[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H629-H631]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 REVIEWING INHERITED IMMIGRATION CRISIS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2019, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Grothman) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, it appears we are at least in the final 
2 weeks of this impeachment journey, and, therefore, it is time to 
begin to look at the issues that have been ignored or kept out of the 
newspaper for the last few months, which I think is quite frankly one 
of the reasons why we have had this impeachment.
  I am going to address what progress has been made on these issues, 
largely President Trump making the progress himself without any help 
from Congress, and then address what we should do in the next few 
months prior to the next election.
  I think the biggest crisis for the country that President Trump 
inherited was the immigration crisis, and President Trump has had 
several successes here on his own.

                              {time}  1915

  He has reduced the number of people placed in the United States from 
in May, close to 100,000 people by the Border Patrol, certainly, over 
90,000 by the Border Patrol and probably another 10 to 12,000 people 
sneaking in the country without being processed at that time, to a 
position where, last month, the Border Patrol probably placed under 
2,000 people in the United States.
  First of all, it is important to review what President Trump has 
done. He has begun what we would call a migrant protection protocol, in 
which Mexico is holding asylum seekers on their side of the border. 
They have agreed to hold anybody who is Spanish-speaking, and recently, 
in an unpublicized success, has begun a program holding Brazilians who 
are trying to get in this country as well.
  They also have an asylum cooperative agreement in which Guatemala is 
holding asylum seekers who are coming from other Central American 
countries without moving into the United States.
  I will point out something that should be obvious. If you are looking 
for asylum, in other words, to get away from danger in your home 
country, you shouldn't necessarily have to come to the United States. 
If you are an asylum seeker in Honduras or El Salvador, for example, 
and you are coming north, and you are in danger in your home country, 
it would be enough to stop in Guatemala. You do not have to come here.
  In addition, we have begun an interior reparation initiative for 
people from Mexico trying to come here. Normally, in order to try to 
come here, you have to deal with the Mexican drug cartels. By the 
United States or Mexico repatriating people in Central Mexico, first of 
all, they are in many cases, in a more prosperous part of Mexico and, 
secondly, are not being dealt with by the drug cartels. And finally, 
you are a little bit further away from the border, which is something 
we should do in the first place.
  The next thing President Trump has done is he has completed 110 miles 
of

[[Page H630]]

the border wall. We anticipate 630 of the 2,000 miles being done by the 
end of the year. It is very difficult to get through this wall and, 
actually, when you talk to the Border Patrol, they don't even like to 
refer to it as a wall. They like to refer to it as a wall system. But 
it is going to be over 30 feet high and six to 7 feet underground, 
making it very difficult to get through.
  Recently, the Border Patrol apprehended people who were kind of stuck 
going up the wall and they got up the wall to the point at which they 
weren't able to get down.
  But in any event, when you combine all these activities of the Trump 
administration, with very little help from Congress, as well as 
restricting entry of people who are probably going to become a public 
charge, we have reduced the number of people being placed in this 
country from 90,000 to 2,000.
  So, what should Congress do?
  What President Trump has done so far is successful but precarious. 
First of all, President Trump is not going to be President forever, and 
secondly, a lot of what President Trump has done is going to be subject 
to possible review by a bad judge.
  Congress should immediately take up the following few actions, which 
I think any average American would consider okay, or consider mild.
  First of all, we have to change the credible fear standard. Not 
everybody who comes here saying they are in danger at home is in danger 
at home. Congress ought to revisit that and pass something in the near 
future, hopefully soon. With President Trump no longer having to worry 
about the impeachment, he can use his position to drive that sort of 
bill through Congress.
  Secondly, we still have problems with the Flores settlement and that 
we are restricting holding families to only 20 days pending 
adjudication. There is no reason--I have been down at the border to see 
how well we are treating people who are held down there. There is no 
reason why we should have to release people after only 20 days if we 
have a court hearing coming up.
  Thirdly, we should change the current law with regard to 
unaccompanied minors. There are people who claim they don't like to see 
families separated, but back in May, we had, I think it was 8 or 9,000 
minors coming into this country unaccompanied by adults.
  Now, under current law in the United States, we can turn these minors 
back if they came from Canada or Mexico. We can't turn around minors or 
send them back if they come from other countries.
  There are people around here who purport to want to keep families 
together. If a 15- or 16-year-old child comes here from Guatemala, 
because children are the future of any country, the Central American or 
South American families want their children back; and we should go back 
to the days in which it is legal to send back minors from other 
countries.
  The next thing we should do is, President Trump has had success in 
the courts with preventing people from coming here who are going to 
become a public charge. Obviously, as we look to let people in our 
country--and I am going to digress here for one second.
  There are people who say President Trump is anti-immigrant. The 
number of immigrants, the number of people who were sworn in legally in 
this country in 2018 was 761,000 people. That was more than any of the 
final 3 years under President Obama.
  I am going to repeat that if anybody back there says President Trump 
is anti-immigrant. More people were let in in 2018, were legally sworn 
in as American citizens under President Trump than any one of President 
Obama's final 3 years.
  But it is important, despite President Trump's victory in court, that 
Congress step up to the plate and make it statutory that, as we pick 
which new whatever, 750,000 new people get to become American citizens, 
we are not picking people who are going to become a public charge.
  It is already a huge drain on the American people's budget to take 
care of people who are in desperate straits who were born Americans in 
the first place. It is just horrific that people want to let people in 
to become a public charge from other countries, particularly at a time 
that we are running trillion dollar deficits; not to mention, I think 
you are going to eventually have a problem with the fiber of America in 
the future if we let all people in.

  The next thing that President Trump has done, I haven't mentioned, is 
he has, without a lot of fanfare, restricted tourist visas for people 
who are soon going to have children.
  I have been at the border. Until you have been down there you don't 
realize the degree to which women frequently are coming to this country 
so that their children become citizens. The United States is one of 
only, I believe, two out of 40 western countries in the world in which 
you can become a citizen just by being born here. People are taking 
advantage of that. Again, it is an example of us not picking the 
immigrants we allow in here.
  It is people being able to, first of all, have their children become 
citizens, and then because we want family reunification, the women who 
have the child are soon going to be allowed to be here without being 
appropriately vetted.
  In any event, this is something that Congress ought to take up as 
soon as this impeachment is over.
  Extend the time you can stay under the Flores settlement; adjust the 
credible standard for people who claim they are in danger back home; 
change the rules with regard to unaccompanied minors so we can reunite 
those children with their families. It is ridiculous that that bill is 
being held up.
  Do something about the sanctuary cities which, right now, are a 
magnet, and they scream to people in other countries that we are not 
supposed to take our immigration laws seriously.
  Do something about the birthright citizenship in which we are one of 
the few countries around the world which says that if you come here, 
you automatically become a citizen.
  But what other things should Congress be tackling over the next seven 
or 8 months before we break for elections?
  Given the fact that we are broke; and given our concern that we do 
want to encourage marriage, where necessary; given that we want to 
encourage people to work and that we have a shortage of labor in this 
country, we have to look at our current safety net.
  Now, right now, the economy is good, and the number of people on 
Foodshare--which is a good indication of the number of people who are 
taking advantage of our safety net--has dropped in the last couple of 
years due to the booming economy. There were still 34,000 people on 
Foodshare in 2018, average.
  In 2003, another time in which the economy was largely booming, there 
were 21,000 people. What has happened over the last 16 years that we 
have had over a 50 percent increase in the people on Foodshare?
  The economy is booming. Obviously, what is going on is, Foodshare, 
together with many other similar programs, have changed the work ethic 
of Americans. What can we do to address the ease with which people 
become involved in these programs?
  And I am not saying we have to do anything to the people who 
absolutely need these programs. But I can think of no reason why we 
would have over a 50 percent increase in a 15-year period if we weren't 
quietly or slowly changing the work ethic of Americans.
  There are three things that Congress should deal with, and that, 
hopefully, President Trump will champion. First of all, when I talk to 
people in my district, they are aware that there is a labor shortage, 
particularly in the factories, and other places as well. And it is 
frustrating how few people can pass the drug test. If you cannot get a 
job because you can't pass a drug test, you shouldn't get public 
benefits. So drug testing should be done.
  The next thing that should be done, when I talk to people, 
particularly people who work in our grocery stores or our convenience 
stores, they are frustrated that we, right now, have IDs on Foodshare 
without any photos on them. And again, the people who are working these 
jobs suspect, highly suspect, that these programs are being taken 
advantage of. Congress should insist that we have photo IDs on 
Foodshare.
  And, finally, there should be work requirements or an effort that 
people are trying to find work. This would be a measure of the 
sincerity of people as to whether it is possible--as to whether or not 
they are really trying their best to get off of public benefits.

[[Page H631]]

  I am going to mention three other quick things that I hope are taken 
care of, that I don't think any serious American should have a concern 
with.
  I was very frustrated with the recent omnibus bills, recent 
appropriation bills that dealt with a lot of the parts of the Tax Code. 
One more time Congress did not have the guts to take up what I consider 
an exemption for the very wealthy, and that is the carried interest 
exemption.
  I know President Trump has asked Congress to look at this. Right now, 
highfliers who are venture capitalists, hedge fund managers--hedge fund 
managers in particular--are getting capital gains treatment on what 
should be ordinary income. I can think of no reason, other than 
Congressmen like very wealthy people, why, if you are a hedge fund 
manager making millions a year, you are paying tax at capital gains 
rates rather than ordinary income rates.
  Congress should have the guts to stand up to some of our wealthiest 
citizens and tax them at the rates that the average working man pays. I 
hope Congress will finally take this up and do what I know President 
Trump wants, and tax the carried interest of the wealthiest hedge fund 
managers as the average working man in this country.
  The next thing I would like to do that should be automatic is, when 
insulin was invented, the inventor wanted it cheap and available to 
everybody. Unfortunately, right now, it can be wildly expensive, and it 
is much more expensive in this country than in other countries.
  What we should do is we should treat insulin, not as a drug, but as a 
bio-similar, and see what we can do about rushing it to market so that 
the drug companies cannot make excessive amounts of money off of an 
invention that was designed--the inventor wanted it to be freely 
available to everybody.
  The number of Americans with diabetes is excessively high, and the 
idea that, under current law, we allow makers of insulin, which I don't 
really consider a pharmaceutical, but makers of insulin to charge an 
excessive amount, when it was invented years ago, is ridiculous. It 
will take this body standing up to the drug companies, but it is 
something this Congress does not do enough.
  I realize there was a bill passed designed to deal with drug prices 
in this House. That bill, we all know, was politically unrealistic, and 
it probably would have resulted in a drastic reduction in innovation on 
generally new pharmaceuticals.
  But a separate bill should be passed on insulin and, hopefully, that 
is something Congress can do.
  The final thing Congress could do to help the average person is, in 
the future, do something to restrict the amount of student loan debt.
  When I talk to people, they feel--and I believe this, because it was 
true when I went to school--there are people taking out more debt than 
they absolutely need.

                              {time}  1930

  I suppose this is true everywhere in our country; people probably 
have too much credit card debt, more than they need, and they are not 
disciplined, but it is particularly true of 18- or 19- or 20-year-olds.
  There was a time in this country where, if universities wanted to, 
they could say: No, you don't need $7,000 in debt this year; you need 
$4,000 in new loans.
  They are not able to do that anymore. We ought to give that ability 
back to universities, and we ought to begin to sanction universities if 
too many people are leaving that institution and are not able to pay 
back their loans.
  I do blame the universities for part of this, and it is going to take 
some political will to stand up to these university administrators, but 
they are the ones who are leading some of these people down the path 
with the nice brochure and the nice song and dance about how it is 
going to be so wonderful if you graduate from this university. Some 
people, of course, drop out of the university.
  But either way, far too many people are not paying off the loans. 
They are having to spend way too long. They can't buy a house. They 
aren't forming a family.
  Quite frankly, it is a publicized scandal, but it is still 
underpublicized the degree to which some of the best Americans who are 
doing what they are told are saddled with vast amounts of debt and not 
the income to pay it off; or, if they have the income to pay them off, 
it is taking all their income and they can't buy a house and they can't 
have kids.
  I hope Congress does something serious there other than just say we 
should put hundreds of billions of dollars into paying off the loans.
  In any event, these are things that I think Congress could take up. I 
think we could salvage this session. I know President Trump did all he 
could on immigration without the help of Congress.
  I feel that the impeachment thing was designed to keep people's eyes 
off the ball on the issues that we should be addressing. There are some 
suggestions of what to do. I hope the American people insist they be 
done. I hope President Trump champions them.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________