Glenn Grothman

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a series of amendments we have seen, as we go throughout the budget process, asking for an across-the-board cut. Right now, we are borrowing 18 or 19 percent of our budget, which is just beyond belief. The speaker before me talked about financial literacy. We need some financial literacy for the Congress here. My colleagues cannot continue to put out budgets in which they are borrowing 18, 19 percent of the money. In the Financial Services and General Government appropriations, we have a 5.1 percent increase. In a sane world, we would have a 5.1 percent decrease. But I know who I am dealing with, and I want my amendment to pass, so we are only going to shave 3.1 percent off the 5.1 percent, which still leaves a mammoth 2 percent increase, not quite as irresponsible as what the Appropriations Committee came up with. Sometimes, we are criticized for coming up with these across-the- board cuts, and I can understand the criticism in that it should be more nuanced. We ought to get rid of some programs altogether, and maybe some programs genuinely need an increase. If we are ever going to do what's necessary around here--my experience is, politically, people back home are willing to take a cut. Again, this is a 2 percent increase. They are willing to take a cut if everybody takes the cut and if they don't feel like we are targeting their program. So we have an amendment here with an across-the-board 3.1 percent reduction. I think it is something that probably should pass close to unanimously around here--we will see if it does--to leave still a 2 percent increase here. That is my amendment, in general. There are a lot of things in this bill that probably, constitutionally, our forefathers would be amazed that the Federal Government was involved in at all. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I will point out that, at least with regard to things like the Small Business Administration, one has to realize that we had a booming private sector in this country before the SBA. The idea that we need an increase here at a time when the economy is the best it has been in my lifetime can be questioned. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I didn't come here to debate the tax cut, but I will point out one more time that the Republicans who voted against the tax cut did so at the request of the wealthier taxpayers in given States who felt that the tax cut unnecessarily didn't help the wealthier members of society. As far as the other things that were rattled off, the State of Wisconsin right now is running a significant surplus, unlike the Federal Government that continues to borrow substantially. Fiscally, if anybody should be increasing spending on these programs, it should be the States, not the Federal Government. Not to mention our Constitution--the gentleman rattles off a lot of things that really have nothing to do with interstate commerce and nothing to do with the Federal Government. We not only should be not increasing these programs, but we should be cutting them. Again, my amendment still allows a 2 percent increase. When I go back home and explain it to the folks, I think the major thing they will be saying is, ``Grothman, why are you so generous as to give a 2 percent increase?'' I have no problem saying this amendment is responsible. On the floor, I will probably wind up voting for other amendments that have greater reductions than this. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, there is an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I guess there is a series of amendments like this. It is well known that we have a huge deficit out here. Obviously, one way to deal with a deficit is to make sure that the appropriations bills are not excessive. We are approaching borrowing 20 percent of the Federal budget. That is just almost beyond belief. We just got done with an amendment in which some people out there felt we weren't spending enough on community block grants, which is appalling. I am much more in line with President Trump's opinion of that. I don't think we should be increasing things at this time. This amendment is a modest amendment. Rather than having decreases-- which, of course, we should have--we are taking a 4.6 percent across- the-board cut on this overall provision. I realize it touches a variety of programs. We are still allowing a 2 percent increase. Quite frankly, I think a 2 percent increase here is more than enough, but what I do here is I propose a 4.6 percent across- the-board reduction. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I have nothing more to add, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I will just make one point. We are borrowing. We have dropped a little bit below about 20 percent of our budget right now. I think most people on the Appropriations Committee would say everything is essential. I will make one point, among several, on the programs that were criticized. We are going to cut 2.2 percent of global health programs. In my district, it is more and more common for people to have $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 deductibles on their health insurance policies. Frequently, they are paying $15,000 or $20,000 for those policies, to boot. We are crying the blues that maybe we can't afford a 2 percent cut in our global health programs. I think it is bizarre that I am going to have to go back home--and I will probably lose this fight--and tell people that next year, their health insurance premiums may go up 10 or 11 percent, but we can't cut global health programs by 2 percent. It is just absurd. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of my amendment that would reduce the overall funding provided under Division D of State and Foreign Operations by 2.1 percent. Every year, the House lays out a blueprint for spending that is comprised of 12 separate bills. It seems many in this body have chosen to continue Washington's pattern of out-of-control spending with increases in every bill, some bills going up as much as 15 percent. This is why Washington is doing exactly what is expected, spending too much money overall while not funding critically important programs like border security. Given that last year we borrowed nearly $1 trillion, or 20 percent of total spending, this partisan 4.1 percent spending increase, an additional $2.2 billion, included in the State and Foreign Operations division of H.R. 2740, as proposed by House Democrats, puts America even further in debt, which is completely irresponsible. It is kind of strange, if you think about it. If you were going to ask somebody for more money, would you ask the U.S. Government? My amendment would seek to rein in this out-of-control government spending by capping growth in the State and Foreign Operations division. I encourage my colleagues to return to responsible spending and support this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I would like to spend today addressing the events over the weekend with regard to President Trump's decision and then decision to withdraw the threat of a 5 percent tariff on goods coming in through Mexico. I particularly want to comment with regard to observations that I have made, because 10 days ago I was in Mexico in the Laredo sector of the border, and about 4 months ago I was in the Tucson sector of the border. Both times, I received a thorough tour of the border from our great Border Patrol, and the observations that I have made down there lead me to believe that we ought to stick with President Trump as he does what he can to defend our border. Indeed, my analysis in both Arizona and Texas is that, right now, we are facing one of the greatest threats to the future of America. Before going into it in general, I would like to thank our Border Patrol for all the wonderful things they are doing. I don't know how many Americans know that, right now, our Border Patrol has 2,000 empty positions. The Border Patrol should have 21,000 people. It has got only 19,000 people on the border. Right now, we are in the position in which the Border Patrol is processing over 130,000 people a month, up from only a bit over 40,000 a month just 7 or 8 years ago. This means, since, like everything else in the world, a lot of paperwork is required wherever something is done, that the Border Patrol is woefully underfunded and understaffed. I would like to apologize to the Border Patrol for a statement made by one of my colleagues in which she stated: With five kids that have died, 5,000 separated from their families, I feel like the evidence is really clear that this is intentional. It is a policy choice being made on purpose, and it is cruel and inhumane. Madam Speaker, I will tell you, those Border Patrol folks and the customs people are working as hard as they possibly can. Maybe people don't realize that, last month, over 13,000 unaccompanied minors came across the border. That is not people who are separated from their families. Those are minors who come in separated from their families. Many of these people have spent days coming through Mexico to come here. We were told that one of the problems they had is that, when Border Patrol began to take care of kids, some of these kids were used to having one meal every 2 days. It took a while for their bodies to get used to having three meals a day. They are receiving medical care within the first 48 hours they are here and thorough medical care within 72 hours after they come here. I would say that people coming here are getting better medical care than perhaps they have ever had in their life--and surely better nutrition than they have had in a long time, better education than they have had in a long time. For Members of Congress to respond to the great deal that the Border Patrol is doing when, inevitably, despite their best efforts, a couple of people have come here without medical treatment for weeks, to claim that the Border Patrol or somehow the administration is intentionally allowing kids to die after they worked so hard to save the kids is one of the most embarrassing things I have seen in this Congress. I assure members of the Border Patrol that, at least among the people I hang around with, we respect the job they are doing, and I invite all of my colleagues to come down to the border so they don't make a ridiculous statement that, when a few people are not able to be kept alive down there, it is something done on purpose. Let's look at the crisis down there and the hand Donald Trump is being dealt. In May, the Border Patrol itself--and this is before Customs, just the Border Patrol--found over 130,000 people crossing the border. The vast majority of those came here seeking asylum, which means they aren't going to be kicked out. They are given a court date 3, 4, or 5 years out in the future and given a green card to go find a job. This is a much worse situation than when large numbers of people crossed the border 12 or 15 years ago. At that time, people would come across, and they would be told to go back. They would try again, and they would go back. We might have the same person counted three or four times. Here, with the vast majority being asylum claims, they will stay here, and they will get green cards. We are in a situation in which our Border Patrol is overwhelmed, not to mention we are no longer picking our immigrants, as we do when people are sworn in legally, as we do when they get regular work permits. Instead, we are getting people who are sneaking in here or claiming asylum under questionable circumstances. We also find that when we are, in essence, telling the world that we have open borders, more and more people come here. When we talked to Customs, which is a small segment of the number of people who are coming here, we were getting people from beyond Mexico or Central America. We are getting people from Venezuela. We are getting people from Cuba. We are getting people from Africa. In other words, the whole world is finding out that, right now, we are not enforcing our immigration laws. It is not surprising that when a lot of people come here, particularly when we are dealing with a border controlled by dangerous cartels, that people die trying to get in here. In the Tucson sector last year, almost 250 people were found dehydrated to death. The reason they were found that way is because the cartels may escort them to the United States, but they don't escort them to civilization. They just direct them to go one place or the other, and they wind up dying in the desert. In the Laredo sector, it is not unusual to have people drown in the Rio Grande River. Again, because there is a perception that America doesn't enforce its immigration laws, people try to walk across the Rio Grande. They are swept under, in the undertow, and they wind up dying. They wind up drowning. Again, these deaths are the fault of a system in which people believe that we do not enforce our immigration laws. What was President Trump to do? The obvious thing to do would be to tell Congress that we need more Border Patrol agents so that people don't sneak in here. The obvious thing to do would be to tell Congress that we need more judges to make sure that when people claim asylum, their claims are heard immediately, and they can be sent back rather than sit around here for 3 or 4 years. The obvious thing to do would be to build a wall, which may cost $7 billion or $8 billion. If we do those three things, we would send a message to the world that our immigration laws are supposed to be respected. We would no longer have so many people drown in the Rio Grande. We would no longer have so many people dehydrate to death. We would no longer have a situation in which the U.S. taxpayer is on the hook for probably over $100 billion a year between medical expenses, education expenses, and criminal justice expenses. That is what would happen if we began to enforce our immigration laws. However, when President Trump asked for help from this body, this Congress that is so quick to spend money on everything, this Congress that last time around increased discretionary spending over 11 percent in 1 year, this House of Representatives that is about to pass a series of appropriations bills increasing discretionary spending by 4 or 5 percent a year, all of a sudden, this Congress decides to get frugal on the one thing that is the biggest crisis of all. So, President Trump is in a box. Because we won't give him any more money, eventually, he decides that perhaps by imposing tariffs on Mexico, he can stop what amounts to an invasion of the United States. What does President Trump get? He gets Senators from his own party shooting at him from behind. He gets American businesses looking at their profit and loss for the next quarter, profit and loss for the next year, not considering the damage that is done to America over the next 2, 3, 4, or 5 years as unlimited people are coming here. They are shooting him in the back. Shame on the Republicans. I am not afraid of being critical of President Trump. He tweets a little too much. But I will tell my colleagues that when President Trump is finally trying to get us to enforce our borders, he is being shot at by his own team, by members of the Chamber of Commerce and by Republican Members of the Senate. This has to stop, or we are going to lose our country. It is important that the American people stand up and let their elected representatives know this cannot go on any longer. We have to do something about the border. It is embarrassing how little this body is doing. It is embarrassing the small amount of money or no money that is being spent in the areas that it has to be spent. Quite frankly, it is embarrassing that more Congressmen are not speaking out on what is going on at the southern border, other than our friend from Illinois, who kind of implies that when somebody dies in the horrible system that exists right now, that it was done intentionally. In any event, I encourage American businesses to stop looking at just what is going on in their profit and loss statements next quarter or next year. I encourage the Republican representatives, all representatives, to understand that President Trump, when he tries to do something at the border, he is trying to protect America in the future and not get cheap political points by implying that we can continue to go ahead with the current system of over 130,000 people coming here. I do want to point out that President Trump, who is very pro- immigrant, is not talking about reducing the 700,000 new people sworn in as Americans every year. President Trump is not talking about reducing the 4 million people who are here every year on work permits. Indeed, President Trump has made it clear that we could increase that number of people coming here legally. We have to stop people coming across the border on bogus claims of asylum and sneaking across the border and other places. It is time for this House to act. Fill those vacant 2,000 slots on the Border Patrol and add another 2,000 or 3,000. It is time for this body to act and get some judges on the border to adjudicate the asylum claims. It is time for this House to act and make sure that we have a secure border through a wall. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recount observations I have after spending 2 days of the Memorial Day recess at the Laredo Sector of the Texas border. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Schweikert for giving me good information on his musings. I feel very honored to follow Congressman Schweikert. Now, we have a crisis. I think it is perhaps the biggest crisis of my lifetime, as far as the future of America, going on at our border. In May, 133,000 people attempted to cross the border and were recorded by the Border Patrol. It is worth remembering that they do not record everybody. There are people who sneak through. And it is worth remembering that there is a smaller number of people who are apprehended by Customs agents at the designated points of entry. By point of reference, the 133,000 people in Mexico can be compared to 48,000 people who crossed in January. In other words, over time, for whatever reason, we have a dramatically greater number of people coming into this country. I will point out that this is the most, in many years. Many years ago--say, 15 years ago--if we looked back and found 100,000 people crossing the border, it was nowhere near as serious. At that time, we would frequently have people come, and they would be caught and sent back. The same person may try three or four times, so it wasn't as many people crossing the border. I should also point out, of the 133,000 caught by the Border Patrol, 11,000 are unaccompanied minors. I frequently hear people complain that we are breaking up families. What is going on is that young children--in any event, people under age 18--are coming here on their own. Another thing that is going on is that we are seeing people from more or different countries come across. I assume that is because the word is out, not only in Mexico and Central America but even in the Eastern Hemisphere, that the United States is not enforcing our immigration law. In the Laredo Sector, if Members talk to Customs folks, the number one country for people coming across the border is Venezuela. Number two is Cuba. Number three is Congo. So even from the Eastern Hemisphere, people are flooding here. While I was down there, the Border Patrol caught a group of 116 people, all Africans coming in from Congo, Angola, and Cameroon, 116 in one haul. What does this mean? First of all, in addition to great changes in our country, it means the Border Patrol is overwhelmed. The amount of paperwork, understandably, wherever we are today, there is a tremendous amount of paperwork. The amount of paperwork the Border Patrol has to do takes them off the border, takes them off the reason they volunteered to be part of the Border Patrol. This means even more people are coming across the border. Furthermore, the Border Patrol has to work in dangerous positions. We have followed them as they have followed the Rio Grande River in the Laredo Sector in the middle of the night with one person per vehicle. We can imagine what it is like patrolling on very slow roads with a lot of foliage on both sides of the roads. Some of the environmentalists wouldn't let them cut it down. We may have groups of 9 or 10 people coming across the border. Very dangerous. The first thing that should be done is, immediately, this Congress ought to appropriate more monies for the Border Patrol. Right now, they have 2,000 empty positions, and the number of positions they have is drawn out over a much smaller number of people. We also have to improve the equipment the Border Patrol has and increase the number of dogs. While down on the border, we watched the great job dogs can do in pursuing people. It is expensive for these dogs. But be it at the designated points of entry where they sniff out drugs or sniff out cash, or out in the field with the Border Patrol, they make them much more effective. It is ridiculous that our Border Patrol also has equipment that is sometimes not as good as what the cartels have. The cartels control the border. With the exception of these big entourages, nobody gets across the border without approval of the cartels. The next thing to point out, as we deal with people coming across the border, when the cartels bring them across the border, they may not take them to safety. They may just direct people in a certain direction or so far as they are escorting people to a place where they can be picked up in the United States. If somebody is too weak and can't make it, they don't call 911. They just leave them there to dehydrate and perhaps die. In the last year, in the Tucson Sector, about 250 people were found dehydrated or dying of something. This is another result of the United States' open border policy in which we encourage people who are expecting us to ignore immigration laws to come to the United States. In the Laredo Sector, it is not quite as bad. About 50 people die of dehydration every year. But there, where many more people cross the Rio Grande, it is not unusual to have people drown. In the 2 days that I was there, they found another person who had drowned. The reason they drown is that people think it is shallow enough to walk across the Rio Grande, but there are people who can't swim. We have a situation in which there is an undertow in the Rio Grande, and people, including children, wind up dying there. Again, how do we deal with it? We should be creating a situation where people think we are enforcing our laws, so they are not tempted to do such dangerous things. Another thing we found out is that, among people who are crossing the border, if they are not part of a family unit, they are much more dangerous than they were 10 years ago. Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago, the type of people crossing the border might be the types looking to work on a farm in Wisconsin. It is much more common to get the criminal element, much more common to get the MS13 gangs from El Salvador. That is kind of a subjective determination from the Border Patrol, but they find it of great concern because they love their country, and they see whom we are letting in our country and where the future Americans are going to come from. What can we do to stop 133,000 people from coming in this country every month? We have to stop the carrot that keeps people coming. First of all, we should deal with birthright citizenship. Again, the United States is one of only two of the 40th wealthiest countries in the world that allows people to become citizens because they were born here. We hear more stories of people coming over here. Women are coming over here 8 months pregnant, having a baby, knowing that the baby will be an American citizen. And eventually, because of family-related laws, they will be able to come into the country. Secondly, and President Trump can do this alone, I believe, we have to get rid of the practice of giving work permits to people who come here for asylum purposes, knowing that they probably will not show up for an asylum hearing. Giving a work permit encourages people to break the law. Then, we need more judges on the border with regard to these immigration problems. Right now, what goes on is that people come here looking for asylum. They are given a court date 2 or 3 or 5 years out. I am told that they even tell Border Patrol agents that they know they are ineligible for asylum. They tell Border Patrol agents that they will not show up for their hearing in 5 or 6 years. That has to stop. That has got to stop, and the way to make it stop is hire more judges, put those judges right on the border, and do not let people in the country assuming that they are here legally. I mean, they are going to wind up with a work permit and they are going to wind up being part of our culture even though they are here illegally. Next thing to do, and I am not going to spend a lot of time on this because we talked about it before, but every Border Patrol agent I have talked to in the Tucson sector, or in the Laredo sector, says we need a wall. In summary, we must act now or we will lose our country. We cannot continue to take 100,000 people crossing the border inappropriately every month. I want to point out, I am not talking about legal immigration. Every year in this country, we swear in 700,000 new people as citizens. In this country right now, we have about 4 million people here on work permits. So it is not like we are anti-immigrant. A lot of people can come here. When I talk about the 130,000 people who came here in May and largely wind up in the United States, I am talking about people who are coming here and should not be here. We are being inundated and it will eventually sink our country. I ask President Trump to do all he can. It is very obvious that Congress does not get the degree of the crisis. We should have appropriated the money already, instead of what we did yesterday, as we spent more money on welfare programs. By the way, we know from talking to people, even in Wisconsin, that there are a lot of people here illegally who are getting welfare, to boot. President Trump should revoke the work permits that people are getting if they are here for asylum reasons because we know the vast majority of people who are seeking asylum probably are not eligible for it, and we do not want to encourage more of that. In any event, I encourage my colleagues to take this crisis at the border, 130,000 a month, seriously. I encourage the press to do more to report on it because, obviously, this is permanently going to change America. I encourage President Trump to do all he can do without the assistance of Congress, because the reason we are getting so many more is the word is out. Again, it is not just in Mexico or Central America. The word is out in South America. The word is out in Cuba. The word is out in Africa. The word is out in Asia. America is not enforcing our immigration laws. And until we turn around the attitude that is out there among people, that perception, we are going to continue to have growing numbers. It is going to go over 130,000. It is going to be 150,000. It is going to be 170,000 a month. America is really going to be inundated, and we have to act quickly. 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, our immigrants have always been our future. Wave after wave of moral, patriotic, hardworking, and law- abiding immigrants have kept America vibrant. Today, the majority party intends to put another 2 to 3 million people on the path to citizenship. I think it is accurate to say that America does want some form of relief for some DACA folks and some way to make them made legal, but this bill would do a lot. This bill, in my mind, would ruin America. First of all, I think America would want to restrict this bill to the law-abiding, including law-abiding DACA folks. This bill does not do that. You can commit two crimes and still be here. You can be on a list of gang members and still be here. As far as self-supporting, this bill doesn't begin to deal with the problem of people who are already taking advantage of our generous welfare safety net. They are going to be staying here under this bill. Like I said, you can already be on a variety of public assistance programs; it is not dealt with. You can be a bad role model for your kids; it is not dealt with. You don't have to learn English. People always say: Oh, all the DACA members all know English. That is not true. You do not have to learn English and you are set on a path to citizenship. We can continue the divisive policy of having people who come here illegally and once made legal get preferences over people who are here native born. I was in Texas last week, Mr. Speaker. As you know, we have over 100,000 people streaming across our border every month. The majority party does nothing about this. Yesterday, we passed another welfare bill continuing another, to a large extent, failed welfare program, but we do nothing in that bill to make sure the current welfare programs aren't being abused by illegal or legal immigrants. That is what we should be focusing on at this time. A lot of people have been trying to destroy America over many years. Go back 100 years, and people realized America is the light of the world. America is the hope for civilization. If I wanted to destroy America, I would craft a bill like this. I would craft a bill saying that we have got people here on the welfare system, path to citizenship; criminal background, path to citizenship; and we put these folks ahead of so many wonderful, hardworking people who are trying to do the system the right way and trying to come here legally.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, prior to addressing the immigration crisis, which is the biggest problem, I think, facing America today, after hearing a rather lengthy speech before mine, I was analyzing the well here and noticing the flag of the United States of America behind me. As I am looking at that flag, I couldn't help but think about the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge of Allegiance begins: ``I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands.'' I pondered why that Pledge of Allegiance refers to this country as a republic instead of a democracy of which it stands. I think it would be a good thing for the other Congressmen up here to think about that as well. There have been several versions of the Pledge of Allegiance. In each one of the versions, while there are changes made, it refers to our country as a republic instead of a democracy. We should wonder why that is, and I think every Congressman should read up on the difference. Now, the reason I am here today is to discuss what I think is the biggest problem in the United States of America, the one thing we have to deal with in the immediate future and something that I believe does not grab the attention of Congress the way it should, and that is the immigration crisis. One more time, another month will go by, and another 100,000 people will enter this country not at the designated points of entry. We believe another 10,000 people will enter at the points of entry and claim asylum, whether they actually need asylum or not. No country can afford to have over 100,000 people pour into that country month after month after month without being appropriately vetted, stepping in line ahead of the people who are doing what is appropriate to become a citizen of the United States or appropriate to get a work visa in the United States. Ultimately, this will destroy our country, and it is something that this Congress should be dealing with immediately. I think it is a little embarrassing, hearing all the other speeches up here and no speeches about the immigration crisis. I want to point out, neither I nor President Trump wants to reduce the 700,000 people who are sworn in as citizens in this country every year, neither do we want to deal with the 4 million work permits that people in this country already have. Neither are they overly concerned that we, right now, have the highest number of foreign-born people in this country as a percentage of our total population since World War I. Now, what are we going to do about this crisis? Because, obviously, be it culturally, be it fiscally, we cannot allow this to go on any further. The first thing I think President Trump should do is end birthright citizenship. To say that if you come here, and particularly given that we allow entire families to stay once somebody is a citizen, to continue to allow the situation to happen in which, if you come here, whether you come in not at a designated point of entry, whether you come here flying in on a jet plane, in the United States of America, a newly born child becomes a citizen. We and Canada are the only two countries of the 40 wealthiest countries in the world per capita that allow this birthright citizenship to continue. I know President Trump understands this problem very well. He understands very well, as some Members of Congress do not, that the amendment to the Constitution that talks about people being born in this country becoming citizens was meant to deal with slavery, not meant to deal with anybody who comes here. I strongly urge President Trump to step up and do something that he talked about doing during his campaign, and that is ending birthright citizenship. In addition to the fact that it is wrong on its face, as long as you have birthright citizenship, it encourages people to come here, even illegally, knowing that if they have a child here, it will create a situation in which there is a good chance the rest of the family will follow. The next thing I think we can do is put immigration judges on the border. Right now, people are showing up, and they are asking for asylum. They are given a court date 5 years down the line. Well, who knows whether they will be around in 5 years. They probably will not show up for the court date at that time. I strongly encourage President Trump to put judges on the border so we can immediately judge whether these people are entitled to asylum or not. The next thing, along the same lines, I strongly encourage the Border Patrol to be trained to judge credible fear. Again, we believe that there are people coming from other countries who claim they have a credible fear who do not meet that standard as far as coming to the United States. We know that people are being coached as to what to say to come into this country. By training our Border Patrol to deal with these issues, we will not have so many people coming into the country illegally. The next thing I strongly think that President Trump should do is he should have ICE round up the million people who already have orders to be deported. This should be a relatively simple matter. By deporting some people, it sends the message to people in other countries that the United States will take our immigration laws seriously. Today, to a certain extent, because far too many politicians are encouraging things like sanctuary cities, getting rid of ICE, talking about giving public benefits to people who are here illegally, it is not surprising that people in other countries are getting the message that the United States does not treat its immigration laws seriously. The next thing I think we ought to do is I hope President Trump expedites the rule in the Department of Homeland Security dealing with allowing for removal of people who are taking advantage of public assistance. Obviously, the United States cannot become the welfare magnet for the entire Western Hemisphere. Everybody knows that, while it is frequently illegal, many people who are here illegally are taking advantage of public assistance, and we should expedite the legal ability to remove these people. I would like to take a pause here to congratulate Secretary Ben Carson for removing illegals from public housing. I will point out something a lot of people don't know. Frequently, under Section 8 or, even more, under section 42, the housing assistance they get from the government gives people housing that is superior to what many of the working people get. It is even more ridiculous when people who are here illegally get housing superior to what many of the native-born people in this country who rent are receiving. So I would like to thank Secretary Carson for having the ability to step up and begin to take a stand on the idea that, if you come here illegally, you should get free or reduced housing. The next thing I would like to see this House take up is sanctuary cities. I have introduced H.R. 516, which takes away grants from State and local units of government that become sanctuary cities. There are a variety of problems with sanctuary cities. First of all, it encourages people to go to those cities to get some sort of welfare benefit. Secondly, whenever a mayor or a Governor wants to declare their city or State a sanctuary city, it sends the message that the United States is not going to enforce its immigration laws. As long as that message is out here, people will continue to flow into our country, and it will eventually be the end of the United States. The next thing I want this body to do is pass H.R. 848, another bill of mine. The purpose of that bill is to increase the verification for compliance on any welfare benefits which people who are not in this country could be receiving. We are also saying that anybody who is not a citizen of this country should not receive any public assistance, which should be common sense. If you are coming here for an opportunity and you are not able to find a job, even if you are coming here legally, the answer is not to have the American taxpayer who is already $23 trillion in debt pick up the tab. The answer is, if you cannot find opportunity in this country, return to your country of origin. I hope this body, which is spending so much time dealing with less important issues, takes up this bill in the near future. Finally, I ask President Trump to continue to work towards the wall. I ask this Congress, as we move appropriation bills out, to make sure that wall is funded. I have been down on the border. I did not find any Border Patrol agents who were embarrassed to do their job or didn't want to do their job. The Border Patrol agents that I talked to on the Arizona-Mexico border felt we desperately needed a wall. They realize that walls work in other countries, and they realize that in the long- or even in the short-term, walls would save us a lot of money. Right now, different estimates vary between $50 billion, $100 billion a year is lost because of illegal immigration. Given the cost of a wall would be under $10 billion, it would be a big cost savings. And for a country that is $23 trillion in debt, we need big cost savings. In any event, those are suggestions of some of the things we can do to deal with this crisis. Think about it: 100,000 people coming here every month, people unvetted, people who may wind up on welfare, people who may wind up having a criminal record, and all coming here skipping ahead in line of those people who have sometimes waited 5 or 10 years to come here legally, which is incredibly unfair to them. In any event, I hope Congress begins to act on these measures. I encourage President Trump to make border enforcement his number one priority over the next couple months, because we can see it. It is very difficult to remove any of these people once they come to this country. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to address what I think is the most pressing issue in America right now. But prior to addressing it, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). Congratulating Samaritan's Purse on New Ministry Center in North Wilkesboro, North Carolina

Mr. GROTHMAN

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

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank President Trump for earlier today, one more time, bringing the issue of immigration to the forefront. I think President Trump's speech was an interesting speech and provided a nice starting point for the immigration discussion ahead. I would like to highlight three issues that I hope the President will consider as we move forth on some sort of compromise on this problem. The first issue that I really wish President Trump would have addressed today, but I am sure he will address in the future because he has dealt with it in the past, is birthright citizenship. If we are going to get control over who is in this country, we cannot allow the continuation of something which was certainly not intended by the Constitution, and that is something called birth tourism. I know somebody from California, and they see, on a regular basis, people coming to California to have a child here. Now, I know in the future we want to vet our future immigrants. We want to perhaps have a balance between different countries. We want to make sure that the immigrants who are coming here learn English, the people who are coming here are going to be hardworking people and not become a public charge. Under current law, the United States interprets, wrongly, the 14th Amendment of the Constitution as requiring that, if someone is born here, they will become a citizen here. That, of course, was not the intent of the Amendment, and President Trump, I know, knows it was not the intent of the Amendment. The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution was solely put in for the purpose of making sure that slaves who were born in the country prior to the Emancipation Proclamation would become citizens. There was a fear at the time that some unethical, particularly Southern, States would say that people who were not citizens prior to the Civil War were not citizens after the Civil War. Obviously, that Amendment was not designed to say somebody who was a tourist here, somebody who was here illegally or whatever, if they had a child, that that child would become a citizen. It is time that President Trump do what he talked about doing in November and October, and I applaud him when he will do it, and that he get rid of the birthright citizenship. I think he can do this as President by himself, though it would be nice if Congress would pass such a law. Right now in this country, we estimate that 7.5 percent of the births in this country are births of people who are here illegally. There are a variety of problems with that. First of all, it encourages illegal immigration, in part because, once somebody is a citizen, under the family laws that we have right now in the United States, the parents, perhaps the siblings, will eventually become citizens outside of the way we want to pick our future citizens and make sure that they are appropriately vetted. Now, we know that there are, I call them devious one worlders on both sides of the aisle who will fight this. The reason this has remained a practice in the United States for several decades is, unfortunately, perhaps even Republican Presidents, for whatever reason, did not want to have our immigration laws be treated seriously. But I do call upon President Trump to stop this policy. I think it is important not only to discourage illegal immigration, but I do not think right now that, when people come here on work visas, it is the intent of Congress that these people's children will automatically become citizens. I think we want to stop the excessive policy of chain migration which follows, as then the parents who broke the law when they came into this country would be able to turn around and become citizens themselves, kind of a reward for breaking the law. So I hope as this immigration law moves through the process and President Trump fine-tunes things, he does what we were all so happy to hear him say he would do last October, and that is end birthright citizenship. The next thing I think we want to look at is the idea of public benefits for illegal immigrants. First of all, under current law, you are not hypothetically supposed to get public benefits if you are here illegally. I would like to thank Housing and Urban Development Secretary Carson for stepping to the plate and making sure that people who broke the law to come here do not take advantage of our generous low-income housing benefits. However, we should go beyond that. We should pass a bill saying, outright, that public benefits are not things that we should give to anybody who is not a citizen. First of all, we are broke. I don't think it has been publicized enough, but about 20 percent of the current Federal spending is borrowed. When you are around $23 trillion in debt, the idea of providing generous public benefits to people who are not citizens is preposterous. Secondly, insofar as efforts are made to increase our citizenship through things like DACA, we do want to make sure that we are not collecting immigrants who are eventually, themselves, going to become a public charge or coming here because of our generosity rather than the opportunities that take place for people who work hard. I have introduced legislation which will say that any local unit of government that gives benefits to people who are not citizens will lose its ability to give those benefits, because we have to crack down on this. Otherwise, the future generations of Americans will no longer be like past generations who came here to take advantage of the opportunity to get through hard work, but we will begin to get some people here who will take advantage of the opportunities that are available from government benefits. I hope President Trump, as he continues to discuss this immigration situation, talks about this. The third thing I think he should talk about, and something that I don't think the mainstream media has highlighted enough, is what we are going to be spending money on in the next budget. So the viewers back home are aware, when we pass our annual spending bills, we break it into 12 separate bills. Now, right now, as we have 100,000 people a month crossing our border illegally, I would say that it is probably the number one concern for the future of the United States. Sadly, the majority party, as they let us know where their priorities lie, told us the percentage of increases in each one of these 12 bills. For example, Labor and HHS was due for a 6 percent increase; Defense for a 3 percent increase; State and Foreign Ops, a 5 percent increase; the Legislative Branch, I think, about a 3 percent increase. Who came along in last place at 1 percent? Homeland Security. In other words, a sign that the least priority in the next budget should be enforcing our borders, this at a time where groups estimate the cost of illegal immigration to our country to be between $50 billion and $100 billion. Not to mention, when we talk about the moral fiber of America, which has kept us going for so long, we begin to have the next wave of immigrants, who will become the next wave of Americans, whose first action coming to this country is breaking the law. I want to point out that neither I nor President Trump is anti- immigrant. I think it is tremendous that every year in this country we swear in another 700,000 citizens. I think it is wonderful in this country that we have 4 million people here on work visas, and it is possible that number will go up in the future. But there is a difference between people coming here on work visas; there is a difference between people going through the appropriate steps and getting sworn in legally and people who are crossing the border illegally. These are three suggestions of things that I would think would be minimal requirements before an immigration compromise is reached. Again, I emphasize we should get rid of birth right citizenship. The idea of people flying here from other countries or crossing the Rio Grande and saying ``my child automatically becomes a citizen'' must end. I think the practice of having people who are here illegally or anybody who is here who is not a citizen getting public benefits--and frequently those public benefits, particularly in the area of healthcare, are superior benefits to those which the average working American has. As a matter of fact, frequently, public housing today is superior to some of the housing that people who have to pay their own rent can afford. But I hope we step up to the plate and make sure that, with regard to immigration, there are no public benefits. And finally, with so many people flooding across the border, I hope we aggressively fight the idea that the least important part of our upcoming appropriations bills is Homeland Security. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about the crisis at our southern border. Obviously, we have a big problem on the southern border. If you have been paying attention to what is on TV, at the beginning of the year, about 50,000 people were arriving here every month. We are now, we believe, at 100,000 people illegally entering this country. One of the reasons this is happening, it is not surprising that people from other countries think the United States does not enforce their immigration laws. Many local governments are sanctuary cities, sanctuary counties, or even sanctuary States, sending the clear message to people in other parts of the world: the United States does not enforce their immigration laws. Sadly, even in my home State of Wisconsin, the Governor of Wisconsin pulled the Wisconsin Air National Guard off the border, sending the message that a Governor of a State does not apparently believe we should be spending money enforcing our immigration laws. The chief executives of the biggest city in the country and the biggest State in the country have both made it clear that they will provide, or want to provide, free medical care to people who come here. By the way, I should point out that, right now, at a time when so many Americans have huge deductibles, they are almost better off being here illegally and getting the free medical care than our citizens are. In any event, it is not surprising that we are flooded with people who want to come here. Another evidence of that is this body's refusal to appropriate enough money to build the wall. Now, in the last week--at least, it has been put out there--we have the majority party's suggestion or guidance for where we are going to spend money in the next budget. Now, Madam Speaker, given the crisis at the border, you would think the biggest increase in the next budget compared to the 2020 budget would be at Homeland Security--but, no. So the people back home understand, when we pass our annual appropriations, when we fund the budget, we break it into 12 different subcommittees, subcommittees like Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies; subcommittees like State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs; subcommittees like Defense and the subcommittee in charge of protecting our southern border, Homeland Security. Of the 12 groups that this body is going to vote on, which classification is getting the smallest increase in this budget? Homeland Security. One more time, the Congress itself is sending the message that we do not take our immigration laws seriously. It is time for us to send the message to people abroad that they should be taking our immigration laws seriously. After all, given the complete irresponsibility from so many politicians up here, it doesn't surprise me people think we don't take our immigration laws seriously. What can we do? Well, recently FAIR came out with a report in which they guessed that maybe over half the people who are in this country illegally are getting some sort of public benefit. When I went down to the border in Arizona awhile back and talked to Customs people who went through people's wallets and people's purses, they found evidence of people receiving public benefits who were not citizens here. I am glad our HUD Secretary is beginning to look into the, I believe, large number of people here illegally taking advantage of low-income housing. I want to point out, there is nothing wrong with legal immigrants coming here. Neither myself nor Donald Trump, who ran on this issue, want to decrease the 700,000 people who are sworn in every year as legal immigrants, and we do not want to decrease the 4 million people who are here on legal work visas. As a matter of fact, we said, if need be, we would even increase that. But to have so many people come here illegally is, no question, a huge problem. I would suggest to President Trump, because you can't wait for Congress to do anything around here, that he send a message that, when Secretary Carson finds people in low-income housing who are here illegally, they should be deported. I certainly have anecdotal evidence from back home that people who are here illegally are benefiting from SNAP benefits; and people who are, again, here illegally taking--not deporting everybody, but if they are taking advantage of our public benefits, again, they should return home and try to make a living in their home country or get benefits available in their home country. The next thing I would like to see happen, I know it is something President Trump ran on--I think it is time he rings the bell--is ending birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship is something that can cause somebody to become legal here whose parents are illegal. We should not reward illegal behavior by having people come here illegally and have a child in the country; not to mention, it is not right to encourage pregnant people to just fly here and have a baby in this country and wind up having their family stay here legally by that way as well. One thing that intrigues me is that apparently Canada is looking to get rid of their birthright citizenship law, one of the few other Western countries that has it. It would be very embarrassing if Justin Trudeau's Canada gets rid of the antiquated birthright citizenship law ahead of Donald Trump's United States. In any event, I strongly encourage President Trump to counteract the message being sent by so many other elected officials and make it clear that our immigration laws are to be taken seriously. Please, Mr. Trump, send the message. Congress is paralyzed. Stand up not only to the people overtly discouraging and ignoring our immigration laws, but stand up to the Chamber of Commerce lobby and say that, in the future, we want our immigrants to be picked, merit-based immigrants, not whoever decides to break the law. 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. Madam Speaker, today I would like to address the status of abortion in America. In the past 2 months, there have been two stories that show a significant shift, I believe, in America regarding the status of abortion. In New York, one of our original 13 Colonies, they recently expanded the right to have abortions up to 9 months and, as a practical matter, left it to be okay for a baby born alive not to receive protection. The Governor of New York was so proud of this situation that he lit up the World Trade Center and people applauded in the Senate chamber. In Virginia, another one of our original 13 States, the Governor came out for a bill that also allows 9-month abortions. The morally bereft Governor said that, if a baby was born alive, that baby would only be resuscitated if the mother wanted. By the way, I want to point out here there is this myth out there that late-term abortions are only for babies who may not survive. I once heard a speech from a woman who quit a late-term abortion clinic in Ohio. She was there only one day. At that time, there were six babies delivered. Five had no health problems whatsoever, and the other had either spina bifida--I think it was spina bifida. And, of course, many people live productive lives with that disease. Only 10 years ago, Kermit Gosnell of Philadelphia was convicted of delivering babies alive and killing them after they were born--perhaps hundreds, perhaps thousands. You can read about them in a book by that name, ``Gosnell.'' There is a movie out as well; kind of very interesting to see the mindset of the abortion industry. But Gosnell was defiant. When they talked to him after he was convicted, as a practical matter, put in prison for life, he said, in the end, he would be vindicated. And I think when he said vindicated, he meant in 10 years that he felt America would come around to the position that it would be okay to kill a baby born alive. Who would dream that less than 10 years later, Gosnell may be on the verge of being proven right, and that the moral compass of America had shifted so much that it would be okay to allow a born-alive baby to die. How did we get here? There are a variety of culprits to blame. Part of it, of course, is the thinly disguised racism of our old friend, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. And I should point out that even Margaret Sanger, feminist hero, was opposed to abortion because as recently as 60 years ago, even among people of that ilk, that would have been considered something that you could never be for. But she did want her organization to reduce people from races she considered inferior, and this was typical of the views of the early progressives. We also have people viewing it also as a way to hold down the people that we consider undesirable. Justice Ginsberg was quoted in the New York Times that she thought Roe was decided, in part, because of a concern about population growth in populations we don't want too many of. Now, she was subsequently allowed to say that that quote was taken out of context, but that was the quote that was listed. They kind of gave her a chance to try to walk that thing back; a chance that wasn't given Steve King. Later, the same point was made by an article in the Harvard Journal crediting abortion with the reduction in crime rates. Part of the problem is the usual weight of promiscuous politicians who would obviously be for abortion; people like the Ted Kennedys or Bill Clintons or Bob Packwoods of the world; and, obviously, there are a given number of men who have a vested interest in making sure abortion is always available. Part of the problem is the pernicious influence of Hollywood. The ``Me Too Movement'' has opened up eyes as to the mindset of powerful people in Hollywood and that, perhaps, is one of the reasons why the popular culture would be all largely pro-choice to the extreme or pro- abortion to the extreme. But still, why is it in America that we are such an outlier? John Adams said that this country--that the Constitution was put together for a morally and religious people. The Pilgrims came from Europe to found a more devout country. Yet, in Europe, a much less religious country than ours, the norm is no abortions after 12 weeks. You look around. Germany, 12 weeks; France, 12 weeks; Italy, 90 days; Portugal, 10 weeks. How did America wind up, in States like New York saying, okay for 9 months? And you look south of the border. Mexico, most of their states don't allow abortion to this day; and it is 12 weeks in the area of Mexico City. So, we will have to look further why did this happen. I had originally felt, with the advent of the ultrasound, America would become overwhelmingly pro-life. I had toured abortion clinics when the ultrasound was a little bit rare, and I could see the language that was used to mislead America as to what was going on. In the abortion industry, they don't use the word ``abortion.'' They talk about ``procedures.'' They don't even use the word ``fetus,'' much less ``baby.'' They use the word ``tissue.'' But I felt the ultrasound would overcome that language that I felt was one of the reasons abortion was still so common. So who else can we blame? Obviously, politicians have dropped the ball. Obviously, we have horrible judges who can look at the Constitution, a document founded for a moral and religious people, and claim that when our forefathers put together that Constitution, they apparently expected abortion to be legal, and abortion being illegal for so much of this country's history. To a certain extent, when you look at the judges, I think we have to blame the law schools, you know. Americans, whatever polls you look at, bounce back and forth between what people would say is 50 percent pro- abortion, 50 percent pro-life. I wonder, in the law schools, the law school students, the law school faculty, what those numbers are, which is maybe one of the reasons why so few of the judges seem to be able to get the appropriate answer here. But where I would like to put the attention is, where are the churches? You know, it must be kind of difficult to be a minister or a priest. You have got to come up with 50 or 52 different topics a year to talk about. Now, we have a situation going on in this country where we peaked out at over a million abortions a year, and we are still over 600,000. You look what is going on in Virginia, and you look at what is going on in New York; and it seems to me there is fertile ground for the priest or minister looking for something to say. Nevertheless, I have taken to spending the last few weeks kind of talking to people at random as to how often in the past year, when the priests and ministers are looking for 50 different topics to talk about, how often they have addressed the abortion issue. It is not unusual, as a matter of fact, I would say the majority of people I talked to who go to a church, it is not brought up at all. I mean, I will tell you, it would be very difficult to come up with 50 different topics a year. But how you can come up with 50 different topics a year, and with 600,000 abortions in this country every year, and not deal with that? But I think a lot of the blame has to lie there. Whenever there are great tragedies in human history, I think people expect the clergy to step up and provide some moral guidance. So I end this speech by saying three things: First of all, I ask the pro-life groups not to give up. Secondly, I ask the politicians to bring forth bills like the Born- Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which, by the way, in itself, shows some weakness, and we have a relatively weak bill. And that is, I guess, what our pro-life position is today, or the bill we can bring to the floor. It is kind of sad that we didn't even get a final vote on that in the Senate, but the bill should be brought up to educate America on the state of abortion in America right now. And finally, and most importantly, I ask the churches to finally step up. You know, I look on a calendar, and this June there will be five weekends. Okay. So your average priest, your average minister out there is going to have to think of five topics to talk about. So I would like to ask the people of this country, and any clergy who happen to hear this speech, to devote at least one of those 5 weeks in June to this stain of over 600,000 abortions in this country every year, and ask yourself, what is the right or wrong thing to do? And if you are one of those clergymen who, over the last year has not addressed this issue--see, I am making your life easier for you, you only have to think of four other things to talk about, rather than the five weekends in June--I ask you to spend one week in June addressing this issue and encouraging people to finally say no more of this scourge in the United States. Madam 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 rise today to address the current committee meeting on our immigration problems and problems connected to the wall. I would like to spend a few moments updating the American people on the key issues and the status of the key issues that we ought to remember as that committee does its work. I have spent some time talking with constituents in the Sixth Congressional District and, one more time, want to address their concerns, or maybe address some misconceptions that are out there regarding this issue. The first thing I will address is the need to compromise. And it is true that, in this body, again and again, we must compromise. But I want to point out that prior to this committee, President Trump, has elected to--more than any other issue--deal with the immigration crisis, has compromised considerably. First of all, on the issue of whether we need a wall--and we will talk about that wall. At various different times, various different people have suggested different amounts on the wall. Initially, people talked about 20 to $25 billion. The most recent or accurate estimate it would take--not to build an entire wall, but just to build parts of a wall in areas in which one could cross the border; in other words, areas in which the terrain does not form a natural border, would cost about $8 billion. And I hope the negotiators who are Republicans will remember that $8 billion figure. I got it from the gentleman who was the head of the Border Patrol under the Obama administration. President Trump, in an effort to reach some sort of compromise, has already gone down from $8 billion to $5.7 billion. I find that unfortunate, in that I toured the border about 3 weeks ago and, at the time--I know some of the wall that we so desperately need near Sasabe, Arizona, areas in which MS-13 has gone across the land, trampled across the land--and I have talked to the ranchers there, they will have to be told, sorry, we are building part of the wall, but not enough of a wall for you. So already, that $5.7 billion figure is a big compromise. I also want to point out with regard to time. People wonder why we are shutting down the government right now. Actually, we could shut down the government whenever people disagree on what should be in, what we call, an appropriations bill, but I think what people back home would call a budget. And every budget up here is a compromise. It contains hundreds of provisions. Every provision gone over, and maybe the Democrats want more of this; the Republicans want more of that. In his first 2 years here, President Trump got budgets that contained very, very little for anything like a wall. This is unfortunate. President Trump, in particular, in a budget passed about a year ago, what we call an omnibus bill, complained what a bad bill it was. It was a horrible bill, but he signed it because he didn't want to shut down the government, which happens when both sides disagree. So President Trump agreed to cave in to people that wanted to spend a lot more money on other things, in the interest of keeping the government open. But President Trump only gets a 4-year term. For the first 2 years he signed appropriations bills without adequate money for the wall. Finally, in the third time around he said, look, I would be happy to sign a third year of appropriations, but this time, I would like money for a wall. He has compromised for over 2 years. We had a government shutdown just 3 weeks ago because some headstrong Democrats, despite being happy to spend billions of dollars on other things, refused to give a little bit of money for the wall. President Trump also extended the DACA program for another 2 years. And I will point out, that as well is something the Border Patrol was not thrilled about, because whenever you talk about extending the DACA program, it is kind of a magnet for people south of the border, because they believe we are not going to enforce our immigration laws anymore. But, in an effort to compromise, President Trump agreed to extend the DACA extension for two more years. So there have been plenty of compromises already. And my suggestion to the committee is that they bring in experts on how much it would take to really secure the border, and not be afraid if what President Obama's head of the Border Patrol said was right, and if we need $8 billion, then we spend $8 billion. The next issue I am going to deal with is the cost of the wall; $5.7 billion or $8 billion--we will talk about the $5.7 billion President Trump has come down to--is a lot of money. But Congress spends a lot of money. We should remember that the $5.7 billion President Trump wants is one-seventh the cost of foreign aid that this country spends every year. It is well under one-half of 1 percent of the overall Federal budget. It is actually about one-tenth of 1 percent. President Trump has increased defense spending as President because our defense budget was too low to adequately protect our population. But the amount where he is asking for the wall is about one-twelfth of the increase that we will spend year after year after year on defense. So you can see, when it comes to spending on anything but the wall, Congress has no time appropriating much more money; seven times the amount that we spend on foreign aid, and almost nobody objects. All of a sudden, with the wall, oh, maybe it is too expensive. The next thing I would like to address is, do we need a wall? What would happen if we don't have a wall? Remember, I am talking about $5.7 billion for a wall. It really should be $8 billion. First of all, about 90 percent of the heroin in this country comes across our southern border. Now, some people like to point out that the vast amount of heroin caught is at the points of entry, which is true. We have Customs at the point of entry, and they catch people. In places where there is no wall, and I point to this area behind me near Sasabe, Arizona, people are not checked. We do not check vehicles. We do not check how much they have. Occasionally, we are fortunate enough to catch people otherwise, but if you were going to sneak drugs across our southern border, would you try to go across a normal point of entry with plenty of Customs agents or out here in the middle of nowhere? Of course, in the middle of nowhere. We are not serious about dealing with the heroin problem in this country or the fentanyl problem in this country unless we look to our southern border. We are not serious about securing our southern border until we get a wall. Right now, at least 12 million people are in this country illegally, but the Border Patrol tells us they really have no idea how many people are in this country illegally because they don't count the number of people who are coming across in these open areas. They have told me it is entirely possible there are 20 million people in this country illegally. Obviously, having so many people who are breaking the law just by being here is an unstable situation. When I talk to the Customs agents, they find evidence of EBT cards and evidence of Medicaid cards when people are walking across the border. Some of the people who are coming here illegally and, quite frankly, legally are illegally taking advantage of our welfare system. If they are sick, they are certainly going to our hospitals, going to our emergency rooms, and running up the cost of healthcare for people who are here legally and paying their own way. We believe, from the percentage of people who are here illegally in our Federal prisons, well more proportionately than the native-born population, that they are disproportionately committing crimes in this country. Quite frankly, when you add up the cost of all these things--they show up; their kids get free education--The Heritage Foundation estimates that it costs more than $50 billion a year for illegal immigrants in this country. $8 billion for a wall, one-time money, as opposed to $50 billion year after year after year? I am sometimes asked: Can America afford to build a wall? If we are losing $50 billion a year, we can't afford not to build a wall. Think how much stronger our economy will be when we are making sure that every immigrant who comes into this country is a good, productive immigrant. Another reason we need a wall is that, for people who come across this sort of territory near Sasabe--and this isn't really the best picture--frequently, it is in desert, and rocky desert, not sandy desert, rocky desert. Thousands of people have been found around the Arizona-Mexico border after having died trying to get across this territory. We are told that the cartels, which help people get across the border--in fact, are required to be dealt with to get across the border--mislead people when they get to the border. They point them and say this way to Phoenix, this way to Tucson, and it is maybe hundreds of miles further to get to Phoenix than they estimate. So the people are left to die of starvation or die, more likely, of dehydration. It is a humanitarian crisis to continue to allow people to think that sneaking across the open parts of the current wall that has been built is the way to get in the United States. In any event, we need a wall. We will continue to bleed money; we will continue to get people in this country illegally; and we will continue to get people who can only sneak into the country illegally rather than go across the normal points of entries unless we build that wall. The next question that some people will ask is: Does this mean that we are anti-immigrant, because America is a country of immigrants? Yes, America is a country of immigration, but it is a country of legal immigration. I will remind people that, every year in this country, 700,000 people are sworn in legally. Nobody is talking about cutting that number. A little under 4 million people come into this country on work visas every year, and a little under 2 million come in on student visas. Nobody is talking about cutting these numbers. Dozens of millions additional people come in on tourist visas. With regard to the work visas or people who literally come in here legally and wind up being naturalized, what we are asking is, for the people who are trying to sneak off the border without checking in with the Border Patrol or Customs agents at the designated areas, we are just asking them to get in line and go through what everybody who is trying to come here legally is doing. It is the height of irresponsibility to say that we are anti- immigrant when we are letting almost 4 million people come into this country every year on work visas and having 700,000 new people sworn in in this country, naturalized in this country. That is not the sign of an anti-immigrant President. That is the sign of a President who understands very clearly how important immigration is to our country. By historic levels, it is very favorable to immigrants. We are going to have more foreign-born people in this country than at any time over the last 90 years. Again, that is not the sign of a President who is anti-immigrant. The next thing I will point out, some people think: But can't people come into the country another way? Well, it is true. I suppose no system is 100 percent effective. But the one thing I am going to say is that we do have a lot of walls, and walls do work in other places we put the walls. We have some pictures here of walls. Here are some walls in Sasabe, Arizona. There are spaces in the walls that aren't good, but when they build this sort of wall, whether they build the wall between Juarez and El Paso or a wall between San Diego and Tijuana, the walls have been very effective. Here you see the wall between San Diego and Tijuana, a very effective wall. People are not getting around that wall. It decreased illegal crossings at that place over 90 percent. Here is a wall in Israel between Israel and Egypt, because Israel was having a problem of people sneaking into their country illegally. So Israel built a wall. Well over 95 percent successful, nobody is getting across the wall anymore between Israel and Egypt, showing that the wall is successful. Other countries with successful walls, a wall that was largely built with U.S. taxpayer money--which I will point out people who are not going to vote for this wall had no problem voting for--is the wall along the Jordan-Syria border and part of the border with Iraq, because it is important for Jordan not to let terrorists into their country. That wall has been highly successful in keeping Jordan safe. Another country that built a wall is Hungary, which shares a border with Serbia. They were afraid of other people coming from south of Hungary, in essence invading their country like people right now are trying to invade the United States. So they built a wall. Hungary has found that that sort of wall has been very successful in keeping out immigrants who they don't want to have in their country. There is a reason why President Clinton wanted a wall between Tijuana and San Diego, and there is a reason why Israel and Hungary and nine other European nations have walls. It is because walls work, and that is the clearest way to prevent people from crossing into the country illegally. There is another benefit to walls, too, that people don't take into account. It sends the message that the United States is serious about our immigration laws. We will talk for just a second about border security and the degree to which we have to build a wall to send the message that the United States is serious, because you hear from time to time in this body that certain people say everybody wants border security. Well, that is funny, because there are all sorts of politicians in this country of both parties--I will include President Bush in this--who do all sorts of things that would indicate that we do not intend to enforce our borders. Both the Governor of California and the mayor of New York have said that we should be providing free medical care to illegal immigrants. Does that sound like they want border security? It sounds more like they want to be a magnet for illegal immigration. Dozens of sanctuary cities and sanctuary counties, and in the case of California, a whole State, set themselves up as areas in which local officials will not ask whether people are here legally or illegally. That is like a magnet to people south of the border as they hear American elected officials, in essence, say: Don't worry about the immigration laws being enforced in our city or our county or our State. Those people do not want border security. Keith Ellison, a former Congressman, now attorney general of Minnesota, says that natural borders create an injustice. In other words, there is a larger crowd out there who doesn't even know we have a country. They say everybody can come in. Who cares. These are powerful people, and the people south of the border who want to come here illegally are listening to them. The Oakland mayor, another powerful person, when ICE tried to wrap up over 100 people, criminals, in the Oakland area to send them out of this country, she alerted the public to the fact that ICE was in the area trying to enforce our immigration laws on criminals. Why would a mayor undermine ICE, which is trying to evict criminals from this country? The reason is simple: They don't care about border security. Americans have to realize, for are a lot of elected officials out there, it is come one, come all. It is not let's pick our million or 2 million or 3 million people who are coming into the country every year. It is let's let everyone come into the country. Those people are increasingly powerful, and their message is to ignore immigration laws, which is another reason why we need a wall. Putting up a wall everywhere where we need a wall, there are a few natural barriers in which it is not necessary, but I would say we need at least another 300 miles of wall. To put up that additional 300 miles of wall and improve the wall we already have sends the message that people like the mayor of Oakland or the Congressmen who want to get rid of ICE do not speak for the American Government. We are serious about enforcing our immigration laws. Now, the question is--and I don't want to tar all Democrats; I have a lot of Democrat friends. But why is the vast majority of Democrats not willing to compromise on this wall? Why are these Democrats who in the past had no problem voting for a wall when President Clinton was President, and they had no problem voting for additional wall when President Bush was President--and a lot of that appropriation when President Bush was President wasn't spent until President Obama was President and he was improving our walls. But why is a wall now immoral when the wall wasn't immoral under President Clinton or President Bush or President Obama? The answer is twofold. One, sadly, is political. A couple of weeks ago, eight Democrats voted in a way that I think they would be okay with a wall, but that is not enough. Part is, sadly, political. Some people don't like President Trump, and they don't want to see him succeed. Worse, we have an increasing radicalization within too many elements of the Democratic Party. I have been around long enough to remember when I think Democrats in this Chamber--I wasn't here for it--but like I said, where they would have quickly voted for appropriations for a wall under President Clinton. But this Keith Ellison new breed of Congressman type is quickly getting a vise grip on some members of the Democratic Party. For that reason, votes that they would have taken in a heartbeat in the 1990s, or in the first decade of this century, or even 7 or 8 years ago, they will not take anymore. They genuinely believe in some sort of world in which anybody who wants can come here, and it won't affect the long-term safety of our Nation. That is preposterous, but we have to remember, that is more and more common. And I would look for the Democrats or anybody who comes down here to speak as to why it wasn't mean-spirited, it didn't send a bad message to build a wall under these other Presidents, but it does now. So to, one more time, go over the points that have been made for people to remember: President Trump has compromised and not built a wall for over 2 years--really breaking the heart of a lot of his supporters. He has dropped the amount he wanted from, originally, $20 billion all the way, now, down under $6 billion, such a small amount that there will be big gaps in that wall because of his effort to compromise. President Trump has even tried to bring other issues into the debate by extending DACA, hoping that this sweetener would cause other people to move a little bit on their negotiating point. It didn't. I will digress for just one second while I talk about that DACA. The third thing to remember is that that wall is one-seventh the cost of foreign aid in this country. Is that too big of an amount? Is that something we can't handle? That is not true. The next thing to remember is, when other Presidents were building the wall, there were no objections around here. All of a sudden, in 2019, when President Trump is President, in part due to the radicalization of some Members of this body and in part due to personal dislike of President Trump, too many people are willing to continue to allow people to stream across the border with drugs, violent people with disregard for their fellow citizens, not to give President Trump a win, and, in part, because their ideology has switched and they really don't need a wall at all. The next thing to remember is walls work. If anybody questions, walls work. Look at the wall between San Diego and Tijuana; look at the wall between Israel and Egypt; look at the wall between Serbia and Hungary. In all cases, these walls were working. And if you talk to the Border Patrol today, as I have, the Border Patrol and Customs agents will tell you we need a wall. The people who are down there, who are experts on the topic, know that that wall will work--not 100 percent, but it will work a lot better than what they have now. I should point out, they want a smart wall; they want a wall with some sensors on there; and they want a wall with a road. One of the problems we have right now enforcing our southern border is that, without a road, given the rough terrain, even if we find out somebody is sneaking across the border, the Border Patrol could not get there on a very timely basis because their vehicles can't move there. Here, we have an example of a wall with a road that the Border Patrol can get up and down on. Here, we have an example of a wall without a road, which makes it very difficult to stop people on a timely basis. And then the other thing for people to remember, when people talk about their problems with the wall, there are a growing number of politicians out there, local or Federal, who really don't want border security. They would be pretty happy with coming across the border now. Now, as far as looking down the future on this issue, one of the things that scares me is, with all these people fighting against the wall, it is going to take more resolve, because that is only one of the issues that has to be tackled for us to secure our borders. Right now, our asylum laws are very flawed. People are trying to come into this country, sometimes with other people's children, knowing that if they say the magic words and that they are at risk, we will have to let them in this country until there is some sort of court proceeding that they almost certainly won't show up for. So after we are done with the wall, or maybe as part of the wall negotiations, we have got to do something with our asylum laws to prevent anybody who either has a child or is borrowing somebody else's child from trying to come in this country. Another problem we have: We have got a problem with people coming in this country for welfare. As I mentioned, the Customs agents see that. We have people coming into this country because of relatives, what in most cases would even be referred to as shirttail relatives, but they are taking advantage of that to come into this country. In any event, we have people who are becoming citizens on birthright citizenship. And people are coming in this country 8 months pregnant, having a child so that their family can come into the United States. There is another loophole that very few countries have that we have to close. So this wall which President Trump has been fighting for for over 2 years is only the first step of many steps that we absolutely have to do to save our country. I plead with the American public, ask people from both sides of the aisle: Remember that Bill Clinton built part of a wall. Remember that people had no problem voting for a wall under George Bush, and remember that even Barack Obama improved part of the wall. And I ask the people on the other side--I hate to say ``on the other side,'' but people on the other side of the aisle, other than those who have already changed and said it is okay for a wall: Pretend it is the 1990s or the first decade of this century and somebody else was President, when a little more old-fashioned values ruled the show and we wanted to be a country of laws, and vote like almost everybody on that side of the aisle would have voted in the 1990s or the first decade of the century. Vote for $5.7 billion--or better, a full $8 billion towards the wall so that we can secure our country, at least insofar as a border can secure our country. After that, we can tackle the problems with the asylum laws and other flaws in our immigration laws, tackle birthright citizenship so that we are determining who can come into our country in the future, because immigrants have been so valuable, historically, but we should aim for every immigrant being a good immigrant. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN

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