[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 7 (Friday, January 12, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H128-H131]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   VISIT TO THE TEXAS SOUTHERN BORDER

  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, it is our first week back from what I 
guess we refer to as Christmas or winter break, and at least 60 of us 
Republicans spent a couple days down at the Texas border to analyze one 
more thing, the complete disaster that we have going on with regard to 
what I will refer to as illegal immigration.
  I will summarize one more time for the American public and for my 
colleagues what we find when we go down there.
  First of all, it is apparent, in December of 2023, we will one more 
time hit an all-time high in the number of people who are let into our 
country. We are going to clear 300,000.
  I remind the body that, as recently as 3 years ago, that number, the 
monthly number, may have been 5,000 or 10,000. So we have gone up by a 
factor of 30 times as many people crossing the border.
  Sometimes comments out there made by the President imply that it is 
going to be very, very difficult to find a way to prevent 300,000 
people from crossing the border every month. I remind the American 
public, without Congress doing anything, the prior administration had 
that number under 10,000.
  I also want to point out these people are coming from all around the 
globe.

[[Page H129]]

We were down in the Del Rio sector, the Eagle Pass entryway. Now, we 
are just talking here about people who formally check in with the 
Border Patrol. In the 33 days prior to us coming down there, people 
came in from 61 different countries.
  Among the over 300,000 who come across in an average month, about 
9,000 are unaccompanied minors. Can you imagine in this country, I 
mean, can you imagine us sending children to another place around the 
globe, a 12-year-old without either of their parents?
  This is routine at the southern border. We saw one room where we were 
told, the prior week, there were 300 unaccompanied minors, people under 
18, in that room at one time.
  There is no appropriate oversight. When these people claim that they 
want sponsors in the country that are related to them somehow, an aunt, 
an uncle, whatever, we don't do DNA tests. We have no idea if--and it 
probably in some cases is--it is human trafficking.
  The United States, instead of sending them back to their country of 
origin and having the courts in Guatemala or Brazil or wherever 
determine where this child goes, we will deliver them anywhere. The 
cartels will put a name on a T shirt and say, deliver this child to 123 
Elm Street, and the U.S. Government kind of plays like UPS. We just 
take that child and deliver them wherever they want.
  We have no idea whether the people who take care of them are good 
sponsors or bad sponsors; if they claim they are relatives, are they 
relatives or not?
  I would suggest, as we debate in the next month what we are going to 
do with President Biden, our Republican negotiators add an addition to 
H.R. 2, a bill which we passed about 2 years ago, that we will stop 
taking unaccompanied minors in this country. As a matter of fact, we 
should stop taking people without both parents here, because, in 
America, we should be trying to keep families together.
  Right now, the Border Patrol, through no fault of their own, are 
assisting young children here without either parent. As a matter of 
fact, sometimes they get children so young, they cannot yet talk, and 
then they have to try to track somebody down or, in some cases, just 
send them to foster care.

  I hope the American public realizes that, by creating the perception 
around the world that now is the time that anybody can come into the 
United States as long as they claim asylum or, once they get into 
United States, we never try to deport them, we have people dying.
  We heard another story when we were in Eagle Pass of a mother and two 
of her children who almost drowned in the Rio Grande. Fortunately, our 
wonderful Border Patrol was able to drag them out and at least save the 
mom and one child, but one child did die.
  This is not unusual when we send the green light, providing you have 
the Mexican drug cartels helping you across. Not only are people dying 
in the Rio Grande River; they are dying in the Pacific Ocean as people 
try to get around a fence that goes--I am guessing here--about a 
quarter of a mile into the Pacific Ocean.
  I was down there a little while ago in San Diego. They were told that 
very day they had pulled someone out of the ocean. We were also told 
that the Mexican Government finds more people drowning in the Pacific 
Ocean on their side of the fence than our side of the fence.
  We, again, heard about people sneaking across between the designated 
entryways, dehydrating to death in the New Mexico desert, in the 
Arizona desert. This should never happen, and the American people, 
generous as they are, they go out in the desert and put gallons of 
water, hoping that people who are going to dehydrate to death find the 
water in time.
  Nevertheless, the current hodgepodge down there does result in deaths 
in the Pacific Ocean, deaths in the Rio Grande, and deaths in the 
Arizona and New Mexico deserts, and I think the people who continue on 
with the policy or pretend like it is some sort of mystery how we got 
here are at fault for those deaths.
  One more time, we heard that the primary beneficiary down there is 
the Mexican drug cartels, that they are the ones who are now making 
more money sneaking people across the border than they do even selling 
drugs.
  I personally heard, somebody was telling me in Wisconsin, in my 
district, somebody from India was paying $70,000 to get here. Now, of 
course, once that person gets here, they are kind of tied down. In this 
case, they felt that person, after working 3 years, will have paid off 
his $70,000.
  However, when it comes to other countries, places like Guatemala or 
Nicaragua, the cartels kind of have the family back home as hostages to 
make sure that the person who came in this country eventually pays 
their 10 or $12,000.
  The next thing we find out is--I talked to a woman who was in charge 
of the medical analysis of the people coming across the border--and she 
got a little bit emotional--all the sexual assaults that are happening, 
which isn't surprising, because you have got to remember that the 
southern border is run by the Mexican drug cartels.
  Apparently they do a good job of making the pitch how wonderful it 
would be on the trip, how wonderful it would be to go to America. 
However, again, the number of sexual assaults as we push people through 
the southern border, through the Mexican drug cartels, is something 
that is on the people that favor this policy and don't get rid of this 
policy.
  The next thing pointed out is that people who come across the 
southern border are not necessarily poor people. They read the 
advertisements or find the advertisements on social media, and they 
come here. The Border Patrol points out the clothes that people wear 
and whether they look particularly emaciated or not. They point out 
that frequently people are coming from other countries and throw away 
their ID. However, maybe you have somebody who is from Cuba. They go to 
Chile first when they leave Cuba, and then eventually they come to the 
United States, not because they were starving in Chile. They come to 
the United States because you make more money than Chile. We are a very 
wealthy country and, if you work hard, you are able to make money. 
Additionally, maybe the welfare benefits are more generous in the 
United States.
  In any event, do not fall for the myth that people are coming here 
because they are emaciated and starving, and it is all they can do. 
They frequently--it is apparent to the Border Patrol--are by the 
standards of their home country, be it Brazil, be it Venezuela, be it 
Cuba, they just can make more money in the United States.

                              {time}  1130

  I think before the American public believes that that is an 
appropriate way to come here, the American public ought to stop and 
realize that with well over 1 billion people in China and India, just 
to pick two countries, if we have a policy of anybody who can just make 
more money in the United States can come here, then we can find 
ourselves with tens of millions more people and eventually hundreds of 
millions of more people here. I would guess, Mr. Speaker, if you talk 
to all the people in China and talk to all the people in India, a very 
high percentage would rather come to America. As it becomes more and 
more apparent that we have a President who doesn't care what is going 
on at the border, more and more people will come here.
  I also want to point out that by having people come here, it drives 
down the wages for other people. We know there are powerful people who 
lobby us and who tell us that they don't like paying American workers 
so great a wage. There was a time when the Democratic Party at least 
pretended to care about the low-wage worker, but there is no question 
as we continue to let 300,000-plus people here a month ultimately it 
will drive down wages and hurt the American workers who are already 
here.
  It will also create a situation in which people are sending these 
people back to their country of origin, but it also creates a situation 
as we have so many people checking in at the designated entryways that 
the Border Patrol provides for people, the Border Patrol will not have 
the manpower necessary to patrol what is going on between designated 
entryways, and that is how we get the drugs in this country that are 
killing over 100,000 Americans a year.
  I have said before--I am old enough to remember the Vietnam war--in 
the

[[Page H130]]

Vietnam war there were all sorts of articles and comments about the 
number of American troops who were dying. In 12 years in Vietnam, about 
57,000 Americans died. Every year twice that many die of illegal drugs 
in the United States. Obviously, one of the first things we ought to do 
is cut off the spigot at the southern border, but the Biden 
administration does not care, and the drugs keep flowing across the 
border and our young Americans keep dying twice as many every year as 
died 12 years in Vietnam.
  I will mention one more time that they get here or they frequently 
come here because of advertisements on social media around the world. 
These advertisements, of course, make things look good. I think the 
United States has to get out there and try to explain, once we enforce 
our border, that it is not all going to be that good, they may wind up 
sitting on the Mexican side of the border, and they may not wind up in 
the United States at all.
  Again, I repeat, in that sector alone, which is one of nine sectors 
on the southern border, in the prior month, people came here from 61 
different countries including countries, by the way, whose government 
may not necessarily be favorable to the United States and may wish the 
United States ill. We haven't had horrible terrorist attacks within the 
United States, but I think all Americans should remember 9/11 and 
remember right now you are dealing with a country who wants to wish the 
United States ill. We have a lot of single men coming here from 
countries all around the world and countries like say Syria, or Iran, 
or say the Houthis out of Yemen, there has never been an easier time to 
come into this country and put yourself in a position in which you can 
kill many Americans through terrorist attacks, destroy some of the 
American electrical grid. That is what is happening.
  Again, I will point out that a lot of single men are coming across 
that border.
  Mr. Speaker, ask yourself: Why are so many single men coming across 
the border?
  So, in any event, I beg for Republican leadership--and I don't think 
that there is any hope that President Biden cares anymore but we used 
to have under 10,000 people cross the southern border a month, and that 
was before we built any wall which we should be building--now is the 
time to go back to the policies that were in effect 3 years ago when we 
had 10,000 people crossing the border.
  Some people say to me: Glenn, why are they doing this?
  They are doing this because they want to change America. Mr. Speaker, 
I just gave you statistics on people coming across the southern border. 
I want to also point out that few people are being deported. You would 
think that you wouldn't want everybody to come here, but at least once 
somebody committed a crime here that at least then you would kick 
somebody out.
  Now, I was here under President Trump, when President Trump was 
perhaps rightfully criticized for not deporting enough people in this 
country who had broken the law. Believe it or not, under the Biden 
administration, we are deporting people at one-fourth to one-fifth the 
rate of the Trump administration who wasn't deporting enough people.
  Think about that, Mr. Speaker. President Trump was criticized for not 
kicking out enough people when they broke the laws, and President Biden 
is kicking people out at about 20 to 25 percent of that rate.
  What conclusion can you draw, Mr. Speaker, that he wants good people 
to come to this country or the appropriate conclusion that he wants 
anybody under the sun coming into this country?
  As far as people who feel we are being mean by not letting people in 
the country, last fall I attended a ceremony in which new people who 
had come here legally became American citizens. We are now, I believe, 
in the next year when the final numbers are released, over 1 million 
people managed to become American citizens by doing it legally.
  They are appropriately vetted, they have stayed in America for a 
while, and if you talk to them, Mr. Speaker, it is truly a joy. I 
haven't had anybody talk about serious proposals to reduce that 1 
million figure. We are now bringing people in legally at the highest 
rates since 2006, and I wouldn't be surprised when the new numbers are 
out if new people are being sworn in at a greater rate than at any time 
in this century.

  If anybody in the Republican leadership has any influence on the 
Biden administration, then they should do what they can to bring these 
numbers back under the 10,000 figure, and they should do what they can 
to begin deporting people who are in this country who shouldn't be 
here. Let's face it, if some of these people who have borrowed $12 or 
$20 or $70,000 begin to be deported so that they no longer know whether 
they are going to be in the United States long enough to pay off the 
drug cartels, we are going to have a dramatic decrease in the number of 
people coming here.
  So the next issue that has not changed since I was here before is we 
continue to have the war between Ukraine and Russia. I don't read 
anything about the Biden administration making any efforts to try and 
end that war. That is a war in which both countries should be very 
concerned about their young people, and both countries have shortages 
of their population. Ukraine has the second lowest birth rate in the 
world trailing only South Korea. Russia has a low birth rate and also 
suffers from so many of their young people trying to get out of the 
country.
  Nevertheless, rather than approach France or Israel or Turkiye to try 
to negotiate some sort of truce there, the administration seems 
perfectly happy to allow the carnage to go on. Not only is this a 
humanitarian disaster in its own right, but it creates a situation in 
which the U.S.' stature in the world continues to decline.
  Since this war has begun, we have driven Russia and China together. 
They should both be our friends, but instead they are both more likely 
our enemies. It is the same thing with Iran, as we drive Iran and 
Russia together. At least we are told, we are supposed to be cautious 
about Iran; they are trying to make nuclear weapons. However, as long 
as the war goes on, Iran and Russia become closer and closer.
  The solution clearly is to work through some sort of peace. People 
will say that we can't negotiate with Vladimir Putin. I remember the 
1950s--I don't remember it personally--but you read about in the 1950s 
when we had the Korean war. In the Korean war the head of Red China was 
Mao Zedong, who may have been the greatest mass murderer in history.
  Did Eisenhower say that we have to let this war go on and on and on, 
because we don't have 100 percent of what we want? We have to let it go 
on and on and on because we won't negotiate with the Communist Chinese?
  No. President Eisenhower realized the world would be more stable; we 
now have a line between North Korea and South Korea. We haven't had a 
war there in almost 70 years now. Nevertheless, that is when we had a 
President Eisenhower who realized the world is safer when we don't have 
these hot wars going on.
  Now, President Biden just sits there: Oh, we can't negotiate with 
Vladimir Putin, he is a bad person. Oh, Ukraine is not yet prepared to 
end the war, so we just have to let this thing go on for years.
  We have had, we guess, over 30,000 dead on each side in countries 
which have such shortages of young people already.
  I urge President Biden and maybe some of the people around him to 
think: What can I do to end this war?
  Wouldn't it be a more stable world if we went back to where we were a 
couple of years ago and we slowly worked both Ukraine and Russia into 
the regular group of nations?
  We hope that happens.
  There is a third issue that has come to our attention. Yesterday, on 
my subcommittee which is a subcommittee of the Oversight and 
Accountability Committee, one more time we looked at the effect of 
offensive progressive policies in the military.
  We currently have the head of the joint chiefs in what I thought was 
an inflammatory statement said he wanted to reduce the number of White 
officers in the military down to 42 percent. I think currently it is 
high 60s or something.
  In other words, he wants to overtly have racial background used to 
decide who gets promoted in the military.

[[Page H131]]

First of all, that is opposed to merit. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, 
if our military is ever not number one, then we will have big problems 
in this country. Be that as it may, apparently, President Biden's first 
pick for head of the joint chiefs, thinks the most important thing is 
to put people in silos and say: Now we have to promote the Native 
American; now we have to promote the Hispanic American--whatever--and 
we aren't just going to promote the best people. That, by itself, is a 
problem.
  Secondly, it is divisive. There is a reason why the hard left likes 
this DEI. The Marxists have not been able to take down America because 
we have such a strong and prosperous middle class. We love being 
Americans.
  Marxists like to believe that they can destroy countries by setting 
the middle class against the rich and create a conflict or a civil war-
type situation and destroy that country.

  They realize now that they can't do it. The American middle class is 
too strong. Their religious beliefs are so strong. That is not the way 
they can take down America from within.
  So they are coming to plan B. Plan B is that we are going to divide 
Americans by race, and we are going to say that because we have divided 
it by race, then we have achieved greater diversity, and with diversity 
comes a better corporation, a better college, what have you.
  It bothers me the press never calls them out on how this diversity is 
supposed to make things better.
  I suppose, normally, when you think of diversity, Mr. Speaker, you 
think of people who have had different life experiences. Maybe they had 
different majors. Maybe they had different jobs. Maybe if you are 
talking about the military, it would be somebody who was in the Navy 
and somebody who was in the Air Force where you had genuine different 
viewpoints on things.
  However, the theory here they are talking about is racial 
differences.
  Now, given that for the purpose of this sort of thing, you self-
identify, and as we have more intermarriage in the United States which 
just by itself is a sign of nonprejudice, you are going to have some 
people who might be say one-half Mexican, one-half Cuban, one-half 
Jamaican, and one-half Korean.
  Apparently, the people in favor of this feel that, therefore, they 
are going to bring different gifts or different viewpoints to the 
table. They should be challenged on that by the media.
  If we have two kids who go to Silver Spring High School here, and one 
is one-quarter Mexican and one is one-quarter Korean and one is one-
quarter Vietnamese, and they all live on the same block, and they all 
were on the same basketball team, and they all hung around with the 
same friends and went to the same church, then I challenge the 
advocates for this diversity stuff to tell me how these kids are going 
to have such a different view of the world.
  Tell me especially how for a job of Navy fighter pilot, Army Corps of 
Engineers, how are they going to add something different because of 
where their grandmother was born, a grandmother maybe they never met, 
maybe they never spoke to?
  Maybe they never even spoke Vietnamese, they never spoke Spanish, or 
they never even saw these countries, but we now have an ideology here 
in which people are supposed to bring something to the table because 
their grandmother or grandfather came from such and such a country.
  It is ridiculous on its face.

                              {time}  1145

  Nevertheless, we have to put up with this praising of diversity as 
somehow bringing something to the table. It is not just the military, 
of course. It is Big Business, Big Education, and whatever. The people 
should be challenged on that.
  The only reason you could possibly say it results in diversity is if 
you really are a racist and believe you have different gifts or talents 
genetically because you are one-quarter Cuban or one-quarter Nigerian 
or what have you. It is something that we ought to criticize. It is 
something we ought to get rid of.
  By the way, one of the things we learned in the committee is that, 
right now, the military will pay people up to $190,000 a year to be 
experts on diversity.
  Do we want more diversity experts in this country? The cost is bad, 
but just as bad as the cost is that these people, to justify their 
existence, are going to run around and try to inflame people and sic 
people one against the other.
  On our American seal, it says, ``E Pluribus Unum,'' ``out of many, 
one.'' We are supposed to take people from all around the globe who 
come here and now view themselves as equals and together with each 
other.
  Not surprisingly, the Marxist people who like DEI in the military and 
other places view it as the opposite. They want to take people who are 
happy, well-adjusted Americans and say: You should be unhappy. You 
should not view yourself as an American. You should view yourself as a 
Cuban American. You should view yourself as a Burmese American. America 
is prejudiced against you. You should walk around with a chip on your 
shoulder and ask for something because your ancestors came from Burma 
or because your ancestors came from Brazil.
  Clearly, the Marxists want to do this because this is a way to 
destroy America, to set people against each other. This is a way to say 
every promotion, every hiring, every government contract is a contest 
between groups, and in every election, we should vote for the party 
that does the most to look out for our group.
  Mr. Speaker, I beg the President to rescind his drive toward DEI 
bureaucrats running the Pentagon.
  I wish we would do something about the current head of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, who has just brazenly said he is going to discriminate 
against White people when it comes to promotions, and get back to the 
wonderful America that we had 20 or 30 years ago.
  Examples of this DEI occur not only in the military but in other 
governmental agencies in the world. My hope is that as our negotiators 
negotiate the budget for the calendar year, October 30, all of these 
DEI bureaucrats are kicked out of the American Government and we get 
back to where we are Americans first and foremost and back to a time 
when merit determines who is promoted.
  Mr. Speaker, those are three issues I hope the press would pick up 
on, and I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________