Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, three things before you print another $1.9 trillion in this bill. If you look at the monetary supply in the last year, M1 is up 67 percent and M2 is up 25 percent. You are inviting inflation big time.

Secondly, I have got one local official who asked me for a million bucks. He is getting $21 million. Another one is asking me for $800,000. He is getting $20 million. Ask your local people if they need all this money.

Third, I wouldn't even take it to the Senate because there is no way you can spend all this money. I would put some of this in infrastructure, just as a tip.

Mr. Speaker, in the past, I have taken time to discuss Black Lives Matter, a powerful group in this past election, which I think was very instrumental in the Democratic Party retaining their majority, and talking about the Marxist roots of their founders. In their statement, ``What We Believe,'' they, Black Lives Matter, clearly state that one of their goals is to disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.

First of all, to say that the traditional family is a Western family is insulting to all the people from East Asia, the Indian subcontinent, the Middle East, Latin America, and sub-Saharan Africa that already have mothers and fathers at home. This is not a Western thing.

Nevertheless, it is apparent that the founders of Black Lives Matter did consider the traditional nuclear family something to be disrupted. And that is part of Marxism, to get rid of the traditional families. And it is scary that one of our two major political parties held its majority by closely aligning itself with this group.

I have asked for a hearing before the Education Committee on the Pell Grant Program, which already brazenly penalizes nuclear families--no hearing as of yet. But, today, I ran across an article in the City Journal called ``Failure Factory,'' talking about the influence of, to a certain extent, Marxist ideology and, to a certain extent, critical race theory on their curriculum.

This curriculum itself denigrates the traditional family. I don't know why we would, in schools--and they are talking about the Buffalo Public Schools here--why in schools we would denigrate a traditional family with father at home.

This curriculum appears designed to make young people bitter, defeatist, and antipolice. Our poor children--and by poor, I don't mean materially poor. Our poor children have to put up with this sort of curriculum.

In other countries, strong families are the norm, and children are excelling at math, reading, and science. They immigrate here, children from all different racial, religious, and cultural backgrounds, and they will outperform our homegrown students who get this antifamily, antipolice drivel.

I would also ask my good friend Education Chairman Bobby Scott to hold a hearing on critical race theory, which is infecting our schools, before any more damage is done. The Federal Government puts $40 billion into K-12 in this country, and we are spending a total of over $12,000 a child. If teachers are going to teach the students that families with fathers are not good, the police are racist, and that it is so difficult to achieve in this country, it doesn't matter how much we spend. Please, chairman of the Education Committee, Bobby Scott, hold a hearing on critical race theory and the influence it has on our public schools.

Again, I will mention the article describing the curriculum in the Buffalo Public Schools would be called ``Failure Factory'' in the City Journal. So if you want to Google ``Failure Factory,'' City Journal, you can read about what goes on in our Buffalo Public Schools.

Ice Age Trail

Now, I would like to talk a little bit about an amendment that was done in a bipartisan fashion, and I know far too many people outside of Washington don't realize that the vast majority of things we do here are in a bipartisan fashion.

The amendment concerns the Ice Age Trail, a trail that winds throughout the Midwest. But in the State of Wisconsin, it begins in the eastern part of the State in Door County and winds its way out the western part of the State on the Minnesota border. The Ice Age Trail goes through Manitowoc, Sheboygan, Fond du Lac, Columbia, Marquette, and Waushara Counties in my district.

According to a study by the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, the trail has had an annual economic impact of $113 million, drawing 1.2 million visitors.

Currently, the Ice Age Trail is not categorized as a unit of the National Park System administered by the Department of the Interior. The bipartisan amendment, which I worked on with my friend Congressman Pocan from the Madison area, would allow the Ice Age Trail that opportunity.

As a unit of the National Park System, Federal funds will be allowed to go to Wisconsin for maintenance and improvement of these trails, which drive tourism and provide outdoor recreation opportunities for Wisconsinites and visitors alike.

More than thousands of years ago, an immense flow of glacial ice sculpted a landscape of remarkable beauty across Wisconsin. And let me tell you, I think Wisconsin is the most beautiful State we have. So, please, everybody come visit our Ice Age Trail.

As the glacier retreated, it left behind a variety of landscape features. These glacial remnants are now considered among the world's finest examples of how continental glaciation sculpts our planet.

The Ice Age National Scenic Trail is a thousand miles that highlights these landscape features as it travels through some of the State's most beautiful natural areas. The trail is entirely within Wisconsin.

The Ice Age Trail is more than a path through the woods. It is a place for mental and physical rejuvenation, a place to unwind after a hard day and enjoy the landscape of Wisconsin. More than a million people use the trail each year to hike and snowshoe, to backpack, to disconnect, and to reconnect.

Behind the scenes, a vibrant community of volunteers across the State work to build and maintain the trail, making it one of the country's best hiking experiences.

I sincerely hope that the bill that is going to come up that we are going to vote on tomorrow, that this amendment becomes part of that bill. I am confident that it will.

It is going to improve the Ice Age Trail, making it even more consumer-friendly for the millions of Wisconsinites who have taken advantage of the trail. Particularly this year, where we have way too many people sitting inside, it is going to be a great year to tour the trail.

The trail was begun in the 1950s as the dream of Milwaukeean Ray Zillmer, who had a vision of a long, linear park winding through Wisconsin

along the glacier's terminal moraine. This will be a great addition to the trail, and it will improve the experience of those who use it.

Benefits of Vitamin D

Let's address COVID. While it appears we have turned the corner on COVID, it still appears as though we have over 2,000 deaths most days.

For whatever reason, the CDC and the public health establishment have refused to inform the public of the huge benefits of vitamin D. Almost 40 percent of American adults are vitamin D deficient.

This is a bigger problem in winter in the North, where people don't get as much sun, and also a bigger problem with darker skinned populations and a bigger problem with older populations since older people don't produce as much vitamin D.

You should take 5,000 units of vitamin D a day. If you have COVID, you should immediately take additional vitamin D. Countries such as England already inform their population of the benefits of vitamin D, and in India, there is a study showing potentially huge benefits of large amounts of vitamin D given to people as soon as they know they have this disease.

It is unfortunate that our public health establishment has not pushed vitamin D as much as you would think they should. Please, America, look up the website vitaminDforall.org. Over 200 experts, led by Dr. Karl Pfleger of California and Richard Carmona, Surgeon General under President Bush, are advocates of vitamin D. They believe science is on our side, and they believe that if we had adequately informed the 40 percent of the population that was vitamin D deficient, we could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives in this pandemic. Please, we do not want any more patients to die with a vitamin D deficiency.

An interesting thing about vitamin D, a lot of times the medical establishment is reluctant to push something forward because something horrible would happen to a given percentage of the population who take it, but there really is only a minimal downside to taking vitamin D, so I really wish the CDC would step up to the plate, as they have in other countries, and spend some of the time they spend talking about social distancing or masking, which we hear about all the time, educating people to take vitamin D.

Dr. Fauci himself let it slip in an interview with a Hollywood actress that he takes vitamin D. But while he let it slip in kind of a fun interview, he doesn't routinely tell the American public that, and I wish he would do that. I don't know why Dr. Fauci would be so quiet about vitamin D when he, himself, has admitted that he takes a significant amount of it.

The failure of CDC to issue guidances encouraging people to take vitamin D is one of the reasons why we have had so many fatalities. Let's not lose anyone else.

Again, remember to look at the website, vitaminDforAll, and make sure you take vitamin D both for yourself and for your family.

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

Mr. Speaker, apprenticeship programs are incredibly important for job growth in the State of Wisconsin and around the Nation; and insofar as this bill highlights apprenticeships, that is a good thing.

I was talking again to one of our programs this morning in Wisconsin, and they could desperately use more people going through these apprenticeships and making these $70-, $80-, $90,000-a-year jobs.

I think it is particularly important to get more people in the trades because we have so many people going to 4-year universities and maybe they wind up going to apprenticeship 5 or 6 years later, maybe they wind up heavy in debt. If they had made the move to a construction apprenticeship earlier on, they would be a lot better.

Unfortunately, this bill is not quite exactly what we need. The registered apprenticeship program through the Department of Labor is important. For many employers it works fine. However, it is a one-size- fits-all approach. In fiscal year 2019, over 250,000 individuals entered registered apprenticeships and only 81,000 graduated from the system.

Over the years, some employers have expressed that participation in registered apprenticeships allows the Department of Labor to dictate skills an employer must provide to apprentices in specific industries rather than allowing the business to determine that themselves. Let's face it, employers know what kind of on-the-job training and vocational education their apprentices need more than the Federal Government does.

IRAPs still would have to comply with Federal standards and would have been overseen by third parties, such as trade and industry groups, nonprofit organizations, unions, and joint labor management organizations.

Of course, the idea of the IRAPs has totally shut down, probably for two reasons. It took control of the apprenticeship program out of the hands of the Federal Government. And, quite frankly, it was an idea proposed by Donald Trump, who did a lot of good things.

Our workforce is evolving. So should our models of job training and apprenticeships.

I have also offered an amendment to this bill concerning the definition of recognized postsecondary credential. Under the bill, recognized postsecondary credential has a meaning, given the definition in the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act. That definition should specifically include technical diplomas and degrees, which differ from general associate degrees. I look forward to revisiting that when the House brings up WIOA for reauthorization.

Madam Speaker, our wonderful country, America, has been given material wealth beyond belief, plus natural beauty that I think is greater than anything around the world.

In 1973, how did this country respond to those gifts? The United States Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, legalized abortion, something that even in days before the ultrasound, almost was universally condemned around the world. Since that time, 62 million unborn babies have had their lives cut short in America.

The United States is one of only seven countries in the world where late-term abortions are legal, joining countries like China, North Korea, Vietnam, and then Singapore, Canada, and Holland.

Now, we, under the current administration, look to push for still more

abortions by talking about removing the Hyde amendment allowing for taxpayer funding and, even worse, repealing the new Mexico City policy in which the United States gives money to organizations abroad who will wind up performing abortions. That is what the United States will become known for around the world.

How is this to respond to the natural wealth and beauty we have been given.

Madam Speaker, before we deal with the purpose of this speech, I would like to make some observations about changes that have been made in the last few weeks and other rapidly changing aspects of American life.

One of the few positive observations I have made since I was a Congressman is the freedom people have normally had to see their Congressmen. Eccentric people can stand at the base of the Capitol steps a few yards away and hand out their pamphlets, nice and free. Easy to meet their Congressmen, for those of us who like to walk outside and not use the tunnel.

Now, a chain-link fence stands around the Capitol with razor wire on top. Let's be honest. After about midnight on January 7, I think most of us felt pretty safe.

Now, we are almost a month later, and we still have National Guard folks in full combat, ready to protect us. We have the wire on top of the walls, as well as Constitution and Independence Avenues shut down.

I feel like I am in East Germany in the 1970s. I am not sure exactly what East Germany was like, but that is how I kind of visualize it, around maybe their parliament or whatever, fencing, police, always afraid of the people.

It is a fitting background for our brave new world order in which our high-tech oligarchs are censoring ideas. Perhaps that is this background to the new censor regime. It seems almost appropriate.

Our high-tech oligarchs are censoring ideas which are unpopular with the wealthy and powerful in our country. Eventually, we will need some antitrust enforcement or legislation to open up Twitter and allow American citizens to hear all points of view, including points of view that the great and powerful of our country do not want to have heard.

I would like to thank the German, Mexican, and French Governments for their support as Americans try to regain their roots as a country with a free flow of ideas.

In the meantime, my plea to the Speaker and majority leader is please tear down the walls around this Capitol and begin to undo the damage done to our freedoms.

Now, back to the purpose of the speech.

One more time last week, I returned to our southern border, and already, we are seeing the results of, I think, reckless comments made by our Chief Executive.

We are getting to the point where we have had 300 unaccompanied minors a day crossing our southwest border. That is because we have had a President who has made comments that indicate that the United States is not sincere in protecting our southern border.

It does result in more money and more presence for drug cartels at the Southern border. So people understand, people do not just walk across the border. Mexicans are charged $3,000 a person; Central Americans, $5,000 a person; Brazilians, $9,000 a person; and Asians, $20,000 a person to cross the border.

And when statements are made indicating that we will no longer be enforcing the border, those statements are conveyed by the cartels to people who they believe will pay to get across. We are, therefore, seeing the increase of people at the border, including unaccompanied minors who are supposedly people we want to protect.

Last week, on the Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, just in the Sasabe section alone, after I left that area, there were 120 unaccompanied juveniles. Some already part of a criminal element, but given that they have to deal with the cartels to get across the border, it certainly is not a good influence on them.

Also while I was down there, I heard in the last year, on the Tucson sector alone--and there are seven or eight sectors along our Southern border--well over 100 people were found dehydrated to death. This is the result of the current system in which we do not secure our border.

Unfortunately, despite the verbiage which indicates we are going to be less stringent in enforcing our border, we are also going to stop building the wall. First of all, you are throwing away about 5,000 jobs right away, and supposedly we are supposed to be looking for new jobs.

But more than that, when you end these contracts, you wind up having to pay companies for parts of the wall that have been built but haven't been put up yet, pay them to undo or fill in holes which have been placed there in anticipation of a full wall, pay them to undo the damage to roads. And roads are part of the wall system that is going to be built down there. As a result, we are spending a lot of money which could be used to put in more wall and is not.

I should point out that when you put up a wall, it saves money as far as the number of Border Patrol agents you need. If you don't have a wall, it should take about two or three border agents a mile to patrol the border. With a wall, it is about one agent for every two miles. Another benefit for having a wall.

But above all, the idea of paying money to wrap up the project rather than paying money to complete the wall is a waste of money and a real problem.

Another thing I found out, with the wall, you are going to have less injuries to Border Patrol agents, which is probably one of many reasons why when I have gone down at the wall, I have yet to find a Border Patrol agent or a sheriff's deputy for the counties along the Southern border who is not in favor of the wall.

We are going to wind up losing money as we pay money to care for people crossing the wall, losing money to our society as we have more drugs coming across the Southern border. And not surprising, as marijuana becomes more legal in the United States, more of the drugs that cross the Southern border are fentanyl, are meth, are heroin, resulting in more deaths all around the country. Another reason why we should be taking our Southern border seriously.

I, therefore, strongly encourage my colleagues, as we look at future appropriation bills, to pay attention to the border. We cannot go back to the days of completely anybody can come across there, because, like I said, you are going to wind up with more people dehydrated to death in the desert. You are going to wind up with more unaccompanied minors who are going to be dealt with by the tender arms of the drug cartels, which control all the immigration and illegal immigration across the Southern border.

So, please, I ask my colleagues, do what I did. Go down to Arizona. Go down to Texas. See the situation we have. See whether anybody could possibly think going back to the old system is humane in any way. It is not humane to minors. It is not humane to the people who are guided by the cartels. It is not humane to the people who cross the border and wind up dehydrating across our Southern edge.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know normally Congressmen take this opportunity to talk about some hot-button issue; therefore I feel a little regret that I am going to have to delve into what the great English historian Thomas Carlyle called the dismal science. I am going to have to address economics.

I am going to talk about two issues. I am going to talk about the monetary supply, and I am going to talk about inflation. It is a little bit boring, but they are both very important.

First, the monetary supply. If you wonder where I get these numbers, Mr. Speaker, you can google John Williams' ``Shadow Government Statistics.'' I am going to talk about M1 and M2.

M1 is a narrow definition of the monetary supply. We are now up rocketing at over 65 percent increase. You can go back 20 years and the highest prior increase is under 20 percent. So when you have this much of an outlier, look out.

Some people would say M2, which is a more narrow definition, including things like certificates of deposit, is better; but even that amount is shooting up 25 percent a year. The previous high in the last 20 years was 18 percent in 2008. And you remember what happened after 2008.

As the great James Garfield, Republican President--oh, how we wish he had a full 4 years--said: ``He who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation.''

Please, I beg the chairman of the Budget Committee, before proceeding forth here, hold a hearing on the money supply.

Secondly, I want to talk about inflation a little bit. Sometimes it is forgotten that in both 1980 and 1990, we changed the definition of inflation. But I am old enough to remember the Jimmy Carter years and how devastating it was when we used to have inflation of over 15 percent.

Right now, if you had that definition back then, inflation would already be running at about 10 percent a year. Even if you looked after 1990, when, again, the definition changed, we ran inflation at about 5 percent a year. Now, you can only imagine what would happen if we throw another $2 trillion of money and the amount of inflation will go up.

Look at the cost of housing in the supposed economic downturn. Already the cost of housing is going up. That should be a danger sign for everybody.

I was critical of the past administration on a variety of things. I was opposed to President Trump's $2,000-a-person thing for this reason. I think there is still time to turn back before we have a huge problem with the money supply and the overall stockmarket, and we can still show that this Congress has a little bit of fiscal responsibility.

I again beg: Please have a hearing not just on the monetary supply, but a hearing on inflation.

As Herbert Stein, an economist of some fame and even more famous as Ben Stein's dad, said: ``If something can't go on forever, it won't.''

I ask the chairman to please have a hearing on monetary supply and inflation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to strongly object to the Article of Impeachment proposed against President Trump, which makes the preposterous claim that President Trump wanted or expected the riots that took place last week. He clearly said he wanted a peaceful and patriotic demonstration. He did say he wanted people to ``fight like hell or we are not going to have a country anymore,'' but that is obviously standard hyperbole and was not meant to aim at physical fights.

But what is offensive is what you are saying--and is inflammatory-- about the tens of thousands of peaceful protesters who were there last week, as well as the tens of millions of people they represent. You don't understand why they are here.

They are scared to death we are going to go back to the days without Donald Trump, of hundreds of thousands of people crossing the border every month. They are scared to death nobody is going to keep our manufacturing here. They are scared to death that nobody else will fight the cancel culture as we head toward an era when some things can't be said. They are scared to death that the majority party got here by teaming up with Black Lives Matter, a bunch founded by Marxists and the dislike of family.

Mr. Speaker, this is an absurd resolution callously politicizing an unpredictable tragedy last week. We all know that President Trump called for a peaceful and patriotic march. I must have attended a half dozen Trump rallies in the past year, and they have always been peaceful, wholesome events, typical of the thousands of peaceful protesters who remained away from the Capitol last week. I never would have expected this in a million years.

This is a horrible event, but not like the Black Lives Matter, antifa events that went on day after day in city after city, with prominent Democrats fanning the flames by mischaracterizing police shootings or apparently encouraging bail for lawbreakers.

Less than 2 years ago, a Member of this body encouraged harassment of Trump officers at restaurants, gas stations, or department stores. And what happened? She was rewarded with the chairmanship of an ``A'' committee.

Even in last week's riots, the Speaker tried to preposterously racialize them, which can only lead to trouble, maybe violence. Everybody back home says we ought to get along.

Is this the way to start things?

It is time to get back to dealing with the people's business, dealing with the cancel culture.

Madam Speaker, on July 12, 2019, the House voted to pass the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2020. I missed the vote and was not recorded due to a previously scheduled engagement in Wisconsin with President Trump. Had I been present I would have voted no on Roll Call 473.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment before the desk.

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. 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. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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. 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. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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. 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. 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.