptying out their prisons. We have dealt with what is going on in Israel and what a wonderful country it is as people from all around the world, including people who aren't Jewish, try to get into Israel. It is kind of like people from all around the world trying to get into our country, but ignoring this, they are still subject to criticism by people like the protesters outside or my predecessor here in Congress who just got done talking. Finally, I hope the press and the Republican Party pay attention to the increase in benefits to families without a father at home that he wants to put in this budget, which I am sure if it was enacted would, again, push up the number of families in which, sadly, there is not a father at home to help raise the children. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for this body to take a few minutes to discuss and deal with the recent headlines regarding the National Public Radio editor who made public that 87 out of 87 members of their editorial newsroom staff registered Democrat-- not one registered Republican. It is obviously of interest, and it should be of particular interest to fair-minded people everywhere and Republicans in particular. We, right now, are losing the culture, and members of the Republican Party are the ones who stand athwart and support the Constitution, try to defend it, and try to keep America the great country it has always been. It is a very difficult thing to get sympathy in our quest from the public as a whole when news outlets have an overwhelmingly leftwing, anti-American bias. I would like to congratulate--normally a Democrat--Uri Berliner for being able to step out and try to publicize a true diversity problem at NPR and hope that in the future our Appropriations Committee discusses this problem.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Pastor Suhr for that wonderful prayer this morning. He and his family have been friends of mine for a long time. His church, as we said, is in Mequon, Wisconsin. While, sadly for our country, in so many parishes or churches the attendance has been down, he has grown a much bigger church than he found it. It is truly booming, and it is a great success story for Christianity in Mequon. In any event, again, congratulations to Reverend Suhr. I am so honored to be here today for that prayer.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 113.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, one of the problems we have in society that came to light is that people who influence public opinion are, particularly when funded by the government, too much, in my opinion, in favor of the left. Public universities certainly should be giving a very even distribution of information. Recently, in an under-published story, a great guy, a liberal guy, Uri Berliner, a senior business editor at NPR, reviewed the party designation of 87 members in the local NPR office. I asked people how many they think are registered Democrat and Republican. People laughed and said all 87, or they would bet 84 are Democrat and 3 are Republican. Actually, it is 87 and zero. Now, I respect Uri Berliner, a liberal, for digging out this information. Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, can you imagine that, right now, there is such a complete lack of diversity in the type of people who disseminate how to deal with the issues today that the NPR local office is made up of 87 Democrats and zero Republicans? I hope everybody in this Chamber, not only in the field of education but apparently also in the field of broadcast news, realizes we have a fundamental problem in this country and that we have no diversity in the newsroom or in the faculty lounge.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, as has been said earlier tonight, John Adams said: ``Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.'' We are right now in danger in this country. We know that the government cannot establish a religion, but we live in a time in which our government is outright hostile to religion in general and to Christianity in particular. We live under a welfare state in which we are openly hostile or certainly financially hostile to a traditional family. During the 1960s, Kate Millett, a famous feminist, said that one of her goals is to destroy the American family, and the feminists had a lot of influence in the 1960s. We have Black Lives Matter desiring to destroy the so-called western nuclear family, and countless Members of Congress stand with people like that. The Marxists, of course--and many people are apparently following Marx--were hostile to the family. We live in a time in which our sex education class is partly paid for by the Federal Government. When the Governor of Florida tries to delay these classes with graphic sex education until a person is 10 years old and that should have been 17 or 18 anyway, he is under attack. We have the FBI monitoring Christian or religious parents who object to this anti-Christianity. We are using our material wealth to lean on other countries around the world--Hungary, in particular, African countries, hostile to the practice of religion in those countries. It is important that Congress, in particular, and Americans, in general, stand up and protect the Christian values and religious values that our country was founded under and stand up and prevent our current government from the hostility--not just neutrality; hostility--to the moral and religious people that our country was founded to protect.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, we haven't been in Congress for 2 weeks now, but the number one issue in the country remains what it was 2 weeks ago because the President of the United States refuses to act and that, of course, is the invasion across our southern border. Around the time we left, we had new estimates on the number of people who have come over here. They are estimates because nobody knows exactly the number. We estimate that about 40,000 to 50,000 of the people who come across every month are what they call got-aways. Due to a shortage of people in the Border Patrol, we do not even count them or interview them or know much about them. Our estimate is that in February, we had about 220,000 people come here. That was down from December, but still about 10 times the number who came across in Donald Trump's final February of his term. We have 10 times as many. We estimate about 9,000 to 10,000 of those are unaccompanied minors. This is a crisis that demands immediate attention from the White House and, quite frankly, a little more attention from this body. It dwarfs all the other bills we have here. I hope that Congress now deals with this issue.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the remarkable leadership and service of Van Mobley, President of the Village of Thiensville, whose unwavering dedication has significantly enriched the lives of his constituents and propelled the progress of his community over the last twelve years.. Throughout his dedicated career, Van Mobley has demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to public service and community development. His journey began in 2006 when he was appointed to the Village Board as a Trustee, filling a vacant seat, and subsequently earning the trust of his constituents through two additional three-year terms. In 2012, he was elected Village President, a position he has since held for four consecutive three-year terms. Under President Mobley's stewardship, Thiensville has experienced remarkable growth and advancement. His visionary leadership has spurred significant infrastructure improvements and development projects throughout the village. Notably, he spearheaded the development on South Main Street, overseeing crucial water infrastructure installations and the establishment of key properties, including the Thiensville Health Alliance, Reuter Insurance, and a new Village parking lot. His pivotal role in the Pigeon Creek flood control project has been instrumental in safeguarding Main Street from flooding during major rain events. President Mobley's commitment to collaboration and intergovernmental cooperation has been exemplified by his efforts to merge fire and EMS services with the City of Mequon, resulting in the formation of the Southern Ozaukee Fire and EMS Department. This innovative partnership has garnered recognition from the Wisconsin Policy Forum for its effectiveness and efficiency. Beyond infrastructure, President Mobley has overseen numerous enhancements in Village Park, including the construction of the Port Washington State Bank River Stage, new Comfort Station, playground upgrades, and boat launch improvements. Van Mobley's dedication to preserving Thiensville's rich history and heritage is evident in his personal investment in the historic Thiensville State Bank building on Green Bay Road, which he purchased and meticulously renovated. In recognition of his exceptional service and tireless efforts on behalf of the residents of Thiensville, I extend my heartfelt gratitude and congratulations to Van Mobley. His accomplishments have had a profound and lasting impact on the community, and I wish him continued success in all his future endeavors.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, it is kind of an appropriate buildup to what I have to say. Earlier this morning I attended a meeting with people who should know what is going on at the southern border. They brought up something that I don't think has been in the public yet. They brought up the age at which Border Patrol agents are retiring is dropping. It is dropping to such a degree, I almost don't believe it, but we are told that the average age of retirement has dropped from 57 to 50. So not only are we having a hard time filling new slots, but people are leaving the old slots quicker than ever. Why is that? They get no support from the White House. People have said: Does anybody have a suggestion what to do with the border? I remind America that at the time Joe Biden took office, about 20,000 people a month were coming here, and now, in December, we were over 350,000, so about an increase times 18. It is not something we have to sit down and talk about and figure out what do we have to do. Although I would be happy to talk about it. The solution was there under the prior administration. We could cut the number of people coming across by 17- or 18-1. Instead we are going the opposite direction by poorly treating the Border Patrol, and not only having more people coming here, but further allowing over 100,000 Americans to die of illegal drugs.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, sometime in the next month, there is going to finally be a serious debate on the number of people streaming across our border. It may be over an appropriations bill. It may be over an aid bill to Ukraine. There are going to be a lot of people who say there are other issues more important than this and to just wait a little longer to solve the problem at the border. We have waited for 3 years to do something at the border as the Biden administration has watched the number of people who crossed the border every month go from 10,000 to 20,000 to 370,000 people. That is unacceptable. We had testimony in my subcommittee last week that the people who are coming across the border are 3\1/2\ to 4 times as likely to commit a crime as the native-born, and we saw tragedy in Atlanta just on that topic. We know very well, if you talk to people, that all of these people streaming across here have to live somewhere and are partly responsible for the increase in rental costs that we have across our country. We don't want to shut down the government, and we don't want to say no more aid to Ukraine, but we have no choice. If it is not now, when? We have waited 3 years.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, the first European settlers arrived in present day Menasha in 1835. In 1848, Governor James Doty and Curtis Reed formed the Town of Menasha, naming it after the Winnebago word for ``thorn'' or ``island'' and otherwise known in the Menominee language as ``little island''. In 1849, the navigational channel of the Fox- Wisconsin waterway was placed through the north channel in Menasha, leading to the construction of the Manitowoc and Mississippi Railroad in 1854. The creation of this railroad led to major water and rail transportation routes passing directly through the city. Menasha was officially incorporated as a city in 1874, and was considered to be a transportation hub. One of the earliest successes of the newly established city was the Menasha Wooden Ware Company which produced wooden tubs and barrels, and eventually made its way to become the world's largest wooden ware products manufacturer. Evolving into the corrugated packaging business, the company changed its name to Menasha Corporation. By the early 1900's, Menasha earned the moniker ``Industrial City,'' hosting renowned companies such as Menasha Corporation, the George A. Whiting Paper Company Mill, the John Strange Paper Mill, Island Paper Company, the Gilbert Paper Company, and the George Banta Publishing Company. These enterprises reflected a community characterized by ingenuity and the collaborative spirit of its residents, contributing to the city's success through hard work and dedication. This year, as a Representative of the great state of Wisconsin, I am proud to join in commemorating the city of Menasha in the Sesquicentennial Anniversary of its founding. The celebration on the beautiful Menasha waterfront showcases various events honoring the city's history, culture, character, and quality of life. The celebration aims to engage local residents along with visitors from other communities with associated observance activities in recognizing the city's notable historical achievements along with their ongoing tenacity projecting a future vision of Menasha as Your Place on the Water. I would like to extend my gratitude and congratulations to the people of Menasha and wish the city 150 more years of prosperity and success.