[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 18, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H1795-H1798]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1830
                       TARGETING PEOPLE OF FAITH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 9, 2023, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Grothman) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, this week Congress returned from 2 weeks 
working in our districts, and obviously, we heard quite a bit from our 
constituents back home. I would like to spend a little bit of time 
addressing issues that I think are on their minds.
  The first thing is we had another step toward the--I will call it the 
de-Christianization or dislike of people of faith.
  It was revealed within the last month and a half that a memo was 
leaked from the Richmond office of the FBI saying that they were 
concerned that conservative Catholics may be tied up with white 
supremacists, and we have to monitor them. I think this is one of the 
most offensive things up there.
  Now, first of all, their source for this was the Southern Poverty Law 
Center. I would ask anybody to Google the Southern Poverty Law Center 
and see the degree to which it has been used to enrich its founders and 
is a totally discredited source.
  I thought nobody outside of maybe a few journalists would trust it 
with anything, but apparently the FBI considers the Southern Poverty 
Law Center a legitimate source.
  Even more scary is that they are targeting conservative Catholics. Do 
you know why they are targeting conservative Catholics?
  Because they are sincere believers in their faith, and that scares 
the type of people who are running the country, or they are afraid they 
would be an obstacle in the type of country they want us to become.
  They do say that this was not up to their exact standards. In other 
words, what they are apologizing for is they got caught because there 
was somebody there who was a whistleblower who exposed the way the 
leadership in the FBI thought.
  I think all Americans--and I am not Catholic, but all Americans who 
take their faith seriously should be very alarmed at this.
  There have been many countries around the world which consider 
Christianity or religion their enemy. I thought one of the major 
reasons why the United States was different than these other countries 
is because we are supposed to be a moral and religious Nation.
  We are a Nation built for people who take their faith seriously. Now 
we find out the FBI thinks we ought to put informants in with groups of 
conservative Catholics to make sure they are not up to something 
untoward.
  I hope all Americans are appropriately concerned with the type of 
people we have being hired in the FBI. I hope all clergymen realize 
that if they can go after the conservative Catholics, the next thing 
they are going to do is go after you.
  The idea that they would think we should put informants in with 
conservative Catholic groups to make sure they are not doing something 
untoward is truly scary.


                          Working Toward Peace

  Mr. GROTHMAN. My next topic for tonight is a topic in which not a lot 
of progress has been made in the last 2 weeks, but I continue to 
believe people in this body or the press corps should be turning up the 
heat a little bit on our current administration.
  I have talked before about the potentially huge problems we could 
have in Ukraine. We are dealing with a very advanced country in Russia, 
a country with nuclear submarines, a country with the ability to shut 
down your electric grid, and no progress is being made toward some sort 
of peace agreement.
  This war has now gone on for over a year. I think there are, sadly, 
some people in this town who wouldn't mind if it goes on another 2 or 3 
years.
  The additional cost, as far as monetary cost, is a scandal in its own 
right, but that is not as horrible as the huge cost in human suffering 
and death that every war has.
  I have talked before about the fact that Ukraine has the second 
lowest birth rate of any country its size in the world, behind only 
South Korea.
  Russia itself has had a big immigration problem in which people are 
leaving their country. I have been at the southern border and heard 
stories of young Russians coming here, so it should be particularly 
easy to negotiate some sort of deal.
  The United States is in a position to negotiate that deal, but 
certainly other countries that we are friendly with; Israel, Turkiye, 
or France, could be prodded to work toward some sort of peace deal on 
humanitarian reasons, if none other.
  Nevertheless, we don't hear a lot of talk about that, not a lot of 
gossip that behind the scenes, people are working toward some sort of 
agreement.
  Given how poorly things went with Russia when they invaded, things 
didn't wrap up in 3 days like our CIA was guessing, I assume it was a 
surprise to Russia that things are still going on this long, as well.
  I would assume that, therefore, both sides would like to work toward 
a peace agreement here. But sadly, the United States, who I think 
should be working for peace--I always kind of remember when the United 
States negotiated the end of the Russia or Japanese war.
  We should be wanting world peace but, instead, you hear no rumors in 
that regard. I would hope that the press corps and other politicians in 
this area would be asking a little bit or prodding the relevant people 
along to make sure that we work toward peace.


                     Control of the Southern Border

  Mr. GROTHMAN. The next topic--I could always argue--and the most 
important topic for our country is the border. While back in the 
district, I spent 1 day--haven't been there in about 11 months, but I 
spent 1 day at

[[Page H1796]]

the Arizona-Texas border and continued to see what a complete mess we 
have down there.
  While down there, Congressman Biggs from Arizona and I were given a 
ride along the Arizona-Mexico border.

  The ride had to go for 25 or 30, maybe 35 miles along a very rocky 
trail. I don't think the car could go more than 15 or 20 miles an hour.
  We saw nobody until we got about 15 miles in, in the middle of 
nowhere, and we came across four or five families totaling 21 people.
  We were informed by this group that they were dropped off about a 2-
hour walk from the American border and had to walk over this rocky land 
to get there.
  Now, so you know, most people who ask for asylum they go to 
designated points of entry where they roll out the red carpet--I am 
only exaggerating a little bit--to deal with people and walk them 
through.
  Why was this group of 21 people--and you have got to understand. 
There is some question as to the whether the border is under control.
  I will assure you: The border is under control. The Mexican drug-
controlled gangs have that border under control.
  These folks, after having to walk 2 hours through the desert, sat for 
2 hours in the middle of nowhere. It was, fortunately, a cool day, 
about 70 degrees, but it could have been a hundred degrees.
  Finally, us two Congressmen came across them. I don't know who would 
have come across them if we hadn't been taking the tour at the time.
  We had to call and waited probably another 30 or 35 minutes for the 
Border Patrol to show up and take these 21 people back.
  Now, why would the Mexican drug gangs want 21 people showing up in 
the middle of nowhere rather than the designated points of entry?
  The reason is all along the southern border, the drug gangs have 
spotters in the surrounding mountains. When the people come across with 
drugs, they want to make sure they are not caught.
  One way to make sure they are not caught is you send other people 
across that you know the Border Patrol has to deal with, you know the 
Border Patrol has to process.
  It took a minimum of three--I would guess more than that--big SUVs to 
take these people to a designated Border Patrol station so that the 
gangs doing the spotting in the high mountains around us knew that now 
was the easy time to get through the fentanyl and other drugs that 
stream across our border. Just a real tragedy.
  I think it was very risky to have such young kids going along, in 
addition to the fact that is 21 more people coming in our country, who 
I would almost be certain do not need asylum. They are just coming here 
because our President does not consider the border something worth 
enforcing.
  I want to give you one other anecdote from that trip which tells you 
the lack of seriousness that this administration has toward this 
unfettered immigration, as well as the stream of illegal drugs coming 
across the border.
  I have been an advocate in the past for drug-sniffing dogs that can 
identify the horrible drugs that have killed over 100,000 Americans in 
the past.
  I asked our guide, who was connected with the union down there, so he 
represented how the average Border Patrol people felt.
  He said, no, not more dogs. Why didn't he want more dogs? Because 
right now, the Biden administration did give them more dogs. They gave 
them more dogs because they needed therapy dogs for the Border Patrol.
  They felt that the stressful situation of being underfunded, of being 
miles and miles away from the closest Border Patrol agent in case 
something goes south, that the way to deal with the stress was to hire 
therapy dogs. They had 38 therapy dogs.
  Wouldn't you think if you are going to hire dogs for the southern 
border, they would be drug-sniffing dogs and try to reduce that 
100,000-plus number of people who are dying of illegal drug use every 
day? No.
  The people who currently run our government think, well, the Border 
Patrol is stressed in the current situation. What should we do about 
it?
  I don't think we should hire more Border Patrol agents. I don't think 
we should hire more drug-sniffing drugs.
  Aha. Let's hire some more therapy dogs for the Border Patrol because 
they will feel better if, on their way out in the morning, they get to 
pet the dog.
  Unbelievable. I mean, you can't make this stuff up, can you?
  We dealt a little bit more with the border in the committee that I am 
the subcommittee chair earlier today. We remember a couple years ago, 
under a different President, that the press made a big deal that they 
felt there were some families being separated.
  Those families could be only separated for, I think, under 20 days, 
and it was only if the parents had broken some law.
  Well, today in our committee hearing, we looked at the number of 
unaccompanied minors crossing the southern border. These are minors 
crossing without parental guidance, without parents being with them.
  In the final full year before the current administration, in a whole 
year, there were 15,000 unaccompanied minors crossing.
  That was the first half of that year, before COVID was really out 
there, so it was kind of an artificial count; it should have been a 
higher number, but 15,000.
  Last year, we had 128,000 unaccompanied minors crossing the border, 
young people without any parental guidance coming on their own. That, 
by itself, should be a major cause of concern.
  We had a witness today, Robin Marcos, the Director of the Office of 
Refugee Resettlement, a political appointee, and it was shocking what 
she didn't know about the young people crossing the border.
  Now, I have been at the border before, and I know the Border Patrol 
will tell you, or other people guarding the border, that there are 
times they suspect that children are crossing the border and are only 
providing cover for other people who want to come here.
  They say this is my child, but the Border Patrol suspects it is not 
their child. They do a DNA test and find out it is not their child.
  Wouldn't you be giving DNA tests to just about every unaccompanied 
minor crossing the border to make sure they aren't being trafficked, or 
when you give them to a sponsor eventually, if they say that sponsor is 
an aunt or uncle or whatever, it really is?
  But when you ask Ms. Marcos how many DNA tests they are giving of the 
unaccompanied minors, she has no idea. I would think that is about the 
first thing that you should know.

                              {time}  1845

  The second thing that you should wonder about: Is her agency 
adequately vetting the sponsors that are going to take over these kids 
who are coming here without their parents?
  So we asked her how many sponsors are rejected as unfit to take care 
of these unaccompanied minors?
  She had no idea.
  Isn't that kind of surprising?
  Wouldn't you think in this era of human trafficking that you would 
want to know that?
  Wouldn't you think in this era in which a lot of these kids cross the 
border, and according to The New York Times, wind up working in unsafe 
conditions--I assume in part to pay off the debt that they have to pay 
for coming into this country--wouldn't you think that we would be doing 
a thorough investigation of these sponsors?
  Apparently not.
  We have no idea how many sponsors were considered unfit to come here.
  Another thing that surprised me at the border was that if you really 
wanted to disrupt the drug trade that is killing over 100,000 Americans 
a year, one of the things you could do very successfully is not only 
try to track down people coming into the country, you could track down 
people leaving the country with tens or hundreds of thousands of 
dollars. After all, it wouldn't be so profitable for the drug trade if 
some of that cash was being intercepted.
  I guess for a while, a few years ago, they tried to intercept that 
cash. Whether it is the lack of money or whatever, they are not doing 
it anymore. I guess I will take that as one more piece of evidence of 
the lack of seriousness that this administration is taking in trying to 
disrupt the drug trade coming across the southern border. In any event, 
we don't see that happening either.

[[Page H1797]]

  Like I said, the new Director, who has been here since last 
September, really knows very little about what is going on at the 
border. You would think she would want to know.
  We also know from The New York Times--and she didn't deny this--that 
there are 87,000 unaccompanied minors, and we don't know where they 
are.
  Now, she could say it is not her job, but when we are taking people 
away from their parents or when people are leaving their parents and 
coming to America, wouldn't you think we would express a little bit of 
interest to see whether they are being taken care of by someone that 
the child would be safe with?
  Apparently not.
  Now, some may say, Well, this guy says it is the child's uncle. It 
could be an uncle that they have never met in their life. They could be 
making it up that it is an uncle. It could be an uncle who lives with 
six other guys, and he is taking in a 14-year-old girl to live with 
them.
  Who knows what is going on? There is little concern.
  I guess the only thing that drives this administration's Border 
Patrol policy is getting as many people here as quickly as possible 
because they want to change America. That is what we are dealing with.
  One final thing. I would think that when somebody comes here without 
parents, you would want to contact the parents and let them know, We 
have little Mary here. She says she is 12 years old. We want to make 
sure that you understand that she is here in Tucson, Arizona.
  Our Director has no idea how many parents have been contacted. She 
has no idea how many times both parents are being contacted, or maybe 
only one parent is connected with that child.
  We have no idea. However, if we care even remotely for these kids, I 
would think we would be in contact with their parents: You said you are 
sending little Mary here to live with Uncle Joe; is that accurate?
  You would try to get ahold of both parents because we like to have 
both parents play a role in raising their children. Who knows if we 
ever get ahold of both parents.
  I hope, for humanitarian interests, that we have some concern over 
the lack of care for over 120,000 unaccompanied minors coming into this 
country every year. I can't help but ask myself, given that some of 
these kids will probably never see their parents again: Where was the 
press corps and where were the Democrats, who at one time were all 
concerned that sometimes when a parent broke the law, they would have 
to spend 15 or 16 days apart from their child?
  That is an important story, and a story I hope people follow up on.


                           Affirmative Action

  Mr. GROTHMAN. Now, I will deal with one of the problems the Biden 
administration thinks is of great concern. And I don't think it should 
be a major concern, but they keep pushing it and pushing it down upon 
us, and that is: what to do about the supposed huge amount of racism in 
the country?
  We know that when Joe Biden was sworn in--I attended his inaugural 
speech--I believe if there was one theme, it was racism. He talked 
about racism four times. He talked about white supremacy first.
  He really thought we had a big racist problem in America today. And 
he followed up on it in this year's state of the Union address, another 
time Joe Biden couldn't resist taking a shot at our law enforcement and 
saying how racist they were.
  This, despite the fact that when they do studies of law enforcement 
when adjusted to criminal behavior, there is no difference of anything 
going the other way, as far as the chance that race will be a factor in 
people who die.
  In any event, Joe Biden has done two things that I think require us 
to look at the so-called racial element as Joe Biden's heavy-handed 
government weighs in.
  In his budget, he begins with new diversity, equity, and inclusion 
teams in all government agencies. That is interesting. So we have 
bureaucrats--I am sure bureaucrats will be involved--whose job it 
is apparently to poke around and educate people that they should view 
themselves not as individuals but view themselves racially.

  One of the things I did when I was on break--I am not quite through 
with the book--is to take advantage of a gem that you might not be 
familiar with by the incisive Thomas Sowell, ``Affirmative Action 
Around the World.''
  I don't think a lot of people in this body know that this idea of 
affirmative action, recognizing people by race, promoting them by race, 
hiring by race, is not unique to the United States. It has happened in 
various other countries around the world, and I think we ought to see 
what traits we have in common as soon as you go down the path of 
affirmative action.
  I first dealt with this problem when I was in the State legislature 
many years before. Of course, with affirmative action and racial 
preferences and identifying people by race is not something unique to 
the government. To a certain extent with the government weighing in, it 
has become very common at universities, very common in big business.
  We were in a hearing a couple of weeks ago and it was revealed that 
in college universities these racial police are being hired for as much 
as $200,000 a year. It drives me up a wall given that sometimes we talk 
about student loan debt. The fact that the student loan debt is going 
to pay for these race hustlers, I think, is entirely inappropriate.
  I also believe there are certain majors we need more of in this 
country. We need more nurses. We need more engineers. It drives me up a 
wall when we have a shortage of nursing professors or engineering 
professors and hearing that universities think it is more important to 
hire the equity police.
  In any event, what lessons can we learn from Thomas Sowell?
  When going down this path and identifying people by race, what things 
happen in common when they tried this in countries around the world?
  Well, the first thing is, all around the world when they have 
affirmative action, it usually starts out with a lie that this race 
preference stuff will happen for a short period of time and then will 
disappear, maybe 10 years, maybe 20 years.
  This country began to enforce affirmative action in earnest in 1965. 
So the current race preference-type stuff is about 57 years old, well 
longer than originally thought.
  Secondly, around the world, once you go down this path, you keep 
adding more people to the mix. And I think at the time when Lyndon 
Johnson really kicked off affirmative action in earnest in 1965 it was 
primarily for Black Americans, with an implication that slavery might 
have been part of it, that sort of thing.
  Since then, we have added Hispanics--new word. It is kind of an 
interesting thing because for the purpose of affirmative action, if 
your ancestors came from Spain and spent a couple of generations in 
Costa Rica, you are considered a minority. If your ancestors came from 
Spain and came straight to the United States, you are considered 
European, which shows the ridiculousness of the whole thing.
  This is common around the world. The idea of we keep adding--we added 
women to the mix, so we need to have affirmative action there as well.
  Secondly, people begin to change their identity as soon as 
affirmative action kicks in. A lot of people don't realize that if you 
are one-quarter, say, Latin, or one-eighth Asian, you can be considered 
eligible for affirmative action. So they follow this stuff. Somebody 
who maybe before affirmative action on the census form said I am White, 
but because they are a quarter Cuban--which is European anyway--you all 
of a sudden can relabel yourself a minority.
  Now, we obviously had a U.S. Senator here a few years ago, Elizabeth 
Warren, an extreme example of that. She was whatever, 1/64th or 1/128th 
American Indian, Native American, and she therefore changed her 
identity and miraculously said, I am a Native American; I should get 
preferences.
  I think that is inappropriate, but that is what the current system 
apparently allows, and this is common. Apparently, when affirmative 
action is implemented in other countries, people change their identity.
  The next thing that happens is, even though I think affirmative 
action is supposed to benefit the least fortunate of people of certain 
groups, it uniformly winds up benefiting the most fortunate of those 
groups.

[[Page H1798]]

  In other words, if you have preferences in government contracting, it 
benefits the wealthy businessman. It doesn't benefit the person more at 
the bottom of the heap. But this is common around the world. The 
benefits of the people who implement affirmative action are usually the 
people who are the most well-off in the first place.
  I do believe that--and maybe the least bad thing is it leads to 
resentment--in countries that previously everybody was getting along, 
all of a sudden bifurcate as people fight for more and more of their 
group. They didn't think they were part of a group before, but all of a 
sudden, they are part of a group.
  I think everybody should read about what happened in Sri Lanka, a 
country that had two primary ethnic groups. They got along for 
apparently centuries very well on the small island of Sri Lanka, but 
once affirmative action kicked in, the resentment kicked in. They wound 
up having a civil war and over 20,000 people died. This was on an 
island and before they had affirmative action everybody was getting 
along just fine.
  I would also point out that means in some cases, you almost, by 
definition, have to be promoting people because it is very important we 
have the best person there--doctors, air traffic controllers, 
engineers. Maybe it doesn't matter a lot the quality of professor we 
have in universities, but it certainly matters in these other 
occupations. And if we don't have the best people there, it can result 
in deaths.
  Now, there is one thing I wish the press would follow up on a little 
bit here. About 2 years ago, when Joe Biden first took office, Senators 
Tammy Duckworth and Mazie Hirono said that we shouldn't have any more 
White guys appointed by the Biden administration.
  I think that was an inflammatory thing to say. They haven't followed 
up on it, but recently, there was an article in a legal journal 
pointing out--not saying it is good or bad--we had 97 new judges so far 
in the first 2 years of the Biden administration, only five were White 
guys, and at least two were gay.
  Well, it sounds like this strict adherence to group identity is 
playing a big role in who President Biden is appointing. And I am not 
sure the American public knows the degree to which that is going on, 
but it is something that should be looked into. It is something that 
maybe we should look at all appointments rather than just judicial 
appointments. I think it is something that a shocking number of people 
don't know about, and it is something we should follow up on.

                              {time}  1900

  So there are some of the issues that were discussed back in my 
district when I was there. None of these issues, I think, have received 
the appropriate amount of attention that it should be given by our 
press corps, and hopefully we will hear more about all of these issues 
in the press in the weeks and months to come.
  Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________