[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 22 (Thursday, February 2, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H663-H666]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       IMPORTANCE OF FREE SPEECH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 9, 2023, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to use the full 60 minutes, 
but first, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), 
the wonderful chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee.


                          Denouncing Socialism

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my great friend from Wisconsin, who 
serves on the Education and the Workforce Committee, and is a very 
valuable member of that committee, as well as the Oversight and 
Accountability Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, today, the House rightfully condemned and denounced 
socialism in all forms and resolved to oppose socialist policies.
  As the Bible says in Proverbs 14, ``All hard work brings a profit, 
but mere talk leads only to poverty.''
  Socialism is mere talk. Socialism is the idea that if you work hard, 
your neighbor will enjoy the fruits of your labor.
  Socialist regimes, in just the last 100 years, have impoverished, 
enslaved, starved, and even killed over 100 million people. This is a 
horrific cost borne by far, far too many.
  Socialism, no matter its form, will never have a place in our 
Republic.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I guess, after hearing the last speaker, I 
should kind of readjust my remarks and comment about the importance of 
free speech and the current flight from free speech which we have going 
on in the United States.
  I have here a little graph, which I viewed with total alarm when my 
staff was able to come up with it. Of course, freedom of speech takes 
many forms in our society: the ability to write books, the ability to 
get on the radio, and now the ability to post things you want on the 
internet.
  I hope my good friend from Texas looks at this--he left the floor 
right now--and sees how precarious the right to free speech is in 
America today.
  We look here, and there is a question: The U.S. Government should 
take steps to protect false info online, even if it limits freedom of 
information.
  Of course, we all can disagree about a lot of things. We can disagree 
on politics. We can disagree on elections. We can disagree on medical 
facts. That is why when we have something wrong with us medically, we 
sometimes get a second opinion, because one doctor thinks different 
than the other.
  Of course, we all know people, you know: Should I take the shot? 
Should I not take the shot? Should I get surgery? Should I not get the 
surgery? Should I get remdesivir? Should I not get remdesivir? A lot of 
questions are up in the air.
  There was a time when it could have had an effect on an election if 
the people found out that Hunter Biden took a lot of money from people 
in other countries and maybe had an underlying goal.
  The question is, is free speech what this country is about or not?
  With the Democratic Party--and this alarms me because I was a 
Democrat until I was 20 years old, and I thought Democrats were out in 
front on free speech and Republicans were the staid people.
  We have a situation right now, over the last few years, in which 65 
percent of the Democrats, a clear majority, almost 2 to 1: The U.S. 
Government should take steps to restrict false info online even if this 
restricts freedom of information.
  Only 28 percent of Republicans do.
  Now, this graph shocks me. This weekend, I am going to be speaking to 
some Republicans back in the district. I will tell you, I am going to 
tell them how disappointed I am that 28 percent of the Republicans 
responding to the poll apparently don't want freedom of information.
  I would hope my colleague from Texas goes back home and explodes at 
the people back home that 65 percent of the Democrats, or people 
leaning Democrats, want to restrict the free flow of information.
  You could say they only want to prevent false things from being put 
out there, but, of course, who determines what is false and what is 
true?
  If you look at the next one, another sign of if you believe in free 
speech or not: Should tech companies take steps to restrict false info 
online even if it limits freedom of information?
  We all know things that some people agree with and some people don't 
agree with, and sometimes things we once thought were false turn out to 
be true.
  Here again, it scares me. The Democrats when I was a Democrat and 20 
years old, I will tell you, wouldn't have thought this way, but the 
Democrat Party has changed a lot. Seventy-six percent think tech 
companies should restrict false info even if it limits freedom of 
information. Only 37 percent of the Republicans feel that way. That is 
a very scary thing, scary for our country.
  It comes down to what I think is the scariest thing of all: the way 
people think. It is not even things that the governments do. I don't 
know if we have bad schools out there or whatever, but the way people 
think is kind of scary.

                              {time}  1445

  We know in Canada, to the north of us, which we thought was kind of a 
country like America, right now, they crack down on churches, if maybe 
they disagree with the party line on sexual behavior.
  We mentioned in the last election, things began to come out about 
Hunter Biden taking money from foreign outfits, presumably just being 
given money because of the access he had to his dad. Oops, better not 
let that out there online, better not talk about that on TV. Oh, my 
goodness, that might affect the way people think.
  So we have this restriction going on right now, like I said, on the 
COVID stuff. I don't know the degree to which it is influenced by 
campaign contributions from companies like Pfizer. I don't know whether 
it is the pride of the public health establishment.
  But we are entering into an era in this country in which we are not 
going to be able to say certain things unless the American public 
realizes that the First Amendment is borderline absolute. The fact that 
such a huge party,

[[Page H664]]

overwhelming majorities, have no problem with know-it-alls in the 
government restricting what you can find online, is very scary.
  I hope and pray that the American public wakes up on this dangerous 
trend. I know we are late here on Thursday. I hope my friend who just 
got done speaking weighs in here.
  I will talk to Republicans this weekend, but I really hope that my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle come down strongly with their 
rank and file that apparently is against free speech and tell them the 
importance of free speech.


                 The Situation with Ukraine and Russia

  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, the next thing I am going to address is 
Ukraine. Again, I don't think the American public or the American 
press, the mainstream media, are asking the right questions on this 
vitally important topic.
  It would be better for Ukraine, it would be better for Russia, 
certainly their young people, and better for the stability of the 
world, if a peace agreement was reached. But there are too many people 
in this Capitol who I don't think, for whatever reason, consider peace 
a priority. Among those people, I will label the Biden administration.
  Eventually this war is going to come to an end. All wars come to an 
end eventually. The only question is: Will the war come to an end in 
2023, 2024, 2027?
  As the war goes on, obviously more and more people die, more and more 
people are injured, more and more property is destroyed. You create 
hard feelings such that more and more people in both Ukraine and Russia 
will have anger toward each other for years and years in the future.
  Nevertheless, the Biden administration, I get when I talk to them, is 
not aggressively looking for peace. Now, the United States has 
obviously weighed in very heavily on this war. It is hard for anybody 
to believe that we would be an impartial broker. But there are 
countries like Turkey, like France, like Israel that can be encouraged 
to step in and put an end to the war going on here.
  I have said before, war between any two countries, they should want 
to look for peace. But between these two countries, that is 
particularly so. It is not talked about enough.
  Ukraine has the second lowest birthrate in the world. I mean, if you 
have the second lowest birthrate in the world, you ought to be doing 
all you can to protect the few young people you have for the next 
generation. So among all countries, Ukraine especially should be saying 
they want this war to end.
  Russia also has a very low birth rate. If my district is any 
indication, I think a lot of the young Russians that are there are 
leaving Russia for other countries, I think in part because of the bad 
economy they have in Russia and because we still, despite all our 
foibles, have a free market economy in the United States and a much 
more honest government.
  I have no problem finding Russians in my district. Over a year ago 
now, when I was in the San Diego sector on the southern border, during 
that 2 or 3 weeks I was down there in just solely the San Diego sector, 
the second most common nationality coming from Mexico were Russians. 
Which means not only does Russia have a low birthrate, but they have a 
lot of their younger people with their children coming to the United 
States to get away from Russia.
  So we have two countries that their number one priority really ought 
to be making sure we have as many young people as possible and making 
sure they have more children, or these two great cultures, Ukraine and 
Russia, are going to end. Instead, this war goes on.
  Like I said, for these two countries, it ought to be especially easy 
to find some sort of compromise and stop the killing.
  It is especially important, to not only just stop the killing right 
now, but we have got to remember, Russia has hypersonic capability and 
they have nuclear weapons. Maybe you can say things will go on for 
years and years and they will never use the weapons. I am not sure that 
is true. There are obviously people in this Chamber who hope that 
Vladimir Putin is going to be forced to step aside. There is no 
indication that his replacement will be more to our liking, and there 
is some indication that it will be worse.
  So I hope the American press corps, the comatose press corps of the 
United States of America, spends more time asking all of the principals 
in that war: Are you for peace or not?
  Would you negotiate for peace or not before any more people die?
  And I would hope people on all sides of the aisle would be in favor 
of that.
  There is another one that is kind of funny. When I was a Democrat, 
before I was 20 years old, I thought the Republican Party was the party 
of war. But now it is kind of the other way around. You talk to these 
Democrats, and they have no desire to have this thing wrap up. I hope 
maybe the Democrats who were around when I was in high school can step 
forward and say: Hey, wait a minute here. The Democrats used to be the 
party of peace, or at least they fancied themselves the party of peace. 
Maybe they never sincerely were.


                    The Plight of Ahmadiyya Muslims

  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, the next thing I would like to talk about 
is, in my district, I have a mosque of Ahmadiyya Muslims. They believe 
things different than a lot of the mainstream Shiites and Sunni Muslims 
believe. But that is not the major reason I bring them up today. I 
bring up their plight because worldwide other Muslim groups are 
persecuting them and sometimes killing them.
  Recently, in Burkina Faso, nine men were murdered before the women 
and children there. They are frequently persecuted in Pakistan. There 
are probably about 15 million Ahmadiyya Muslims in the world. About 4 
million of those are in Pakistan. Pakistan is not exactly the most 
forgiving, tolerant country in the world, and it is no surprise that 
Ahmadiyya Muslims are sometimes murdered there.
  Algeria is another country in which we have mosques, and they are not 
treated that well.
  It is one of the wonderful traits of the United States that while we 
not only believe in free speech--or at least we did until recently--
particularly speech is protected when it is religious in nature. It is 
important for all Americans to learn the lesson of what goes on in 
Algeria or Pakistan or Burkina Faso, that there are countries in which 
not only is religious speech suppressed, but people are killed for 
saying things that are disliked by other groups of people.
  I wish my best for my friends who are Ahmadiyya Muslims. I wish the 
best for the mosque that they currently have in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, and 
I hope the rest of the world is supportive of them in their plight.


                        The Topic of Immigration

  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have spoken many times from this 
platform about immigration, and I am going to speak about it again 
today, because I think it is even more important, if that is possible, 
than what is going on in Ukraine.
  In the last month that we have information, we hit another all-time 
record in the number of people coming in the country. I think whether 
it is because they don't care or whether it is because they are for 
unlimited people coming here, the American press has kind of fallen 
asleep on this topic more than they should have.
  More than a year ago, in kind of the final month, December of 2020, 
the final month that we had a different administration, there were 
about 21,000 people who came here. That was a big deal, 21,000 people 
coming across the southern border who probably shouldn't be here. We 
are now at 238,000. The all-time high, 238,000 people coming across the 
border. Of that 238,000, 67,000 are got-aways.
  So our listeners are aware, there are two groups of people, when you 
hear about the number of people coming across the border. There are the 
people who check in with the Border Patrol. They look for the Border 
Patrol. ``We want asylum in the United States.'' They probably don't 
have a valid asylum claim, but once we let them into the country, they 
disappear into the country.
  There are other people called got-aways that don't check in with the 
Border Patrol. They are probably more dangerous, because they are more 
likely to have drugs with them, since they aren't turning themselves in 
to the Border Patrol. They are more likely to have criminal records 
because we don't

[[Page H665]]

have an opportunity to do a background check on them and see whether 
they have committed crimes in the U.S. or see if they have committed 
crimes in Canada. The number of got-aways, more likely to have drugs 
with them, has gone up from 21,000 2 years ago to 67,000. It tripled.
  And what do we hear from the Biden administration? Nothing.
  There is another subgroup called ``unaccompanied minors.'' There was 
a time early on in the Trump administration when people were worried 
about families being separated, even though they were trying to keep 
them separated for a minimum amount of time and only when people broke 
the law. We have now gone from 2,000 unaccompanied minors every month 
to 8,000 unaccompanied minors.
  Now, isn't that amazing? Minors are coming here without their 
parents' protection, without their parents knowing where they are?
  I mean, if our goal is to keep families together, isn't the first 
thing we ought to do, if we find a child, is spin them around and send 
them back to their country of origin rather than allow them to 
negotiate the trip from wherever, El Salvador or Brazil or wherever, to 
somewhere in the United States?
  I hope the American public--somebody has got to look to find it on 
the internet, because the mainstream media is not going to tell you--I 
hope they familiarize themselves with the growing number of people who 
are coming here who are not adequately vetted.
  I want to point out something else. When we talk about the number of 
people coming here that aren't vetted, the other side of that coin is, 
once people come here and once we find out we made a mistake, once we 
find out that they are perhaps committing crimes, how many of those 
people are we kicking out of country?
  That should be fairly automatic, right?
  If we have people who aren't American citizens coming here and 
committing crimes, out they go. I mean, really nobody should be let in 
here illegally. But if they commit crimes, wow.
  Well, what do we find? In the last year before COVID, 267,000 
Americans were deported. A fair number, close to that, were deported 
even under Barack Obama. But about a quarter million a year illegal 
aliens were deported, primarily because they broke a law of some 
nature.
  In the most recent year--and this is well into COVID, so it shouldn't 
have as big an effect--we are down to about 72,000. So at the same 
time, the number of people coming here illegally has gone up by like a 
factor of 10. The number of people that are being deported has dropped 
by about 3 quarters, there we are dealing with people who broke the 
law.

  I was talking to a guy who was a U.S. attorney that I ran into, and 
he was stunned. He was a U.S. attorney at the time. We have changed 
administrations. He was stunned at the new guidelines from the Biden 
administration, the degree to which people in the past would have been 
deported. It is no big deal.
  So this must be a priority. The American public should wake up. I am 
going to blame my Republican friends, too, for a little bit.
  In the last election, I think the Republicans should have spent more 
time talking about illegal immigration, an area where there is such a 
stark difference between the parties. But for whatever reason, I don't 
think they talked about it enough.
  Now, there are so many reasons I talked about people who are 
criminals coming here. I am one more time going to talk about all of 
the illegal drugs coming across the border. There are 108,000 Americans 
a year dying from illegal drugs, primarily fentanyl, almost all of 
those coming across the southern border. Sometimes big numbers glaze 
over. The number of people who die of illegal drugs--I am old enough to 
remember the Vietnam war. Every year, the number of people who die of 
illegal drugs is twice the number of people who died in 12 years in 
Vietnam. Think about that.
  I am old enough to remember the Vietnam war. I am old enough to 
remember all of the students protesting: Oh, too many people are dying, 
too many people are dying. And too many people were dying. But now, of 
illegal drugs, twice as many people die every year as died in the 12 
years of the Vietnam war.
  Those college students at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, 
they ought to be marching up and down State Street, around Bascom Hall, 
protesting the 108,000 people who are dying and wondering what in the 
world their government is doing to prevent it.
  Now, I think a lot of it is there is something wrong if you are 
taking a drug that is so powerful you could die.

                              {time}  1500

  But in any event, 108,000 deaths are too much. I suggest to all my 
colleagues, over the weekend, if they run into their district 
attorneys, if they run into their sheriffs, ask in each county how many 
people died last year of illegal drug overdoses.
  We are way over the number of people who die in car accidents and 
homicides combined--way more. And if somebody dies in a car accident, 
it makes the paper. If somebody dies in a homicide, of course, it makes 
the paper. But way more people die every year of illegal drug 
overdoses. You don't read about that at all.
  To a certain extent, I blame these 100,000 deaths not just on the 
politicians, and particularly President Biden who do nothing, but on 
our comatose press corps who are not ringing the bell, saying it is 
time to do something about this illegal immigration and time to do 
something about these illegal drugs.
  Now, my final little area that I am going to address today is a bill 
I am introducing called the Responsible Borrowing Act.
  One of the crises we have in this country is the huge number of 
amount of student loan debt that is out there. It is much worse than it 
used to be years ago. I guess a lot of the blame has to go on the 
universities who are selling college degrees or maybe admitting people 
who weren't going to get a college degree anyway, and they wind up with 
these huge student debts.
  If you plan on paying off your debt, maybe you delay having children, 
maybe you never have children--what a tragedy--maybe you put off buying 
a house or your student loan debt is so great that your credit rating 
is such you can't get a loan given the amount of student debt.
  I have what I would think is a minor bill, but I am shocked that it 
is going to be considered controversial if we bring it to the floor.
  There was a time in this country--in the 1990s, I don't know if it 
was legal or they just weren't enforcing the law--if you were a student 
loan officer at a university and a student was taking out a student 
loan, that person was able to say, I think you are taking out too much 
of a loan. Maybe they would say, I think you ought to get another job. 
Maybe they might say, you are living too high on the hog. You are 
spending too much money. You do not have to take out a $5,000 loan; you 
should make a go on a $2,000 loan. Maybe they could say, given the 
major you are getting, you cannot expect to make enough money to pay 
off this loan.
  Today, believe it or not, it is against the law for these loan 
counselors or these financial aid counselors to say, you ought not take 
out this loan. That is almost beyond belief. We began this little 
lecture by talking about free speech, and now we have a situation in 
which we bar loan counselors from saying you ought not take out a 
bigger loan.
  By the way, I think across the board way too many Americans are in 
debt on a variety of things.
  My bill will go back to the days in which financial aid 
administrators are able to tell students, this is going to be too much 
of a loan. It may feel good to get that big check in your hand when you 
are 20 years old, but when you are 30 years old, that debt is not going 
to be so great.
  If you would not spend so lavishly in Congress, or would get a better 
degree, or maybe delay going to college for a couple years to make sure 
you are confident that you are going to complete a degree.
  This was brought to my attention from somebody who runs a university. 
They were appalled with it. They have been running the university since 
the early 1990s and remember the good old days when they prevented 
students from taking out excessive student

[[Page H666]]

loans by telling them, what a dumb financial decision. The good old 
days are gone.
  Now, when supposedly we are concerned about excessive student loan 
debt, we tie the hands of the financial aid officers, and tell them, 
you cannot discourage people from taking out debt. At a minimum, 
shouldn't that bill just fly right through here?
  I bet it won't fly right through here because, for whatever reason, 
too many of the universities don't like to rain on the students' 
parade, and tell them, oh, maybe you shouldn't go out on so many 
Saturday nights or maybe you should get another job bartending or 
waitressing or what have you. Some universities will fight this.
  But I encourage my colleagues to pass the Responsible Borrowing Act 
and go back to the days in which the colleges cared about their 
students.
  There are some colleges who aren't going to take advantage of this, 
they don't care about their students' financial health at all once they 
leave. It is sad to see, but I have come across it.
  At least we want to give the responsible colleges the right to tell 
their students, hey, wait a minute, you don't have to take out any more 
debt.
  I would like to thank you for listening to this. I hope you all 
learned a little bit about Ahmadiyya Muslims and a little more about 
the huge volume of people crossing the southern border.
  I think you learned a little bit more about the huge number of people 
in our country, and particularly Democrats--I can't believe I was once 
a Democrat--who want to restrict free speech, and we have to be on the 
lookout for that and educate our young ones.
  We learned a little bit about the Responsible Borrowing Act and how 
it is high time we let universities tell their students, you don't have 
to take out any more. We also learned a little bit how our government 
is not working for peace in the Ukraine.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________