Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, the purpose of this speech is to encourage America to wake up before the Build Back Better Act passes here.

There are so many crises going on in this country. I still believe the number one is the 100,000 people a month flooding the border; but these two actions of the Biden administration intersect, and I encourage America to pay attention.

First of all, in the Build Back Better Act, we are providing amnesty to at least 7 million illegal aliens. To give that much amnesty not only is an outrage in its own right, but is encouraging more and more people to come here. The next thing that is being done is that we are guaranteeing certain bad actors will not be removed from the country. This bill provides parole for some felons, sex offenders, and members of gangs. This will be a further problem.

Madam Speaker, finally, and perhaps most absurd of all, under this bill we are getting free Pell grants, that is to say, free college for people who are coming here illegally. The American citizen, the American taxpayer is $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 in debt to go to college, but people come here illegally--free college.

Wake up, America.

Madam Speaker, this is a potentially very black day for America. I want to emphasize some things that I think are very significant that haven't received enough attention.

We are paying for the government to care for 3- and 4-year-olds. Traditionally, in America, the raising of the children is the responsibility of the parents. I know there are people--Marxists--who believe that the raising of children is the responsibility of the state, but this is a sad day for America. The Federal Government-- against the Constitution, by the way--is going to weigh in and say taking care of 3-year-olds is the responsibility of government--not mom, not dad, not grandma and grandpa, the government.

The next thing is a big push toward encouraging illegal immigration. In this bill, we are paying for free college for people who are here illegally, something that the American middle class doesn't get. American middle-class kids, they are going 30 or 40 grand in debt, and we are giving free college to people who come here illegally. What a shame.

I guess it matches the free healthcare while the average American is sitting there looking at a $10,000 deductible.

Madam Speaker, this could be a very black week for America in that there are rumors that the reconciliation bill will pass. A lot of bad provisions are in there that are bad for the economy, bad for the dollar. But I think the one that is going to have the longest impact is the universal three- and four-year-old pre-K expenditure.

In America, traditionally, the family has been in charge of raising the children, but as is obvious from groups that helped the Democrats retain the majority last time, there are people who don't like the nuclear family and would rather have the government raise their children. To have the government involved in universal pre-K will permanently reduce the impact that American families have on their children and permanently increase the ability of the government to instill all of their frequently anti-Christian values on the various young children.

I think in the long run, when we look back on this week and the damage that it has done to America, we will look at the universal three- and four-year-old pre-K provision as something that did more to drag down America than anything else.

Madam Speaker, I would like to address the Build Back Better bill. Earlier this week the Border Patrol announced that they had found 557 bodies of people who were trying to get into this country last year. That is more than double what it was a year ago.

I am shocked that after finding all these bodies, either dehydrating in the heat, drowning in the Rio Grande, or falling off the 30-foot high fence, that they still are doing all they can to cause illegal immigration in this country.

In particular, in this bill, you are still trying to give amnesty to millions of people, which acts as a magnet for people to come here. You are still trying to give free college tuition to people who come in this country illegally, while the middle class in this country--who you apparently don't care for--goes tens of thousands of dollars in debt to get that degree.

This is happening all at the time that President Biden is apparently negotiating giving families, who try to come here illegally, $450,000.

Please, majority party, give up on this horrible Build Back Better bill, which is just one more effort to transform and change America.

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend I attended a University of Wisconsin football game, and for awhile I sat high in the second deck overlooking the campus and the beautiful Lake Mendota.

As I stood there looking at over 80,000 people, I wondered what was going on in different people's minds. Some people were looking at beautiful Lake Mendota. Some people were looking at the beautiful college buildings: Vilas Hall and Van Vleck Hall. Other people were looking down on the football game.

As I looked at the 80,000 people, I realized that some people looking at 80,000 people said: Wouldn't it be great if we hired all 80,000 people to be new IRS agents?

Please, don't let this country become East Germany. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I hope we all vote ``no'' on the reconciliation bill.

Mr. Speaker, as Congress leaves for the weekend, we have to alert the American public over the potential results of the Build Back Better bill as well as the American Rescue Plan that was already passed.

Soon we will be getting our winter heat bills in the Midwest. If you are from Wisconsin, if you are from Michigan, if you are from Minnesota, look out, because we have a big increase in energy costs, and you ought to be cutting back on your spending right now.

In any event, this bill looks like it is stoked up for more spending, which means more inflation. We have new Pell grants for people who are here illegally, and the idea of getting free college for people here illegally and paying for it by inflating the dollar still more is just plain irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the American people to pay attention because if this bill passes, it will be further increases in your heat bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk one more time about the reconciliation bill that may be before us very soon.

We began this session with a great electoral victory for Black Lives Matter, who on their website said we disrupt the western prescribed nuclear family structure.

First of all, I think that is just insulting because we have nuclear families all over the world. But in any event, I look at the reconciliation bill that is now before us, and it looks to me like a payoff to people who want to discriminate against the nuclear family.

Whether you look at the earned income tax credit, all the additional money in low-income housing, or the increase in Pell grants, they are all additional money that will be disproportionately very difficult for nuclear families to access.

I strongly reject voting for this bill because in the future we must no longer punish people who decide to live in nuclear families.

Madam Speaker, I guess the major topic of the week, and should be the major topic of the week, is the infrastructure bill--I am sorry, the reconciliation bill.

It is tempting when talking about the reconciliation bill to just talk about the huge amount of spending which inevitably is going to be paid for by the Federal Reserve printing more money and is inevitably going to result in an increase in inflation, be it in housing, be it in food, or, in addition to housing and food, be it in energy costs.

I hope the American public realizes what is going on and they are prepared to pay, at least in the northern part of the country, their heating bills that are going to arrive in December and January or February because it is going to be a shocker.

But I am a little bit afraid, as we spend so much time focusing on the inevitable inflation, we don't talk enough about the way that the authors of this bill want to permanently change America, I feel, for the worst.

First of all, they want a lot more intrusive government. In this bill, we have a provision for hiring over 80,000 IRS agents.

In Wisconsin, when I think of 80,000, I think of our big stadiums where the University of Wisconsin plays. I think it is more than you would fit in the stadium where the Green Bay Packers play. And I think, who would want to hire this many government agents to monitor the American citizens?

It is kind of a scary thing. What vision for America do we have here?

We just got done, outside of the infrastructure bill, the Biden administration, trying to monitor transfers of $600 from account to account. Why would you do that?

I mean, I can only imagine we want to monitor what charities you give money to, what politicians you want to give money to. You want to monitor if it is the type of church that maybe isn't favored by the current administration.

Now, finally, they knocked that back up to $10,000, but you can see the type of country that this administration wants.

At a time when, whether you are in construction, whether you are in manufacturing, whether you are in the service industries, everybody is screaming for more people to work, not only are we going to take 80,000 people out of the work pool and have them work for the government monitoring their fellow citizens, we have a new civilian climate corps, again, to take people out of the workforce, not have them working for, I guess I would say, the more productive segments of society but, instead, a new program.

We have free community college. Now, I am somebody who is in favor of technical school. I am as big a fan of technical schools as there is. But when you give something away for free, you are, in essence, telling the 19- and 20-year-olds that you ought to spend time taking this thing for free and maybe do that instead of working, maybe do that instead of joining the military, maybe do that instead of getting a job where the employer trains you to do something or other.

It is another shift in the power that the government has in our country.

The next area that I think there is going to be a big change is you want to get parents out of their children's lives. I particularly don't like the idea of having the government care for all 3- and 4-year-olds.

First of all, it is not effective. Studies will show that you can teach a 3-year-old to read or a 5-year-old to read but, either way, by the time they are 8 or 9, they are all the same.

We do have a problem on international test scores with other countries, but the problem isn't that our kids are not doing a good job of learning when they are 4 or 5 going into elementary school. Our test scores compared to other countries are actually very good for fourth graders. It is in middle school that our students fall behind other countries.

In other words, it is kind of we are in worse and worse shape the more time we spend in the schools.

But in any event, I don't like the idea of the government taking care of 3- or 4-year-olds. Right now, there are still many stay-at-home parents. Not only that, even when parents don't stay home, a lot of times kids stay with their grandparents or other relatives. This is a big shift in saying the government should take care of the 3- and 4- year-olds.

In part, I think, given what we have seen in the rest of this bill, one of the reasons the government wants to take care of these kids is to instill government values in those children, which is not something that we want.

The next thing about the bill that I think is a shift that we won't like is we started off this session talking a little bit about Black Lives Matter and things they had that they took off their website in which they don't like an old-fashioned family.

But right now, most income transfer payments or welfare payments are based on a certain definition of poverty in which it is very difficult to get this money if you are married, particularly if you are married to someone who has an income.

It seems, in this bill, we are going to put more money into programs in which you cannot get that money unless you are not working full time and certainly very difficult to get that money if you are married to somebody. So, in other words, it is a disincentive to be part of an old-fashioned nuclear family.

I quote here from the Black Lives Matter website that was taken down: We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure. So that is not what they want. And, therefore, it is not surprising that we are putting a lot more money into programs conditioned upon adapting a lifestyle other than the traditional nuclear family.

Recently, outside of the bill, President Biden upped the amount of money going into the food stamp program. Right now in America, if you looked at the difference between 2006 and 2018, both years in which the economy was going very well, the number of people on food stamps in this country increased by 40 percent.

I mean, I would think the goal of an antipoverty program would be to get less people in poverty. But, instead, in that 12-year period, a strong economy in 2006, a strong economy in 2018, we have a 40 percent increase in the number of people on food stamps, which means, I think, that the people who design the program are successful by their own measurement. They are getting more and more people not to work full time, and they are getting more and more people not to live in a traditional nuclear family structure.

In this program, there is a lot of money for low-income housing. Low- income housing is one of those programs that, again, it is fine if it is for the elderly and disabled. But of course, otherwise, it is one of these programs that is designed for people living there if they aren't part of a nuclear family. I think it is a mistake to put another program along those lines.

It is very easy to find situations in which people would lose $20,000, over $20,000 a year, if they got married to someone who did have a job.

There was an author, an English author that I like to quote, talking about the problem of the welfare system in England. I think there the system was more expansive than even here in the United States. When he looked at the dysfunction of the British families in the 1990s and early 2000s, he looked at the British system and said there was almost nothing you could do that would deprive you of the right to get free housing, free food, and medical care.

In other words, you could live a completely irresponsible life if you wanted to. Of course, an irresponsible life frequently means being not the best parent. It can mean, obviously, not working, so being a bad role model in that way, and spending time doing things like drugs and such--in other words, living a lifestyle that is not advisable.

But between getting rid of the work requirements for food stamps in this bill, between the massive increases in low-income housing--and I will point out, a lot of times this low-income housing, at least in Wisconsin, is better off than the housing that is not low-income housing, as far as rental units are concerned--you are going to further incentivize a certain lifestyle and further discourage the nuclear family.

I will give you the exact numbers here so you can check. In 2006, we had 26 million people on food stamps. In 2019, we had 36 million people. I realize that there are people that go through a tough time. I have no problem helping out people going through a tough time. But when you have a 40 percent increase in a 13-year period, it is time to step back and look and see whether your programs are accomplishing what you want to accomplish. Maybe if you want more people living the welfare lifestyle, you are getting what you want.

The next area that I would like to look at is what type of vision you have for America as far as future Americans. Here, we look at our southern border, clearly another way in which this administration is even dramatically different than, I would say, the Obama administration.

In this bill, first of all, we have mass amnesty, which, in addition to being wrong, because you are having people who kind of skip the line to come in here ahead of people who are coming here appropriately, it is a problem in that you are getting people to come in this country who we do not know what the background is. We want people in this country who are hardworking. We want people who are law-abiding.

When you put such a massive carrot out there that you are encouraging people to come into the country, regardless of being appropriately vetted, you are going to inevitably make a big step towards destroying America.

Another provision, in addition to the mass amnesty, in the bill that I think shows a green light, encouraging people from other countries to come here, is they in this bill specifically give free college, via Pell grants, to illegal immigrants. I mean, if you want to send the message to people in other countries we want you to come here by obeying the law, by waiting in line, by filling out the forms, why in the world would you put a program in saying if you come here illegally you get free college. But that is another one of the interesting provisions in this bill.

I will point out one more time. Last time I was at the border, you could look at all the identification cards of people coming across strewn on the ground before they checked in with the Border Patrol. Why do people get rid of their identification cards before they check in with the Border Patrol? Because they don't want people checking into their background. So to quote President Trump: ``They are not sending their best.''

The only thing not in this bill is, miraculously, there is no more money for the Border Patrol. So at a time where we can come up with $3.5 trillion, one of the very few places we need to spend more money in this country, there is no more money for the Border Patrol.

The next area that I think shows the type of change that this administration envisions is, again and again and again, we focus on equity. We look at people by where their ancestors came from or that sort of thing. Again and again, whether it is education programs, whether it is security programs, whether it is tuition assistance programs, we are going to keep track of people by race and religion and sexual orientation. We are not going to judge people as individuals.

One of the reasons I feel that other countries fail, that are based on elections, is these countries view elections as contests between different ethnic groups. Whether you read about elections in the Middle East or read about elections in Africa, the elections are contests between different tribes, different ethnic groups. When you go to the polls, you don't say how much should we spend on defense or how much should we spend on transportation or what should our policy be on pro- life issues. You go in and vote for your tribe.

That is clearly the type of America that this administration wants. They want people identified by an ethnic background, and we will decide whether or not you are promoted or get a grant or what-have-you based on ethnic background.

It is a dangerous change in the way America has traditionally been. In America, it was always supposed to be e pluribus unum. But, instead, we have a new vision, which is a very dangerous vision for America. Quite frankly, if we go down this path, this is another way in which America is going to be ruined.

So I want Americans, as they follow what is going on here, to ask themselves:

Do we really have a problem that we need the government raising a lot more of the children?

Do we really have a problem in which we have to dole out benefits based on where your great-great-grandparents lived rather than based on individuals?

Do we really have to change this country so that everybody can come here from around the world and be given free benefits, rather than doing it like we do traditionally, where you get in line, fill out the forms, and we know that the new Americans we are getting are law- abiding and hardworking?

Do we really want a new country in which government surveillance is such a bigger part of our fabric, 87,000 new IRS agents poking around, seeing what you are doing in your life? It got beaten back now, but you know it is going to be back in the future, going all the way down into looking at every $600 check and wondering whether you are sending it somewhere that the government would approve.

Of course, outside of the bill, we already have the problem we have with our technology websites in which we already are monitoring what you are permitted to read and monitoring what you are permitted to put on your website.

It is a brave new world for America, and the American public had better wake up. Because unless you want a fundamentally different America than the America I grew up in, in any event, you are going to get a different America unless you fight to keep what we have traditionally had.

I think in addition to the outlandish spending levels of this bill, you ought to be looking at exactly where that spending is going.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, a lot has been said about the reconciliation bill that we may or may not vote on. Obviously, the spending is tremendously out of control and will further fan the flames of inflation. There are several provisions in there designed, one more time, I would argue, to replace fathers and the family.

Madam Speaker, today, I will address, one more time, the majority's obsession with abortion. We have already seen this cycle, efforts made in the White House to get rid of the Mexico City policy and have the United States involved in pushing abortion around the world, kind of a very strange and sad thing given how blessed this country has been by the Almighty during our tenure.

In this bill, one more time, be it including $10 billion in public health funding grants that do not include the Hyde amendment, or abortion coverage for ObamaCare and plans covering individuals up to 138 percent of the Federal poverty line, this is one of the most extreme pro-abortion bills that I have seen yet, and it is another reason not to vote for the reconciliation bill.

Madam Speaker, I would also like to speak on behalf of Congressman Keller's bill.

One of the things we do as Congressmen back in our district is constituent work. Probably one of the areas which we are busiest is in the areas of helping our veterans. Whether it is getting burial benefits, veteran benefits, or lost military awards, we have to contact the National Personnel Records Center.

Unfortunately, as has been mentioned, for over a year now, the National Personnel Records Center has been operating at well under capacity. This is an insult to our veterans.

Their excuse for not operating is, of course, the COVID. My staff has toured the National Personnel Records Center, and it is a large warehouse, very spread out. Unlike where most Americans have had to work the last 2 years, you are not squeezed up in a cubicle next to somebody else.

Unfortunately--and this maybe is an indication of the overall caring of the Federal Government. Unfortunately, they have not been open at a time when not only our veterans have given so much, but a time when so many taxpayers have been working around the clock.

Every night I go home, I go by a couple of cheese factories. I can drive by there at 1 in the morning. They are packed with people. They never stopped working.

Here we have a massive warehouse with lots of space between people, and we are told it is too dangerous to go to work. That is preposterous. It is an insult to our veterans. It is an insult to our taxpayers.

I urge this body to pass Congressman Keller's bill as soon as possible.

Madam Speaker, last night on television, I listened as Jen Psaki--I don't know whether it was from yesterday or a replay from something a month ago--wondered why President Biden should go to the border. Having been down there, I want to educate her as to why.

First of all, she would find we have a shortage of Border Patrol. Well over 10,000 unaccompanied minors a month are coming across the border, and because they have to deal with them, they are not able to guard the border. Rather than giving free college for illegals, you could get some more Border Patrol agents.

Secondly, he would get to know that the Border Patrol agents are wonderful people, so that in the future, when agents on horses are charging a group of Haitians who are assaulting some woman, our hate- filled President does not attack the Border Patrol.

Third, she can find out that immigrants are right now routinely throwing away identification cards so that we can't do background checks on them.

Fourth, I always knew immigrants who tested positive for COVID are being let in. I was not aware that Border Patrol has a policy that we can never even force immigrants to take the tests.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The topic for tonight, and rightfully so--when we look at the $3.5 trillion bill with so many things that will permanently change America--is some of the most radical immigration provisions we have ever seen. Predictions by the Democrats, themselves, will be that they will affect 9 to 12 million more people in this country who are not here legally and will ultimately lead to a huge change in America.

This has nothing to do with legal immigration. Every year in this country about 800,000 people are sworn in as citizens. They are appropriately vetted, they have jobs, they are not committing crimes, and they are added to our citizenry.

I am talking about the people who are coming across the border claiming they want asylum.

I was down at the border last week to have a look at some of these people who apparently people feel will make good citizens.

One of the first things you notice, at least in the Yuma sector in Arizona, is you look at the path of people coming here, the path is littered with identification that is being thrown away by people who want to get in this country.

Now, why would people throw away identification? Normally you keep your identification because you have nothing to fear. If you are throwing the identification on the ground, it means you are creating a new identity when you come here. These are the type of people that under this bill are eventually going to work their way to become American citizens.

And it is not surprising. The Democratic Party in many other ways has made it clear the type of people we want to get are not the type of people normally sworn in.

Look at all the sanctuary cities or sanctuary counties around the country. And by having a sanctuary city or a sanctuary county to me it is an invitation to say you are going to go on public assistance.

We are sending in children without their parents. People normally would like to have an intact family, but what we are doing in this bill is we are going to encourage more parents to send their underage children to the United States not knowing what will happen to them.

Under this bill as the word gets out that the United States does not care about enforcing laws and more people come here, it will inevitably mean more illegal drugs in the country under this bill. And we are now in a position in which over 90,000 Americans are already dying every year primarily of COVID but also from other drugs that pass through the border.

The only thing in this bill that you would expect to have--given the $3.5 trillion number, you would expect to have maybe more money spent that is immigration related--is more border patrol agents. But as in their regular budget, that is not something that they feel we need more of.

So, again, I beg the American people. I know it is easy to get lost among the $3.5 trillion in spending, but I beg the American people to rise up against this bill because of the massive green light for illegal immigration that is going to come if it passes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend some time addressing the Chair and America on the American Rescue Plan or, actually, on the Build Back Better Act, which is kind of a follow-up on the American Rescue Plan.

We know the result of that original big-spending, government-printing act was a big increase in inflation in the United States, apparent to one and all. This is a follow-up bill to that, which will further require the Federal Reserve to print more money, driving up the cost of gas, of food, of housing everywhere we look.

But I am not going to address just the cost of this bill tonight. I am going to address the way I believe it will permanently change America and the vision the Democratic Party apparently has for America in the future.

In this bill, we are adding 87,000 IRS agents. For quite a while, when I would give talks about this bill, I would talk about 8,700 because when my staff told me it was 87,000, I felt I had to correct them. Nobody would want to add 87,000 IRS agents. But I stand corrected. I was wrong.

In this bill, we are adding 87,000 IRS agents, enough to fill up a massive American football stadium. Being from Wisconsin, I think of Camp Randall Stadium, where the University of Wisconsin plays. I think of Lambeau Field, where the Packers play. Somebody wants to hire that many IRS agents.

It is not in the bill, but it is in conjunction with a proposal I think the Biden administration has, to monitor every $600 transfer of funds. What type of country would have this many IRS agents and want to know if you spend $600 on who knows what--giving to the politically incorrect church; giving to a politically incorrect nonprofit; giving money to a fringe, eccentric sibling; whatever.

It sounds like something more you would think of in East Germany when East Germany was around rather than the United States. But that is apparently the vision of the party that put together the Build Back Better Act.

As was just mentioned in this bill, we are adding money for more low- income apartments. Now, that sounds good. President Biden also recently increased the food stamp allowance.

There is an author of mine that I suggest Americans read by the name of Theodore Dalrymple, an English author who was a doctor dealing both with English prisons and English slums.

He talked about the empty lives that people who live what I will refer to as the welfare lifestyle that England had. He attributed that empty life to the fact that in England--and maybe they backed off this by now, but at least England 15 years ago, no matter how irresponsible you were, you always got a free apartment; you always got free food; and you always got free medical care. In other words, there was no responsibility when you got up in the morning to really accomplish anything because you would always be able to exist.

We are close to that right now, but I am afraid the majority party wants to go all the way there when I look at this proposal. I hope the majority party stops and thinks in addition to the cost, more importantly, psychologically what will it do to the people of America if, when you graduate from high school or don't graduate from high school, if you want to, particularly if you have a child, you can live a lifestyle in which you can be completely irresponsible. You will always be able to eat and always be able to have a nice air- conditioned, heated apartment, which will probably have more square feet per person than the average housing in Europe, much less around the world.

This will, again, change America for the worse. Psychologically, it will give people nothing to live for. By the way, since it is usually targeted at people with children, it also will create a sad situation we have already created in this country in which men will have less responsibility for taking care of their children.

When you have no other responsibilities in life, it can lead to, first, an empty, depressed life; and, secondly, it can lead to--what?-- idle hands are the Devil's workshop.

There are other things in this bill that will also change America. We are aiming for universal 3- or 4-year-old kindergarten, I guess you would call it. As a sidelight, this bill says that the people in these daycares, which is kind of what they are, need a college degree. That is a little bit of snobbery that we should put an end to, the idea that if I have a college degree, I am always better off than somebody who doesn't have a college degree.

If you are applying for a job, we treat the hardworking, intelligent, commonsense person without a college degree as being, for some reason, less worthy of a higher paycheck than the lack of commonsense person who may not have a strong work ethic who does get a college degree. That is just a sidelight. A bad provision there.

But another provision about this that is bad is you are taking the care of the 3- and 4-year-olds out of the parents and giving it exclusively to the government. Now, a given number of parents may prefer it, but I think throughout most of this country, the raising of the children has been primarily the responsibility of the family.

I know the Marxist element in the other party does not want parents and, in particular, fathers too involved in their children's upbringing. But I feel this will again permanently change America.

I should point out, if you look at the studies, American schools sometimes have bad test scores. But our test scores are pretty good in the fourth grade. In other words, our problem in this country isn't that the children are doing poorly when the parents take care of them. Those test scores for children in American schools are falling in middle school and high school. So the problem is later on. It is not with the 3- and 4-year-olds when the parents have responsibility.

I should also point out that we are, in this bill, increasing Pell grants. Now, there are two problems there. Pell grants are grants going toward what we will refer to as low-income people, but they don't go to middle-class people.

I am already getting complaints in my district from Pell grants in the past as couples, married couples who thought they were being responsible in raising their children, they find out their children might be going $30,000 or

$40,000 in debt to get a college degree. But if the parents hadn't been working or hadn't been working as hard, those parents' children are eligible for free college.

I know I am sure it always feels good to give more away, but put yourself in the place of the middle-class American family that is working to raise their child, a married couple, and you see somebody else next door not working very hard, and as a bonus, their children get free college, where the responsible middle-class kid winds up $30,000 or $40,000 in debt. Another example here of complete unfairness and perverse incentives.

When I go back home, one of the major concerns of businesses is they can't find anybody to work. Now, I would hope everybody sometimes tours their businesses and is familiar with that. Obviously, hiring 87,000 new IRS agents is going to take 87,000 people away from the private sector.

But another interesting proposal in this bill is we have a new expanded civilian conservation corps. In other words, we are taking more people away from the factories, the construction sites, the retail outlets that they so desperately need to hire them for the government, make them dependent on the government, but above all make sure they are not available for the private sector. Another big mistake.

I mentioned the Pell grants and the fact that in a way they are a little bit of an insult to the middle-class kids who have to go further and further in debt. But another interesting provision about these Pell grants and another way that they clearly want to change America in this bill is you are eligible for the Pell grants if you are here illegally. This is not a mistake. I am not making this up.

I am on both the Education and Labor Committee and the Budget Committee, where we tried to take this provision out, and the Democrats on those committees proudly defended the provision. They really believe that if you come here, you are entitled to free college, whereas if you are a member of a middle-class American working family, your children should go $30,000 to $50,000 in debt to get a college degree. I mean, it is almost beyond belief, but that is another one of the features of this bill and one of the reasons why I really hope it fails.

Another feature of this bill, be it natural gas or methane, is increasing taxes, driving up the cost of energy in the United States. The environmentalists in this country may be interested to know that already the high cost of energy in the United States, and even more Europe, is causing more and more foundries, and I assume other factories as well, to go up in India, which is a much, much, much bigger pollution problem than the United States.

So when you drive up the cost of energy, which is so very important for American factories in general and our foundries in particular, what this bill would do is ship more American manufacturing jobs abroad and increase the overall pollution in the United States as we have energy production go from the new, clean power plants in America to the much dirtier power plants in India, China, and from around the world.

Other things in this bill that are a little bit irritating: After much effort, the Republicans, when they were in charge, required Social Security numbers for the child tax credits. Why did we require Social Security numbers? To make sure people are not filling out tax returns and getting tax refunds they aren't entitled to. I don't know why anybody would not want Social Security numbers so we can check to see if somebody says they have five children, they really have five children and get the money back.

For whatever motivation--I can't even imagine what the motivation would be--in this bill the wonderful Democratic Party is saying, no, you don't need Social Security numbers to get refunds for your child tax credit, which will not just increase a form of welfare. This will increase a form of welfare cheating. Why you would do this, again I can't imagine.

One other provision in this bill, not a fiscal provision, the Democrat Party is trying to allow, I would say, 8 to 11 million people currently here illegally to become legal.

First of all, you are rewarding people who broke the law to come into this country. And secondly, when you make 8 to 11 million people legal who were previously illegal it is like putting a sign on the United States, which the drug cartels who are involved in all this illegal immigration, will show around the world: Come to the United States. We are not enforcing our immigration laws.

Perhaps the majority party is not aware that already the drug gangs in both Central America and Brazil are taking out TV ads inviting people to come into the United States.

Why do they do that? Because if you're in Central America, they may charge you 5 to $7,000 to come here. In Brazil they may charge you $10,000 to come here. And because there is money to be made for the drug gangs, they advertise, encouraging people to come here.

Now, when we do something like, in essence, legalize people who are already here illegally, don't you think the drug gangs are going to educate the people in Central America as to what we are doing? Of course they are.

So not only are you inviting people or creating people who are illegal or who were previously illegal, but, worse, you are giving a green light to anybody hanging out in other countries, now is the time to come to America.

By the way, when I am down on the border, another thing I hear is the cooperation from the Mexican Government has been less and less over the 6 or 8 months as we try to control our border, not only to keep illegal people out but to keep the drugs out, as well.

Our Border Patrol notices a little less cooperation from the Mexicans, and I can see why. They believe they are getting less cooperation because if the United States itself doesn't care about its own border, why should Mexican law enforcement risk their lives protecting the border and protecting the integrity of the border if the United States itself doesn't care?

So here we have another provision which advertises the United States doesn't care about their immigration laws. I am sure the Mexican Border Patrol, the Mexican military is aware of it, and what will they think of it? Why should I risk my butt preventing people from coming here if the United States itself doesn't care?

So, again, I encourage America to wake up. We are permanently changing the type of country that this is if this bill passes as is.

So I encourage Americans to contact their legislators. Please don't pass this bill.

Now, I will make two more brief comments for the press corps, if they are even paying attention to this.

Like all Congressmen, I frequently get contacted on issues and asked whether I can look into it. Of course, agencies don't like to respond to requests from individual Congressmen, particularly Congressmen in the minority, but I think the press corps, which is so incredibly powerful, more powerful than they imagine, can get answers from bureaucratic agencies the way perhaps Congressmen cannot. And I am going to mention two requests here.

I had requests from people of both parties, both Republicans and Democrats, as to what is in the videos when we had the attacks on this building on January 6. For whatever reason, those videos have not been made public. People would like to know what was going on. I would hope the press corps would apply a little bit of pressure to the appropriate authorities and make those videos public. Because from what I can tell, in my district both the on-the-ball Republicans and the on-the-ball Democrats wish we could see those videos. And I think if the press applied a little bit of pressure, we would see those videos.

The other thing I am hearing from my constituents back home is they wonder about the apparent use of ivermectin in India. If you look at the popular Worldometer website, they will show a dramatic drop in fatalities in India over the last few months, just a shocking drop.

People claim it is from ivermectin. I don't know if it is true or not. But the American news media ought to wake up and cover the story and find out if it is.

If it is not from ivermectin, the American public should know it because then they have been sold a bill of goods.

If it is from ivermectin, the American public should know that because maybe we have a way to greatly reduce the number of fatalities.

So those are two requests that I have of our sometimes slumbering press corps.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we had another week go by, and I didn't see the Vice President in charge of the Mexican border policy for this administration down there, so I felt I should go down and look around in the Yuma sector and report back to her or anybody in the majority party who wants to hear.

These are the things that I don't think we have seen in the papers. I could talk for hours.

One thing, a large number of the people crossing the border in the Yuma sector are throwing away their IDs on the ground. And if you want, you can just stand there along the paths and see all the IDs that are just lying there.

You have to ask yourself, why, if I am an immigrant, am I throwing away my ID before I check in with Border Patrol? I must be hiding something. It means that they can't do a background check if I was in the United States in the past, or, for that matter, there is going to be no record of when such and such a person left Colombia and comes into the United States. We should require an ID to come here. We should no longer let people throw them out.

Secondly, I, in the past, am under the impression that people can test positive for COVID, check into a hotel and just leave and come into the country. I now know they do not require tests.

These are two more things I learned at the border. I invite the Vice President to go down there.

Madam Speaker, I urge the American people not to take their eyes off the ball. I honestly sometimes believe the reason the majority party is putting people like Steve Bannon in the headlines, or mandatory vaccines, as horrible as they are, or driving up the cost of gas to over $3 per gallon, it is to cause the American public to avert their eyes from the most long-term dangerous policy that the Biden administration is implementing, and that is what is going on, on the border.

I was down on the border last Thursday in the Yuma sector. So the American public understands, there are nine sectors along the border, and every time I go down there, I find more things that should scare the American people to death.

First of all, we have just the sheer number of people who are crossing the border. A year ago in July, for all nine sectors, an estimated 8,000 people were crossing the border. We are now up to over 100,000 people a month crossing the border.

As far as the type of people coming across the border, I saw something in the Yuma sector I hadn't seen before, and that is dozens of identifications scattered along the ground where people crossed from Mexico into Arizona. Why are people throwing away their identification prior to checking in at the Border Patrol? There is only one obvious reason. They don't want the United States to know who they are.

These people are paying the drug cartels to come here. If you are from Mexico, you are paying $3,000 or $4,000 a person. If you are from Central America, you are paying $6,000 to $8,000 a person. If you are from Brazil, you are paying over $10,000 a person.

The drug cartels are recruiting people by putting on Central American TV or Brazilian TV ads urging people to come here. There are some Americans who are taking out ads telling people it is not all it is cracked up to be to turn yourself over to the drug cartels.

But right now, clearly, many people are crossing the border. These are not people, by the way, coming across in desperation. They are people with very top-of-the-line shoes or top-of-the-line purses, well- done hair, well-done nails. People have to realize that people are not always coming here out of even a little bit of desperation. They are coming here because it has been advertised

they will make more money coming here.

As far as families, in July, in all nine sectors, there were about 15,000 unaccompanied children coming here. You go down there and see children in what can only be described as pens, being held on mats as they wait for the United States to transport them wherever they want. They write on their clothes which address they should be delivered to, and we turn the children over to nonprofit organizations that will transfer these children to New York, to Denver, wherever they want to go.

It drives the Border Patrol up the wall because, of course, if any American took a 5-year-old child and dropped them off at the airport and said, ``Please deliver this child to Oregon,'' or Maryland or wherever, social services would be after them.

But the United States, due to neglect, has pushed a policy in which people south of the border are encouraged to turn their children over to the Border Patrol and transfer them wherever they want.

Of course, as we have more and more children come here, the Border Patrol cannot patrol the border because they have to spend all their time processing the little children. The more Border Patrol is not patrolling the border, the more people are just walking in here, without any vetting at all.

Last year in the Yuma sector, they would be processing maybe 25 people a day. This year it can be up to 700 people a day. And it is not a difficult thing.

The way they treat each other is kind of a sign that maybe they might not make the greatest people to have around America. They needed help recently because of fights between the Haitians and the Colombians. Is that a sign of the type of people that we are letting into our country?

Other things that you learn down there: In the past, when I would go down to the border, I was under the impression that if people had any symptoms, they were tested for COVID. Now, we don't want another 100,000 people a month here under any circumstances. But right now, I was told that we like to test them, but of course, you can't require people to be tested, which means we are letting people in this country who may well have COVID.

Now, I don't know what to make of that. I guess what I make of it is when the Biden administration requires mandatory vaccines for people, it is really not that important. They are just doing it to avert people's eyes because if it were that important, they would be requiring at least tests for people coming over the border. But they don't even require tests. We will just let them come here.

Other activities of the Biden administration clearly are acting as magnets to bring more people here. One of the reasons why the people on the Mexican side of the border, the Mexican military, does not seem to care as much now as they did a year ago is because why should they risk their lives taking on the drug cartels when the American Government, by all of their actions, indicate that they don't care whether we enforce the border?

Two examples. We have, of course, as well advertised free medical care for people coming here, and there are Border Patrol agents who believe people just come to the United States for the free, superior medical care.

In the reconciliation bill that is being passed here, people who come here illegally are getting free college. Talk about a magnet to come to the United States. Of course, it shows contempt for the American middle class that we are seeing more and more.

If you are a member of the American middle class and want to go to college, you take out those student loans, go $30,000 in debt, go $40,000 in debt, go $50,000 in debt. But if you are somebody showing up here illegally, you get free college. Talk about advertising that our administration does not even remotely care whether our immigration laws are being obeyed or not.

The other thing that we have moving through here, again, on the reconciliation package is we believe about 10 million more people coming here, who we did not appropriately, vet are going to be eligible for amnesty and allowed to become American citizens, which is a further magnet, bringing more people here.

While there are a lot of things filling up the newspapers today-- well, people don't read newspapers, but a lot of things filling up the TV screen or the computer screen--I want the American people to contact their legislators and pay attention to what is going on at the border.

There are people right now who permanently want to change America, and they are going to get away with it unless there is more of an uproar here saying: ``Get that immigration stuff out of the reconciliation package. Finally hire some more Border Patrol agents to see what is going on down there. And please, please, please go back, Biden administration, to the Mexican Government and renegotiate deals where we keep people south of the border.''

By the way, while I am talking about things that indicate there is a complete lack of caring on the southern border on the part of the Biden administration, when was the last time we saw Vice President Kamala Harris at the border? I tell you, if you go down to the border there are all sorts of Congressmen poking around, seeing what is going on with the most important issue facing America today. Where exactly is Kamala Harris, as she just brazenly ignores this crisis?

Please, America, wake up, and defend our southern border.