Glenn Grothman

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, first of all, I will let you know, so we break the suspense, I will probably be more like 5 minutes, so it is easier for everybody. Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk one more time about the crisis at the border. One more week has gone by, and for 1 more week, Donald Trump is out there alone fighting to preserve the integrity of our border and who the future citizens of the United States of America are. Donald Trump is a fan of immigration, that is why, on his watch, we are now up to around 750,000 people being sworn in legally in this country every year, and there has been no effort made to really substantially reduce that number. Nevertheless, we do want to pick our immigrants. We want our immigrants to be people who have come here legally and are appropriately vetted, and Donald Trump is doing what he can--without any help from Congress, I might add--to make sure that that happens. The first thing that Congress has to do is to make permanent the Public Charge rule. Donald Trump has correctly said, even for legal immigrants, we are not going to take people in this country if we expect they would be permanently, or close to permanently, taking advantage of the programs our government has to offer. Right now, 63 percent of the noncitizens, compared to 35 percent of the native-born, are on some sort of government program. We have a hard enough time at this time of trillion-dollar deficits taking care of our own citizens who have fallen on hard times without taking the people who are on hard times from all around the world. Donald Trump is putting his finger in the spigot, but we know the day will come when we have a different President. When we have a different President, I am scared to death the new President will go back to the old method of anybody can come here, and, if they come to our country for free Pell grants, if they come to our country for free food, if they come to our country for free medical care, if they come to our country for free housing, we will let them back in. Madam Speaker, I wish President Trump would always be able to prevent that, and I am sure he is going to continue to prevent that as long as he is President; but, if you look at the other people running for the job, I wouldn't bet that even by this time next year, and certainly within 5 years, we won't be back to the days of being the welfare magnet for the Western Hemisphere or the entire world. Madam Speaker, I call on Congress to step up and pass legislation that a future President cannot undue, stating that we are not going to have more people here as a public charge. Secondly, a couple weeks ago, I went down to the border one more time and had a chance to talk to local law enforcement, some of the citizens on the border, as well as the Border Patrol. They are appreciative of the things that the current administration is doing. I saw 12 miles of wall being built at the Arizona border. I saw that, while it might be possible to get around the wall, it would be very difficult. I don't think most people could climb a 30-foot wall, much less get over the concertina wire on top, much less get down the other side. But, again, those are actions from President Trump. I wish, in the future appropriations bill, Congress would fully fund that wall like the Border Patrol, who sees what is going on every day, wishes they had. President Trump has reached an agreement with the Mexican Government so that people coming here seeking asylum pending their hearing can be held in Mexico rather than coming across, living in this country, having children with birthright citizenship, and taking advantage of laws that law-abiding people from other countries don't have. Again, President Trump has reached an agreement with Mexico, and that is why we have gone from 80,000 or 90,000 people, at least, coming in the border in May of last year to under 2,000, we believe, more recently. But, again, that is another victory that could be short-lived. We heard again, currently, it could easily be over 90 percent of the fentanyl, of the meth and heroin come across the border. This should be a national crisis. More people are dying on an annual basis from this scourge than died in the entire Vietnam war. Nevertheless, it is still treated as no big deal, and Congress is not going out of its way to do anywhere near what it should to prevent these drugs from coming across the border, which are killing our citizens. Furthermore, the drug cartels who control that border are breaking up families and taking advantage of young people, 14-, 15-year-olds, to smuggle across the border. Why do they do it? Because they know, in the United States, we are not going to incarcerate people who are 15 years old for sneaking drugs across the border. It amazes Border Patrol that, a few times, some potential immigrant commits a crime and they are separated from their children; meanwhile, the drug cartels have thousands of people separated from their parents to do their dirty work and barely a peep from the average American Congressman who is so worried about things otherwise. We also had a chance to look at the Nogales border and see what is going on there and the possibility that people are going over the wall. We heard, again, we could use more dogs on the southern border, not only to detect drugs coming across one way, but to detect cash coming across the other way--something else that, if this Congress really cared about our border, they would do something about. We heard, again, about the dangers of having the drug cartels control our southern border rather than our Border Patrol, wealthy drug cartels that may be paying off some American citizens who live on the border and may be paying off Mexican military, maybe Mexican police. When they sneak people over the border, it is not unusual to have these people dehydrate in the Arizona desert. It is not unusual to have these people drown in the Rio Grande River. The fault is the inactivity of the American Congress to really secure these borders so we don't continue to empower the Mexican drug cartels that are not only causing people to die coming here, but are also corrupting the Mexican Government, resulting in the high homicide rates that we see south of the border. Madam Speaker, I call upon Congress to act to immediately hire more Border Patrol, to hire more dogs, to make sure we have enough funding for the wall, to permanently cause people trying to come into this country to have to stay south of the border pending their asylum hearing, to change the asylum laws so that anybody can't just say ``I am in danger in my home country'' and come here, and, above all, to change the public benefits rule so that our future immigrants are uniformly hardworking people who are going to be an asset to America rather than the current situation in which they are apparently disproportionately the type of people who come on the government. We are all willing to take care of the people in the United States who have fallen on hard times, but the idea of going back to the days in which people all around the world know that the United States of America is the welfare magnet for anyone is ruining our country, and it is hard to imagine people who don't take these actions as anything other than people who want to permanently change our country. Madam Speaker, I call on Congress to take action that President Trump would suggest so that, if, God forbid, anything happened to him, we still are in a position to protect our border and save our great country. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I stand today to address and congratulate President Trump on imposing the public charge rule with regard to public benefits. You know, around here, we get along on many different items bipartisan in nature, and I enjoy working with my Democratic colleagues. But one issue that I think is at the crux of the disagreement and dislike of President Trump is something I agree with him very strongly on, and I think all the American public ought to know about it, and that is something referred to as the public charge rule. Ever since the 1800s in this country, we have tried to make it a point that people who come here from other countries not come here and wind up on public benefits or welfare or what have you. Unfortunately, we weren't doing a very good job of enforcing this rule until President Trump stepped up and put a rule that went into effect last October, saying that if you are here as an immigrant, you are not eligible for food stamps; you are not eligible for low-income housing; you are not eligible for Medicaid; you are not eligible for other means-based benefits. President Trump, having a soft heart, continues to allow immigrants, immigrant children, to receive free and reduced lunch, Medicaid, and even are eligible for student loans. Nevertheless, I think it was a very good thing for President Trump to do. Our immigrants are the future of America. Right now, in America, our immigrants are far more likely than the native-born to take advantage of public benefits. A study shows that 63 percent of noncitizens versus 35 percent of the native-born are on some form of public benefits. With regard to food assistance, 45 percent of the immigrants, compared to 21 percent of the native-born, are on public benefits. Well, anybody can go through a tough time. And I should point out that President Trump does not remove your ability to stay here, just to be on public benefits for a month. It has to be for a period of several months, and once you are on those benefits, we want you removed. The reason for that is, for the future of America, we want people who are self-reliant and paying taxes. We already take care of our native- born who, to a huge degree, for whatever reason, have to rely on our fellow citizens. Right now, we are in a position in which a much higher percentage of people--63 percent of noncitizens versus 35 percent of native-born--are taking advantage of some benefits. If you look at food stamps, between 2004 and 2019, the total number of people on food stamps in this country went up 50 percent. That is a huge increase. It is particularly a huge increase if you take into account the economy in 2019 was about as strong as it is going to get. I, therefore, applaud President Trump for stepping up to the plate and trying to restrict immigration to people who can take care of themselves, all the while making sure that we are taking care of the children of people who are here. I also want to point out that people who are here illegally should not be eligible for those benefits. But, again and again, I hear people from my district, and I think from public comments made by people--like the Governor of California or the mayor of New York--that I don't believe local officials are at all times prohibiting people who are here illegally from getting benefits. In any event, particularly as long as we have birthright citizenship, I think the policy before Trump got here is misguided and, ultimately, will lead to a decline in the quality of life in America. I am, therefore, very glad that the Supreme Court allowed President Trump's rule to be upheld. But we have to caution America in that this is not a statutory thing. This is not something that has passed Congress. The only reason we are trying to hold down the number of people who are here who are not citizens from getting benefits is President Trump. It could easily be true that by this time next year, we will go back to the days in which a high number of noncitizens are taking advantage of public benefits. Like I said, I think for some people, the generosity of the public benefits will encourage people to adapt a lifestyle in which they are eligible for them, which is a real crime. In any event, I would like to say one more time--I don't always get invited over to the White House, in case President Trump is watching-- thank you, President Trump, at a time of trillion-dollar deficits, for stepping up to the plate and trying to improve the immigrants that we have coming in the country. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, today I would like to address one more time what I think is the most important issue facing the country, because it deals so much with the country's future and who will be living in the country 10, 20, or 30 years down the road: And that is immigration. To a large extent we haven't addressed this issue as we should have, I think, in part, because we are spending a great deal of time on impeachment, and that kind of sucked the air out of other critical issues facing the country. I think even conservative media, be it talk radio or other media, have not dealt with what is going on with immigration, have not pointed out the progress that President Trump has made, but also have not highlighted the things that have to be done if we are going to assure in the future the people living in this country are people who are going to make a positive contribution to the Nation. President Trump on his own, through a variety of efforts, has reduced the number of people who are coming in this country from over 140,000 people processed last May--a time in which at least 90,000 people were placed in the United States somewhere--to well under 50,000 with under 1,000 people in January being placed in the United States. Dropping from over 90,000 to under 1,000 is the type of progress you rarely see anywhere in government. First of all, I thank President Trump for the things he has done. We now have the Mexican military patrolling the southern border, so it is not just our border patrol minding things. Even more significantly, the Mexican Government has agreed to hold people who are seeking asylum. Prior to this, people seeking asylum-- and anybody can seek asylum--were placed with a social services agency in the United States, frequently Catholic Social Services, placed somewhere in the United States pending a hearing and frequently never showing up for that hearing. Now they are held in Mexico, which is a big benefit and also will discourage people from coming here unnecessarily. And I think the vast majority of people that were seeking asylum in the past were not even really subject to any fear or any possible danger in their home country. Just as significantly, President Trump has reached agreements with Central American countries to hold people down there who are seeking asylum from further down south. It should go without saying that if I leave Venezuela because I feel a threat to myself, I would probably stay in a country relatively near Venezuela. If I am going all the way to the United States and having passed through five or six other countries, my primary goal is probably to improve my economic condition, not just escape danger in my homeland. President Trump's efforts with Central American countries to hold more people are also bearing fruit. However, we also have to talk about what has to be done in the future and what should be done by Congress, commonsense things--now, I am one of those Congressmen using the phrase ``commonsense,'' it is kind of overused--but commonsense things I think the vast majority of Americans would agree with. First of all, the Flores settlement right now requires having to release families after being held for 20 days. That obviously should be extended, and it creates a very difficult situation for the United States Government. Secondly, President Trump is trying to crack down on people getting welfare payments if they are coming here as immigrants. Obviously, we have no problem taking care of Americans who are going through a tough time, but we take immigrants here--given that we have a trillion-dollar debt--who can take care of themselves. It would be a big mistake, both cost wise and as far as the future of people who are coming here, to allow people to come here if they will be taking advantage of our generous welfare system. In particular, we have to do something with what some people want: Free medical care for people coming here as immigrants. I have been down to the border several times, and it is something that frustrates the Border Patrol. So, many Americans right now have large deductibles and have to hesitate before they go to the doctor or hesitate before they have a procedure done. That is not true of people who come here illegally. And the Border Patrol believes that right now some people are coming to the country primarily for the free medical care that is being offered. That is something we have to get rid of. President Trump continues to build the wall as quickly as he can, given the way government operates. I am glad that President Trump was able to find money in the Defense Department to help along the wall. I want to point out that every Border Patrol agent that I have talked to, and I must have talked to dozens, believe the wall is a good idea. I realize there are people who haven't gone to the border or dealt with the experts down there, but unless you secure that southern border, you have a tremendous problem. And part of that problem, by the way, is the danger people trying to come here face. Somebody is going to control that southern border; it is either going to be the United States or the Mexican drug cartels. If the Mexican drug cartels continue to control the border, it means that some people are going to wind up dehydrating in the desert, it means some people are going to wind up drowning in the Rio Grande, and it means the people who come here are frequently going to be subject to the whims of the Mexican cartels. Sometimes that means sexual assault. Sometimes it means their relatives back home are going to be threatened. But we want to be the ones controlling the border and who comes across. Again, if we don't determine it, the Mexican drug cartels determine it. I have to point out that we believe that over 1,000 gang members were caught last year. Among certain drugs, over 90 percent, of course according to the DEA, have gotten into this country by going through the southern border. We really can't say we are serious about addressing the opioid crisis until we do something at the southern border. The next thing we should be addressing is sanctuary cities. Sanctuary cities are an invitation for people to break American law. It is hard to say we have a serious immigration system when, on the other hand, we have individual, local government people, in essence, saying come here, we will not enforce our law. Another huge problem with sanctuary cities is it makes it difficult to deport the criminals. Obviously, we don't want the next generation of Americans to be criminal in nature, and the only way to deal with that, I believe, is to get rid of the sanctuary cities. Last year, 68,000 people died of various drug overdoses in this country. The next thing that should be done is we should be doing something about birthright citizenship. When I was down at the border, it was very apparent there were women coming here, and not a few, who were 7 or 8 months pregnant. In other words, they are coming here, not because we handpick them, they are coming here because they realize that their children become citizens, and largely, if their children become citizens--and we are not for breaking up families--the parents will be able to stay here, too. The United States is only one of two of the 45 wealthiest countries in the world which allows birthright citizenship. It is obviously something that we ought to get rid of, and this is another thing that Congress ought to do. In the upcoming budget bill, having talked to the Border Patrol and having talked to ICE, it would be a good idea to get more dogs on the border, not just to detect things coming into the country but to detect cash going out of the country. Dogs today can do something about that, can detect cash. It would do a lot, I think, to stop the drug cartels from using our border. In any event, these are some of the suggestions that I hope Congress takes up. I think it is such an important decision, because we know that very frequently when somebody comes to this country, they are not leaving. If we are picking good people--and under President Trump in the last few years, the number of people sworn in legally has gone up. We are now over 650,000. So nobody says President Trump is anti-immigrant. We are getting more people here legally. But we have got to prevent people from coming here illegally. By continuing to do this, we will continue to create a situation in which the future of America will look more bleak because the type of people coming here are not the type of people who are handpicked. Madam 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. Mr. Chairman, I am going to address on this bill something that I assume has been addressed before but, nevertheless, of all the provisions of the bill I find most offensive. Under this bill, the employers are required to give the telephone number, the email, and the address of each employee. I do believe in the importance of protecting people's privacy, and to say that, by wanting to have a union election, you have the right to find out where every possible person lives I think is offensive, not to mention I think it would be very scary to have somebody come home one night and they find somebody there waiting for them to talk about the union election. You have to wonder what are these people doing here. And then you are: Oh, they are here to deal with this. It is hard for me to believe that a party that purports to look out for women and that sort of thing is going to turn around and pass a bill saying we are going to hand out everybody's address.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be able to speak on this initiative, given what is going on in the other house today where we have so much partisanship. This is the type of bipartisan work we should be doing. I am honored to be a cosponsor of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. My district goes along Lake Michigan. I know it means so much for the communities of Port Washington, Sheboygan, Manitowoc and Two Rivers. I would just like to clean up a little something here. I know a few years ago in 2013, there was a great deal of concern that the watermark in Lake Michigan was at an all-time low. People talked about climate change and how bad that was. It was good to report now in 2020 in January on the 30-year high on Lake Michigan. So maybe that is the reason for a crisis as well, but it is interesting to see how things kind of ebb and flow on Lake Michigan. As previously has been said, about a fifth of the fresh water in lakes in the world is in Lake Michigan by itself. Lake Michigan is the fifth biggest lake in the world. We have had problems with invasive species, which is one of the major reasons why I am on this bill. We want to keep the lakes clean not only for consuming water, but the fisheries, the fishing going on there is important, and recreation on Lake Michigan is important. A lot of this money goes into the agriculture in places like Wisconsin. We do have to keep the lakes clean, and as we keep our farms clean, it results in less algae blooms and a healthier lake system. So, in any event, I am honored to be a cosponsor on this. I am pleased that the Speaker has decided to put such a great bipartisan bill on the floor today.

Mr. GROTHMAN

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

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, it appears we are at least in the final 2 weeks of this impeachment journey, and, therefore, it is time to begin to look at the issues that have been ignored or kept out of the newspaper for the last few months, which I think is quite frankly one of the reasons why we have had this impeachment. I am going to address what progress has been made on these issues, largely President Trump making the progress himself without any help from Congress, and then address what we should do in the next few months prior to the next election. I think the biggest crisis for the country that President Trump inherited was the immigration crisis, and President Trump has had several successes here on his own. He has reduced the number of people placed in the United States from in May, close to 100,000 people by the Border Patrol, certainly, over 90,000 by the Border Patrol and probably another 10 to 12,000 people sneaking in the country without being processed at that time, to a position where, last month, the Border Patrol probably placed under 2,000 people in the United States. First of all, it is important to review what President Trump has done. He has begun what we would call a migrant protection protocol, in which Mexico is holding asylum seekers on their side of the border. They have agreed to hold anybody who is Spanish-speaking, and recently, in an unpublicized success, has begun a program holding Brazilians who are trying to get in this country as well. They also have an asylum cooperative agreement in which Guatemala is holding asylum seekers who are coming from other Central American countries without moving into the United States. I will point out something that should be obvious. If you are looking for asylum, in other words, to get away from danger in your home country, you shouldn't necessarily have to come to the United States. If you are an asylum seeker in Honduras or El Salvador, for example, and you are coming north, and you are in danger in your home country, it would be enough to stop in Guatemala. You do not have to come here. In addition, we have begun an interior reparation initiative for people from Mexico trying to come here. Normally, in order to try to come here, you have to deal with the Mexican drug cartels. By the United States or Mexico repatriating people in Central Mexico, first of all, they are in many cases, in a more prosperous part of Mexico and, secondly, are not being dealt with by the drug cartels. And finally, you are a little bit further away from the border, which is something we should do in the first place. The next thing President Trump has done is he has completed 110 miles of the border wall. We anticipate 630 of the 2,000 miles being done by the end of the year. It is very difficult to get through this wall and, actually, when you talk to the Border Patrol, they don't even like to refer to it as a wall. They like to refer to it as a wall system. But it is going to be over 30 feet high and six to 7 feet underground, making it very difficult to get through. Recently, the Border Patrol apprehended people who were kind of stuck going up the wall and they got up the wall to the point at which they weren't able to get down. But in any event, when you combine all these activities of the Trump administration, with very little help from Congress, as well as restricting entry of people who are probably going to become a public charge, we have reduced the number of people being placed in this country from 90,000 to 2,000. So, what should Congress do? What President Trump has done so far is successful but precarious. First of all, President Trump is not going to be President forever, and secondly, a lot of what President Trump has done is going to be subject to possible review by a bad judge. Congress should immediately take up the following few actions, which I think any average American would consider okay, or consider mild. First of all, we have to change the credible fear standard. Not everybody who comes here saying they are in danger at home is in danger at home. Congress ought to revisit that and pass something in the near future, hopefully soon. With President Trump no longer having to worry about the impeachment, he can use his position to drive that sort of bill through Congress. Secondly, we still have problems with the Flores settlement and that we are restricting holding families to only 20 days pending adjudication. There is no reason--I have been down at the border to see how well we are treating people who are held down there. There is no reason why we should have to release people after only 20 days if we have a court hearing coming up. Thirdly, we should change the current law with regard to unaccompanied minors. There are people who claim they don't like to see families separated, but back in May, we had, I think it was 8 or 9,000 minors coming into this country unaccompanied by adults. Now, under current law in the United States, we can turn these minors back if they came from Canada or Mexico. We can't turn around minors or send them back if they come from other countries. There are people around here who purport to want to keep families together. If a 15- or 16-year-old child comes here from Guatemala, because children are the future of any country, the Central American or South American families want their children back; and we should go back to the days in which it is legal to send back minors from other countries. The next thing we should do is, President Trump has had success in the courts with preventing people from coming here who are going to become a public charge. Obviously, as we look to let people in our country--and I am going to digress here for one second. There are people who say President Trump is anti-immigrant. The number of immigrants, the number of people who were sworn in legally in this country in 2018 was 761,000 people. That was more than any of the final 3 years under President Obama. I am going to repeat that if anybody back there says President Trump is anti-immigrant. More people were let in in 2018, were legally sworn in as American citizens under President Trump than any one of President Obama's final 3 years. But it is important, despite President Trump's victory in court, that Congress step up to the plate and make it statutory that, as we pick which new whatever, 750,000 new people get to become American citizens, we are not picking people who are going to become a public charge. It is already a huge drain on the American people's budget to take care of people who are in desperate straits who were born Americans in the first place. It is just horrific that people want to let people in to become a public charge from other countries, particularly at a time that we are running trillion dollar deficits; not to mention, I think you are going to eventually have a problem with the fiber of America in the future if we let all people in. The next thing that President Trump has done, I haven't mentioned, is he has, without a lot of fanfare, restricted tourist visas for people who are soon going to have children. I have been at the border. Until you have been down there you don't realize the degree to which women frequently are coming to this country so that their children become citizens. The United States is one of only, I believe, two out of 40 western countries in the world in which you can become a citizen just by being born here. People are taking advantage of that. Again, it is an example of us not picking the immigrants we allow in here. It is people being able to, first of all, have their children become citizens, and then because we want family reunification, the women who have the child are soon going to be allowed to be here without being appropriately vetted. In any event, this is something that Congress ought to take up as soon as this impeachment is over. Extend the time you can stay under the Flores settlement; adjust the credible standard for people who claim they are in danger back home; change the rules with regard to unaccompanied minors so we can reunite those children with their families. It is ridiculous that that bill is being held up. Do something about the sanctuary cities which, right now, are a magnet, and they scream to people in other countries that we are not supposed to take our immigration laws seriously. Do something about the birthright citizenship in which we are one of the few countries around the world which says that if you come here, you automatically become a citizen. But what other things should Congress be tackling over the next seven or 8 months before we break for elections? Given the fact that we are broke; and given our concern that we do want to encourage marriage, where necessary; given that we want to encourage people to work and that we have a shortage of labor in this country, we have to look at our current safety net. Now, right now, the economy is good, and the number of people on Foodshare--which is a good indication of the number of people who are taking advantage of our safety net--has dropped in the last couple of years due to the booming economy. There were still 34,000 people on Foodshare in 2018, average. In 2003, another time in which the economy was largely booming, there were 21,000 people. What has happened over the last 16 years that we have had over a 50 percent increase in the people on Foodshare? The economy is booming. Obviously, what is going on is, Foodshare, together with many other similar programs, have changed the work ethic of Americans. What can we do to address the ease with which people become involved in these programs? And I am not saying we have to do anything to the people who absolutely need these programs. But I can think of no reason why we would have over a 50 percent increase in a 15-year period if we weren't quietly or slowly changing the work ethic of Americans. There are three things that Congress should deal with, and that, hopefully, President Trump will champion. First of all, when I talk to people in my district, they are aware that there is a labor shortage, particularly in the factories, and other places as well. And it is frustrating how few people can pass the drug test. If you cannot get a job because you can't pass a drug test, you shouldn't get public benefits. So drug testing should be done. The next thing that should be done, when I talk to people, particularly people who work in our grocery stores or our convenience stores, they are frustrated that we, right now, have IDs on Foodshare without any photos on them. And again, the people who are working these jobs suspect, highly suspect, that these programs are being taken advantage of. Congress should insist that we have photo IDs on Foodshare. And, finally, there should be work requirements or an effort that people are trying to find work. This would be a measure of the sincerity of people as to whether it is possible--as to whether or not they are really trying their best to get off of public benefits. I am going to mention three other quick things that I hope are taken care of, that I don't think any serious American should have a concern with. I was very frustrated with the recent omnibus bills, recent appropriation bills that dealt with a lot of the parts of the Tax Code. One more time Congress did not have the guts to take up what I consider an exemption for the very wealthy, and that is the carried interest exemption. I know President Trump has asked Congress to look at this. Right now, highfliers who are venture capitalists, hedge fund managers--hedge fund managers in particular--are getting capital gains treatment on what should be ordinary income. I can think of no reason, other than Congressmen like very wealthy people, why, if you are a hedge fund manager making millions a year, you are paying tax at capital gains rates rather than ordinary income rates. Congress should have the guts to stand up to some of our wealthiest citizens and tax them at the rates that the average working man pays. I hope Congress will finally take this up and do what I know President Trump wants, and tax the carried interest of the wealthiest hedge fund managers as the average working man in this country. The next thing I would like to do that should be automatic is, when insulin was invented, the inventor wanted it cheap and available to everybody. Unfortunately, right now, it can be wildly expensive, and it is much more expensive in this country than in other countries. What we should do is we should treat insulin, not as a drug, but as a bio-similar, and see what we can do about rushing it to market so that the drug companies cannot make excessive amounts of money off of an invention that was designed--the inventor wanted it to be freely available to everybody. The number of Americans with diabetes is excessively high, and the idea that, under current law, we allow makers of insulin, which I don't really consider a pharmaceutical, but makers of insulin to charge an excessive amount, when it was invented years ago, is ridiculous. It will take this body standing up to the drug companies, but it is something this Congress does not do enough. I realize there was a bill passed designed to deal with drug prices in this House. That bill, we all know, was politically unrealistic, and it probably would have resulted in a drastic reduction in innovation on generally new pharmaceuticals. But a separate bill should be passed on insulin and, hopefully, that is something Congress can do. The final thing Congress could do to help the average person is, in the future, do something to restrict the amount of student loan debt. When I talk to people, they feel--and I believe this, because it was true when I went to school--there are people taking out more debt than they absolutely need. I suppose this is true everywhere in our country; people probably have too much credit card debt, more than they need, and they are not disciplined, but it is particularly true of 18- or 19- or 20-year-olds. There was a time in this country where, if universities wanted to, they could say: No, you don't need $7,000 in debt this year; you need $4,000 in new loans. They are not able to do that anymore. We ought to give that ability back to universities, and we ought to begin to sanction universities if too many people are leaving that institution and are not able to pay back their loans. I do blame the universities for part of this, and it is going to take some political will to stand up to these university administrators, but they are the ones who are leading some of these people down the path with the nice brochure and the nice song and dance about how it is going to be so wonderful if you graduate from this university. Some people, of course, drop out of the university. But either way, far too many people are not paying off the loans. They are having to spend way too long. They can't buy a house. They aren't forming a family. Quite frankly, it is a publicized scandal, but it is still underpublicized the degree to which some of the best Americans who are doing what they are told are saddled with vast amounts of debt and not the income to pay it off; or, if they have the income to pay them off, it is taking all their income and they can't buy a house and they can't have kids. I hope Congress does something serious there other than just say we should put hundreds of billions of dollars into paying off the loans. In any event, these are things that I think Congress could take up. I think we could salvage this session. I know President Trump did all he could on immigration without the help of Congress. I feel that the impeachment thing was designed to keep people's eyes off the ball on the issues that we should be addressing. There are some suggestions of what to do. I hope the American people insist they be done. I hope President Trump champions them. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, some of my friends up here should have more interesting things to say, so I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who is my good friend.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will address a few topics tonight, but before I start on these other topics, I, as well, will address the March for Life. As has been mentioned, we are dealing with the 47th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Hopefully, over 200,000 people will be here in Washington next week, and I feel bad it is a week where we are doing our work back in the district so I won't be able to be here for it. It is still kind of amazing that, in 1973, I think it was seven out of nine judges, which is kind of a bad testimony to the law schools of this Nation, felt that when our forefathers put together the Constitution, they felt that it, of necessity, made abortion legal in this country. I am sure they were not talking about it at all at the time, and throughout much of our history, abortion has been legal in the vast majority of States. At the time that Roe v. Wade came down, I believe abortion was illegal in 48 of the 50 States. If not, it was almost 48 States, and it was just an outlandish decision. Since the decision has come down, we have had over 45 million lives cut short because of abortion in this country. When you think about 45 million, think how large that is. If they were alive today, it would be something on the order of about one-seventh of the current population of this country. But our people have voluntarily snuffed out that many lives. I remember when ultrasounds came out and became common. I had assumed that when people began to look at ultrasounds, they would see what they were dealing with here and abortion would have quickly become illegal. It says something about the callousness of our country and the ineffectiveness of our clergy that, despite the gift of ultrasound--so, unlike 60 years ago, we all know exactly what is going on--our country continues to allow this slaughter to continue. Even worse, America, which I do believe should be a shining light on the hill, is one of only seven countries which allow late-term abortions: ourselves, Singapore, Canada, Holland, Red China, Vietnam, and North Korea--largely, a pretty embarrassing set of countries to be with. I hope all Americans stop and ponder how America still winds up on such a ridiculous list, particularly such a wealthy country and a country in which so many people have access to see exactly what is going on. As a matter of fact, recently, things have even gotten worse. I am sure my colleagues have talked about the bill recently signed into law in New York, which, in essence, a goal appears to be to allow you to snuff out the life of a newborn baby right before it is born. There is danger that a similar law is soon going to pass in Virginia. I challenge the clergy in this country. And I know some of them don't like to say uncomfortable truths, apparently, but I challenge them to do something here. Somebody just mentioned the movie ``Gosnell,'' and there is another movie, ``Unplanned.'' I think these are movies that would be wise for the clergy in this country to make sure people were aware of so they saw exactly what was going on. Obviously, what we have here is kind of a silent ending of millions of lives. Most people do not know it is going on. It doesn't affect them on a daily basis. But it is time for the clergy and churches of this country to step up to the plate. I wish well for all the people who are going to come from all over the country and attend the March for Life. Knights of Columbus

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, there are other things I am going to address right now, one a little bit related. I would like to talk a little bit about the Knights of Columbus. We live in a society that claims to value diversity and tolerance; however, sometimes things bubble up in this town. It is apparent that some people are hated and the intolerance applies to them. I am speaking, of course, of the fact that, about 2 years ago, a little over 2 years ago now, a U.S. Senator from California, in part of a confirmation hearing on a Federal judge, decided to weigh in and felt that, if you were a member of the Knights of Columbus, perhaps you shouldn't become a Federal judge. Recently, rereading the statements made there and the lack of outrage at what, apparently, was a religious test, or close to a religious test, to become a Federal judge, I thought I would like to talk a little bit about the Knights of Columbus, which is very active in my district. The Knights were founded as a Catholic group in 1882, in Connecticut, and, currently, there are about 2 million Knights, almost exclusive to the United States, but there are also some in Canada, New Zealand, England--or Britain--and a few other countries. They have been active during that time, and they do a lot to help people. They seem almost ubiquitous in my district with all the fundraisers they have. A few weeks ago, I attended a meat raffle for the Princeton Knights of Columbus in which they were helping out a Vietnam veteran who had cancer. I want to point out that the Knights will help out not just Catholic people, but people who aren't Catholic as well. The Princeton Knights were also doing a chili fundraiser to help a gentleman with prostate cancer. Other groups I see around, can be seen: the Cedarburg Knights selling Tootsie Rolls for Special Olympics or pregnancy health centers; the Fond du Lac Knights having fish fries for youth hockey and handicapped children. You see the Neenah Knights running concession stands at the Packers games, the Mayville Knights doing a calendar fundraiser for the local food pantry, the Oshkosh Knights doing a bowling fundraiser for coats for kids, or Men for Christ. I mean, you see the good works that the Knights are doing everywhere. I wish I had time to go through all the other organizations and list exactly the fundraisers they have. The Two Rivers, Manitowoc, Sheboygan, Fredonia, Horicon, wherever I go, I see the Knights are active helping people out. I always kind of consider the Knights of Columbus kind of like mom and apple pie. You know, you could stand here in Congress, and Congressmen would go out of their way to praise groups like the Knights of Columbus and be seen with the Knights of Columbus. But, apparently, they are not so much like mom and apple pie anymore. We have had Members of this body, and not from small, insignificant States, Members of this body apparently now feeling that that is something to be attacked for. And, of course, it is not. They are helping out at the Special Olympics or helping out at youth hockey that has caused them to be hated or feel that they shouldn't be part of the public square. It is, of course, that they are active in the Catholic church, a church that is pro-life, that apparently some Members around here feel that the Knights of Columbus, therefore, should step aside and can't be trusted to make decisions as far as where we are going in the United States of America. Recently, Joe Biden came out, actually, and even said that the Senator from California would make a great Vice President. I mean, can you imagine that? Can you imagine, 40 years ago, in this country, somebody saying that the Knights of Columbus, that a member of the Knights maybe shouldn't be a Federal judge? That is a great thing she says. Let's make her a Vice President. I think that is a great thing. In any event, speaking on behalf of myself, I would like to thank the Knights for all they do around the Sixth Congressional District. I hope they continue to speak out on Christian issues, on Catholic issues. I hope the other clergy, clergy who may not be Catholic themselves, realize that they could be next to be targeted by these Members of Congress. But, again, I thank the Knights of Columbus for all they do. Mr. Speaker, I guess I have a few minutes more here. I have, what, 5 more minutes?

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), my friend.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, we spent a lot of time up here, too much time on this impeachment thing. I think the reason people want to talk about impeachment is they don't like to talk about all the things that ought to be getting done that Congress isn't doing when they are talking about impeachment. I want to, one more time, talk about what I think is the number one issue that is going to destroy America, and that is the immigration situation. We continue to have people come across the border. President Trump, on his own, has dropped the number of people coming in this country from over 50,000 allowed in this country and placed in this country last May to under 1,000 by the Border Patrol in December. Nevertheless, laws should be changed quickly to make sure that this does not continue, or should be changed quickly before some of these Federal judges decide to stop President Trump from trying to do what he is doing. The Congress should be brought in to change the credible fear standard to make sure everybody under the Sun can't say that they should be a refugee. We want to change the laws with regard to the Traffic Victim Protection Reparations Act. Right now, so people understand, if we get somebody under age 18 from Canada or Mexico--from Canada or Mexico--we can send them back; from other countries, we are forced to keep families apart. I know President Trump would desperately like to return a minor from Honduras or Venezuela or Cuba back to their parents, but right now he is forbidden from doing that because Congress refuses to act. We should be cracking down on welfare for illegal immigrants right now, which serves as an inducement for the most irresponsible of people to come to the United States, but Congress doesn't act. We have built, or we are soon going to build, 100 miles toward the wall, but we still need more money. We hope we have enough money to get to 450 miles by the end of the year. But that is not going to be enough, particularly when you consider that, right now, the DEA thinks that 95 percent of the fentanyl, cocaine, heroin, or meth in this country is coming across our borders. I will guarantee you there are people who are going back to their districts next week and, at their townhalls, are claiming that they care about the over 60,000 people who died last year from these drugs, but they aren't doing anything to enforce that border where 95 percent of these drugs--fentanyl, cocaine, heroin, and meth--are coming are cross. It is time we act there, as well. We need more money for what we call nonintrusive technology so we can determine when these drugs are coming across in cars or otherwise, as well as it would be a good thing to get more dogs. I have been down at the border myself and seen how effective they are at preventing these drugs from coming across that are killing so many people. In any event, I hope the rest of the public and our mainstream media, as well as our conservative media, don't fall apart and don't fall into the trap of being all impeachment all the time over the next 3 or 4 months. Remember all the people who are dying because of the drugs coming across the border. Remember the huge burden on the United States as more people come across the border for things such as welfare-type benefits, and imagine what type of future America has if we don't begin to enforce our laws. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, that was such a beautiful 1-minute speech, it is hard to follow it. It was such a great thing to say. This morning when I got up, I read a column by one of the talking heads around here saying that there was a fictional war on Christmas, and I thought I might address the issue with my 1-minute speech. There may or may not be a war on Christmas around here, but there is certainly a war on putting Christ in Christmas, and I am going to comment on the background music that we hear throughout the Christmas season. In Washington, D.C., we have WASH, a typical radio station around the country. From 4 o'clock in the morning until 1 o'clock this afternoon, the only song that they played that mentioned Christ was ``God Rest You Merry, Gentlemen.'' This is corporate America at its best. They have a list of their 50 favorite songs for Christmas, and ``God Rest You Merry, Gentlemen'' was 50. They managed to find 49 great songs that didn't mention Christ. If you get around shopping, Kohl's department store, and whatnot, Mr. Speaker, you will again and again hear the music background leaving out ``Hark! The Herald Angels Sing,'' ``Joy to the World,'' ``O Come, All Ye Faithful''--all the songs that people my age grew up with. I would hope that America will step forward and be aware of this and demand more of corporate America. I finally would like to thank Sheboygan North High School in my district for playing ``Joy to the World'' and ``Away in a Manger'' in the Christmas parade.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I would like to address why we are here. We are certainly not here because of a misquoted phone call in July of 2019. The Washington Post ran an article, headlined, ``The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun,'' the day he was sworn in. The gentleman from Maryland who spoke earlier today called for impeachment 2 days before President Trump was sworn in. The gentleman from Texas was introducing impeachment resolutions 2 years ago and said: President Trump should be impeached so he can't get reelected. This impeachment is not about anything that happened on a phone call. This impeachment is about what President Trump has done. The people in this country who are let in who are inadmissible or apprehended and don't have legal authority fell from 100,000 people in May to under 5,000 people in November, and you hate him for it. Ben Carson thinks that low-income housing should be used by American citizens and not people who are here illegally, and you hate him for it. President Trump doesn't want people coming here and going on welfare, and you hate him for it. President Trump wants able-bodied people on food stamps to try to work, and he is hated for it. President Trump renegotiated that rip-off trade agreement with Mexico and Canada and that was put in place by President Bush and President Obama, and you hate him for it. President Trump sides with law enforcement instead of criminals and murders dropped 1,000 people last year, and you hate him for siding with the police. President Trump lets Christian adoption agencies choose whom they want to be parents, and you don't like him for that. President Trump won't let foreign aid go to agencies that perform abortions, and you hate him for that. President Trump's judges stick to the Constitution, and he is disliked for that. President Trump is keeping his campaign promises, and you hate him for that.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I also rise to speak against H.R. 3. To me, there are two segments of society in which the costs have gone out of control and are really broken. One is the secondary education system, and the other is the medical situation. It is not surprising that the two areas that prices have spun out of control since I was a child are two areas in which the government has been most involved; and, therefore, we should be very measured before we become involved in a lot more government prescription or mucking around the medical industry. And I say that as somebody who is no friend of the drug companies. I think their behavior has become absolutely deplorable. Nevertheless, we have to remember that, when it comes to new drugs right now on the market, other countries have a lot less access than we do in America. In that regard, America is still number one. Only 36 percent of the new drugs are allowed into Australia, 46 percent in Canada, and under 60 percent in the U.K. We are still the envy of people in other parts of the world there. Of new cancer drugs launched in the last 8 years, 95 percent are available in the United States, 74 percent in the U.K., and less than 50 percent in Japan. The thing to remember which is so frequently true: Government involvement can be good, but a lot of times government involvement can make things worse. The next frustrating thing about this bill is there are good things that both sides could agree on and could pass right away. We have heard a lot about H.R. 19 right now. One of their folks was talking about the high cost of insulin. We are doing things, or people would do things in H.R. 19, to rush more biosimilars to insulin to the market. They could have that victory tomorrow. But, for some reason, rather than vote on a bill they know will pass and will do a great deal to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, the other side has elected to bring forth a bill that they know will not pass, which comes down to the third point I am going to make: Why are they not passing a bill that would collect the vast majority of Republicans in the House and has a good chance of passing the Senate and being signed by President Trump? I reluctantly conclude that, one more time, they don't want to have a victory in these 2 years, for whatever motivation. And that is truly sad because these drug costs are out of control, and there are victories that can be taken today. But instead of passing a bill, given political reality, that can be brought to the floor, they will pass a bill on the House floor that they know is going to go nowhere in the Senate and that they know is going to delay the relief that people need.

Mr. GROTHMAN. They know it will delay that relief for at least another year. I have a bill I am going to talk about, myself, a little bit later.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk a little bit about the border, which is probably the most important issue facing America today as we determine what kind of country we have 10 or 15 years down the road, but I am going to lead off by talking a little bit about the past topic of capitalism versus socialism, because I don't think a lot of people realize exactly what socialism is about. Socialism is about absolute government control. People who are socialists want everybody to have to work for the government. Because they control the means of production, they want to determine what we have the right to buy, and they want to determine what we have the ability to invest in. Obviously, if you have to work for the government, which you have to in socialism, they can determine who gets hired, who gets promoted, what job you get. In other words, they will eventually use that absolute power that comes with being everybody's employer or everybody's regulator to promote you or hire you based upon your feelings, based upon your ideas. Not long ago, I went to Berlin and I saw the StasiMuseum, where, in the wonderful socialist country of East Germany, the government kept track of how you thought--kind of the way they do in China today--how you thought and if maybe you didn't say the right things. And maybe if the government becomes anti-Christian or doesn't like your other beliefs, they will miraculously fire you, you can't get the key job, you can't get promoted or whatever. That is why people who like to control lives more frequently become socialists. You look at the red flags under socialism that existed in the 1930s, and you will see those red flags--at the time, red meant socialism--all were adapted by leaders who liked absolute control of their populations. So, if anybody out there wants to vote socialism, what they are voting for is to get rid of their freedoms. They are saying: I turn my life over to the government. I want the government to tell me where I can work and what I can do when I am working. I want the government to tell me what I can buy. And if anybody accumulates wealth, they are saying: I want the government to be able to tell me where I can invest. That is the mindset of the socialist. There are fears that someday America may go socialist. Actually, that shouldn't happen, because socialism is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution, and any academic who pushes socialism should be aware of that. If you want to be, I guess it would amount to being a real serf. If you want to be a serf and have the government tell you where you have to work, tell you whether you can be promoted or not, tell you what you can invest in, and tell you what you can buy, you should go to another country, because the people who put together our Constitution, a goal was that we would never become anything like socialism. Immigration

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, now, let's talk a little bit about what was a major issue that used to be covered by the press, including the conservative press, before we started down the path to this impeachment, and that was the issue that was the primary reason why President Trump was elected: That issue is immigration and who we are going to let in this country. I don't think it has been well publicized, but just yesterday, we got the information from Border Patrol that they processed 42,000 people trying to come in this country either under asylum or inappropriately during the month of November. That is down from 45,000 in October, so I suppose you could say we are moving the ball in the right direction. It is down from 145,000 in May. Of those 42,000, under 5,000 actually got to come in the country. The vast majority who were not let in immediately, thanks to the work of President Trump, are currently being held in Mexico pending hearings. This is something President Trump has done without any help from the people in this body. He has done it by negotiating with Mexico and negotiating with the triangle countries in Central America. He has reached agreements or is receiving help from Guatemala, from Honduras, from El Salvador, and from Mexico itself. To a certain extent, through threat of tariffs, he has the Mexican Government patrolling its southern border--not doing that great a job, but they are patrolling their southern border. He has Central American countries doing what they can to hold on to their current population and allowing countries from which people are seeking asylum to settle in their country, which only makes sense. If you wanted to leave Venezuela, you speak Spanish. It doesn't make any sense that you would come to an English-speaking country. It makes more sense, if you really feel threatened at home, to go to countries like Guatemala and El Salvador and Honduras and Mexico. So these efforts by President Trump have dropped the number processed from 145,000 down to 42,000 and the number of people being let in our country from over 100,000 to under 5,000 a month. But it is always possible we are going to have a court decision undoing some of the efforts of President Trump, and, God forbid, it is possible we might have an election and a future President may not agree with the efforts made by President Trump. So what should this body be doing? We have to remind this body that, right now, we are only two of the 40 wealthiest countries on the globe to allow birthright citizenship. If somebody went down to the border, it is obvious that women who are near having birth are coming into this country to have children, which would make their children U.S. citizens and would create a situation in which, as a practical matter, they would stay there with them. We have a situation of chain migration in which people are coming here not because they are qualified to work here, but because they have relatives who are here, and we may be taking people who are not necessarily a good economic bargain for the United States. We need more ICE beds for single adults to be held right now. It is very difficult for ICE to do their job without these beds. As we are working through appropriations bills, it is time to pass a bill with that in there. We need more Border Patrol agents. Can you imagine what it is like at night doing the border patrol, finding 20 or 40 or 50 people coming across the border at once, and it is 2 o'clock in the morning and you are the one expected to bring people in? We have to respect our Border Patrol. We have a huge problem that, under current law, we are encouraging separation of families, and that is not President Trump's fault. He would be happy to change it. Right now, we have a law in which, if a child comes here from Canada or Mexico, they could be sent back, but children coming from Central America, Africa, other places in Latin America, we have to let them in the country. That is a horrible thing. We wouldn't like it if a 15-year-old child left the United States and wound up in Nicaragua or Honduras. We would expect them to be returned to their parents. We are asking this body to pass a law allowing the United States to return single children to their parents and other countries. The other countries would like it. It is very arrogant of the United States and arrogant of this body to continue the current system in which a child, unaccompanied by their parents, comes here and we have to keep them. Right now, under the Flores settlement, we have to stop holding people after 20 days near the border, families with children. It is time that we statutorily change that and allow the holding of people for a longer period of time. We have to do something with sanctuary cities. We have to do something so that, if people break the law and are being held in prisons and being held in jails, the Federal Government has the ability to remove these people from the country. For whatever motivation, there are people in this country going down the path of having their city--and including people in this House encouraging cities--not ask people about immigration status and forbidding our immigration service from removing criminals from this country. That is another thing that we ought to be doing now. Other things that President Trump is trying to do--but he needs a little bit of help here--we currently have illegals in low-income housing. I am not sure we need more low-income housing in this country, but a lot of people feel we do. Right now we have the rather bizarre situation in which people who are here illegally are sitting in low- income housing, while American citizens are on a waiting list, including people like homeless veterans. I want to point out that President Trump and myself are not anti- immigrant to say this. It recently came to my attention that the number of immigrants sworn in in this country in the last year available is 830,000. Two years prior to that we were under 700,000. So President Trump has presided over a dramatic increase in the number of people who are coming in this country legally, showing his compassion and understanding that we do need immigrants in this country. However, it is time Congress stepped to the plate and did what was necessary to rein in out-of-control illegal immigration. So I encourage my colleagues not to forget about this crisis. I encourage the media, particularly the conservative media, not to take their eye off this ball, which will determine what the United States looks like 5 and 10 and 25 years from now. I realize there are a lot of people who want the media to only focus on immigration, but we cannot forget what is going on in the immigration front. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN

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