[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 98 (Wednesday, June 8, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H5405-H5407]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     CRISIS AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2021, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, there are a variety of topics that I think 
have not been discussed enough lately but I think should be addressed 
on the floor.
  We have been gone for 2 weeks prior to reconvening this week, and in 
that time I took one more trip to the southern border. I took the trip 
to the border because other than arguably the threat of an absolute 
catastrophe over the Ukraine, it is easily the biggest cause for 
concern in this country at this time.

                              {time}  2045

  I went down to McAllen, Texas, with 11 other Congressmen. Rather than 
having a trip of twelve which, as I understand, is the biggest group 
that has been at the border since COVID, we should have had 80 or 90 
people there to see what is going on.
  Prior to talking about things that I saw on the trip, I will talk 
about the size of the problem, because the numbers tell the story. In 
the most recent April, we let 183,000 people in the country.
  Frequently, the press, for whatever reason, and some politicians, 
talk about the number of people who have contact with the Border 
Patrol. 183,000 is the number who actually came in the country. A year 
ago in April, that number was 66,000. And 2 years ago it was 6,000. So 
we have gone from 6,000 let in the country in April of 2020, April of 
2021, 66,000 and, most recently, 183,000.
  These numbers are staggering. The press should be reporting every 
monthly number with banner headlines. Perhaps, because the story seems 
old, they get tired of reporting it. But it is a more significant story 
every month.
  Of those 183,000, about 60,000 are what we refer to as gotaways; that 
is, not people who checked in at the Border Patrol and got a cursory 
review. They are people who did not touch the Border Patrol at all. We 
don't know whether they were sneaking in this country with drugs. We 
don't know whether they had diseases. We don't know whether they have 
criminal background problems. We don't know.
  So from 6,000 to 66,000 to 183,000. Who knows what it is going to be 
by this time next year. Obviously, it is changing America dramatically.
  We do have ways to come in this country legally. We like to make sure 
that the future America is people who have proved themselves, law-
abiding, hardworking. Here we have no idea who we are getting.
  I point out that one of the reasons more people are sneaking across 
the border is that, as we have approximately 120,000 people who check 
in with the Border Patrol, the Border Patrol has to spend more of their 
time doing paperwork and not doing what they want to do, which is guard 
the border. That is why we are having a much more significant number of 
people come here without any contact whatsoever.
  The Biden administration says they inherited a mess. They inherited 
6,000 a month; and now we are at 183,000 a month.
  As far as other observations along the Rio Grande, the heartlessness 
of the Mexican drug cartels continues to be shown. When they want to 
get drugs here, because they know the Border Patrol is understaffed, 
what they do is they send a group of people across the river, and they 
know the Border Patrol will be obligated to deal with that group of 
people. And then they send another group of people, say, a mile or 2 
miles further on down or further up river, where they know they can get 
across with their drugs.
  They also know the cartels are so brutal and heartless that they will 
throw a young child overboard in the Rio Grande because they know our 
ethical Border Patrol will save that child, rather than deal with the 
people who are sneaking across, perhaps sneaking across with drugs.
  For the first time since I have been at the border--I have been down 
there several times, in part, due to my subcommittee assignment, the 
fact that I am a ranking member. The people who showed me the Rio 
Grande pointed out at the bend of a river, here is where we have a lot 
of Chinese come across.
  Again, I think people are under the impression these are largely 
Mexican, Central American folks. I was surprised to hear from my guide 
that they pointed out this is the bend where we see a lot of Chinese 
coming across; which is, by the way, typical of what I have seen in 
other regions. This is people from all around the world.
  They also pointed out that one of the reasons so many people are 
coming here, they come here because the drug cartels are making money 
off them and advertising on social media all around the world, be it 
Central America, be it Brazil, be it Peru, be it India, or Pakistan, or 
Bangladesh, the drug cartels are making money on these folks.
  The further you come, the more they make per person. Maybe they are 
getting six or $7,000 for Mexican, maybe 9 or 10,000 for Central 
American, maybe 15 or $20,000 from Asia.
  One more time--and I repeat things up here I find almost hard to 
believe. But one more time, I was told by the Border Patrol that right 
now the Mexican drug cartels make more money smuggling people across 
the border than drugs, and that is really saying something.
  So, in addition to the other problems, we are strengthening the 
financial hold the drug cartels have on Mexico and, to a lesser degree, 
on the United States.
  It is not rocket science how to stop this. You stop it by going back 
to the migrant protection protocol in which people coming here were 
held in Mexico pending a hearing.
  When I talk about the non getaways, about 120,000 a month, these 
folks are let in the United States and told to show up for a hearing at 
some time. They rarely show up.
  When people are paying 10 or $15,000 to get this far, they would not 
come here in the first place if they were on the Mexican side of the 
border. People are not going to pay $15,000 to sit in Mexico and hope a 
hearing goes their way.
  So we should go back to the common sense provisions we had just a 
year and a half ago, and we would quickly get back down to the six or 
10 or 15,000 a month, rather than the massive amount that is coming 
across the border.
  Another benefit of not having so many people cross the border, is we 
would decrease the number, the horrifically high number of drug 
overdoses we have in America. These numbers have been repeated, but it 
is another story that I think the press is dropping the ball on because 
they think because it is an old story it is not an important story.

  When I was elected to this job 7 years ago, about 47,000 Americans 
were dying every year of drug overdoses. That is now over 110,000. By 
comparison, 57,000 American troops died in Vietnam. Over

[[Page H5406]]

twice as many Americans die every year from drug overdoses in this 
country as died in 12 years in Vietnam.
  The apathy of the Biden administration on these numbers and, quite 
frankly, the apathy from the people in this Chamber is stunning. 
110,000 people are dying. Not only does that, by itself, mean we have 
to do a lot more at the border, we should greatly increase the 
penalties for people who smuggle fentanyl or sell fentanyl in this 
country.
  Think about that. 110,000 people. Think about their parents. Think 
about their children. Think about their siblings as, for the rest of 
their life, they are going to carry that death with them.
  And what do we get from this administration? Nothing. The border is 
not a priority. We don't care how much fentanyl comes here.
  So again, my request to this body and the request from the Biden 
administration, show a little bit of sympathy for the families, where 
the people who use these drugs die, and care a little bit about the 
future of America.
  In some years, over 800,000 people are sworn in as new citizens. 
Nobody complains. They have been in the country 5 or 6 years. They have 
proven they are not going to go on welfare. They have proven they are 
not going to commit crimes. I have attended their ceremonies. They make 
one feel very good about being an American. I don't know why we 
wouldn't want to have everybody come here under those circumstances, 
rather than this massive increase of people coming across the border.
  The next topic which should be discussed, and every Congressman who 
didn't spend the last 2 weeks in their house heard about it, is the 
dramatic amount of inflation that is out here.
  One thing that bothers me, and it bothers me about my own party, is I 
don't think we spend enough time talking about where the inflation came 
from. It came from excessive government spending and the need of the 
Federal Reserve to, in essence, print money to deal with that spending.
  I point out that this was not a surprise. I personally--I could say 
who am I--personally pointed out at the time the original stimulus 
package that President Biden signed almost immediately upon getting--
coming into office, the $1.9 trillion stimulus package, predictably 
caused this dramatic increase in cost of food, cost of oil, certainly, 
cost of housing.
  I remind people that Larry Summers, key economist, key economic 
adviser to Barack Obama, said at the time that this was the least 
responsible economic policy in 40 years. That is what Barack Obama's 
economic adviser said.
  But, instead, we got from the other side of the aisle, they ignored 
Mr. Summers' concerns. They ignored the concerns of Republicans. And 
upon President Biden taking office, whoosh, a new $1.9 trillion 
stimulus package.
  Soon thereafter, they added to that an over $1 trillion 
infrastructure bill which was bipartisan because they got a few 
irresponsible Republican Senators to vote for it. But, again, outside 
of regular budget process, these massive bills.
  And predictably, what happened is what Larry Summers and, quite 
frankly, me and many Republicans said was going to happen, dramatic 
increase in inflation; huge increases in the money supply; increases in 
the money supply even greater than what we saw in the 1970s under the 
Carter inflation.
  It is such a dangerous path we are taking. And I think, in the 
future, as President Biden continues to ask for more spending, and I 
think the level of spending he asked for in the regular budget is 
excessive in its own right; over 12 percent increase in nondefense 
spending there. It would be good if not just the Republicans, because 
we are in the minority, but the Democrats as well would stand up to 
President Biden and say no.
  We cannot have any more inflation. Inflation used to be known--and 
what it is is a regressive tax on the public. The average person spends 
more on gas--the average middle-class person spends more on gas than 
the wildly well-off person. They spend more on housing. They spend more 
on food.
  This is a policy that harms the middle class and harms the poor, 
quite frankly, far more than the billionaires which have such influence 
politically and get so involved in the last election.
  I know there were times where Republicans stood up to President Trump 
when he wanted to issue new checks on some of this COVID bills and 
voted ``no.'' It would be refreshing in the future if we had some 
Democrats stand up and say, I voted for you President Biden, but this 
spending was just irresponsible and out of control, and I cannot stand 
with you.
  I would love it, in the appropriation bills, if we pass--in the 
current fiscal year, had no increase at all. That is not a dramatic 
thing. They should be cut dramatically. But it would be good if both 
the Republicans and Democrats got together and said we are going to go 
back to sequester sort of increases; things that we saw under Barack 
Obama even, and try to hold the increases into under 1 percent, or 
perhaps nothing, because it is going to take quite a while to recover 
for the excessive COVID spending, as well as the huge stimulus package 
that President Biden led off with.
  This is not something that was a surprise. It was not something that 
was caused by Ukraine. It was something that every middle schooler 
should know. You cannot just print money and not have a huge impact on 
inflation.
  The next thing we are going to look at here tonight is, quite 
frankly, the reason I ran for the job, and what I thought was the major 
problem in America, and still believe, other than the border, which 
maybe is nudged by it, or the threat of some catastrophic war in 
Europe, and that is the role that the Federal government has played in 
the breakdown of the American family.
  The number of children born without a father in the home was under 5 
percent before World War II, and kind of in the golden age of America, 
that is what was the norm.
  It is hard to believe anybody would not want the nuclear family to be 
the standard that American children grow up in.

                              {time}  2100

  However, we do know that Karl Marx--and there is this romance with 
socialism that permeates part of the Democrat Party, permeates a lot of 
our academic institutions. Karl Marx felt that we had to destroy the 
American family.
  As I have said many times before, Black Lives Matter, on their 
website around the time of the last campaign, said that they wanted to 
get rid of the Western-proscribed nuclear family.
  First of all, it is an insult to the rest of the world because 
families with mothers and fathers at home are common in Asia, common in 
Africa, common everywhere.
  But in any event, it is apparent that the powerful Black Lives Matter 
at least said they wanted to get rid of the nuclear family. Karl Marx 
wanted to get rid of the nuclear family.
  What happened in America that we went from very few children not 
having a mom and dad at home to working our way to 40 percent of the 
children born in America without mom and dad at home?
  It didn't just happen. It happened because this institution, 
beginning with who I think is the worst President in the country's 
history until now, Lyndon Johnson, began a war on the family. I guess 
he called it a war on poverty. He really should have called it a war on 
the family.
  He began to put the government in a position in which they would take 
care of the children instead of both parents--traditionally, the 
father. So, in other words, they substituted the government for the 
father in the home.
  Quickly, we reached the point where it ramped up from the middle 
sixties to the nineties, then dipped a little with welfare reform in 
the sixties, and now is on the upward climb. Forty percent of children 
go home to one parent.
  There are some parents who are able to swing it and do a good job, 
but let's face it: It is much more difficult to raise kids in that 
circumstance, and the statistics show it.
  So, how has this body responded? It has responded by increasing the 
incentives to not form a nuclear family. Right now, all the government 
transfer payments, be it medical care, be it food stamps, be it low-
income housing, be it the earned income tax payment, be it the TANF 
payments, are all conditioned upon families being in poverty.

[[Page H5407]]

  A lot of people considered in poverty I don't think we would consider 
in poverty. They maybe have an air-conditioned apartment. They may have 
iPhones. They may have cars. But you are considered in poverty if you 
are not earning a great deal of money. And the bag of things you are 
getting can, in many cases, exceed that of what a working parent, 
frequently a father, in the home can provide.
  The government says provided you don't get married to a guy with an 
income or much of an income, we are going to give you a free apartment, 
frequently a nicer apartment than people who are not in the system yet. 
We are going to give you free food.
  When I talk to the clerks at the grocery stores and such, they 
frequently say the food one gets is more expensive than the clerks who 
work at the grocery stores can afford.
  When you give free healthcare, when you give additional checks of 
some basis, TANF checks, you can quickly wind up in a situation in 
which, like I said, you are better off financially not getting married.
  This was, I think, the biggest policy mistake we have seen in 
America, perhaps in hundreds of years, the decision in the 1960s to, in 
essence, have the government replace the husband.
  I think so many of the problems in America today, including the crime 
problems that we addressed or tried to address in the gun bills that 
were passed earlier today, actually wouldn't be anywhere near the 
problem they are had we not done what we could to destroy the American 
family as Karl Marx wanted.
  It is the bag of things one gets. Efforts have been made throughout 
the last year and a half, some successful, some not, to push more and 
more money in the system for people or for single parents--could be a 
man, could be a woman--who are not married to someone with much of an 
income, the efforts made to increase the earned income tax credit, the 
increases in the food stamps, the efforts made to put more low-income 
housing out there.
  I remember, too, as I mentioned, I talked to some of the admittedly 
more liberal people who administer the low-income housing. I asked 
them: What about the program don't you like?
  Well, it is a good program I am glad to be part of here, but these 
people are getting nicer housing than I am getting.
  It kind of reminds me like when you talk to the clerk at the grocery 
store. The people in the system are getting nicer groceries than the 
people not. The people getting the low-income housing, once they get 
off the waiting list, are sometimes getting better accommodations than 
people who are off on their own, particularly couples starting out.
  In any event, I think if there is one thing I would like to have the 
Republican Party do, if we ever do get both Houses and the Presidency 
again, is to make a concerted effort to change these welfare programs 
so never again will the United States be in the business of encouraging 
families without both parents, particularly encouraging families 
without a father at home.
  The results of Lyndon Johnson's policies have been written about for 
50 years now. Whether we are talking about Daniel Moynihan or George 
Gilder or Robert Rector, everybody points it out.
  This breakdown in the family, which everybody knows is ruining 
America or is largely responsible for causing the moral decline in 
America, it didn't just happen. It happened because the U.S. Government 
and people in this body wanted to take money and give it to people 
living a certain lifestyle and take it from the tax dollars of people 
living the nuclear family lifestyle.
  I strongly encourage people in this body, including Republican 
leadership, if we take control of this House 2 years from now with the 
Presidency, to make their number one priority flipping around these 
welfare programs which have done so much to lead to the moral decline 
that we have in America today.
  I realize it means standing up to the media. It is standing up to--a 
former Democrat mayor of Milwaukee used to refer to the poverty pimps. 
I don't know whether they use that word anymore.
  It will take standing up to the poverty pimps and finally getting the 
strength of the American family back where it was in the 1960s, back 
where it was in the 1950s where our schools seemed to be doing a better 
job, where it didn't seem like the crime was anywhere near as great as 
today.
  By the way, things like the murder rate should be falling 
precipitously because of improved medical care, but we still have a 
higher murder rate today, last year, than we did in the fifties, which 
is just preposterous but one of the effects of Lyndon Johnson's war on 
the family.
  I leave that goal for both the Republicans and Democrats, to stop and 
think what they can do to get the American family back where it was 60 
years ago.
  Those are some of what I consider the major issues in America, issues 
that should be talked about today and are, quite frankly, of more 
significance than some of the things that the media talks about.
  I hope when we get done taking our break near the end of June that we 
do something to address the border, or President Biden would address it 
immediately, that we do something to address the huge number of drug 
overdoses and all the broken hearts out there of the people who died 
because of this problem.
  I hope we begin to address the breakdown of the family that didn't 
just happen. It happened almost by design of the government. I hope we 
do something about the excessive spending, which results in this 
inflation that makes it difficult for people at all ages of life. But I 
think it must make it so difficult for the youngest people as they look 
forward: Can we buy a home? Can we have children?

                          ____________________