[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 17, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H185-H186]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ISSUES OF THE DAY
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, I rise to address a few issues tonight
that have been brought to my attention by my constituents back home.
First of all, I rise to address the current policy of so much of the
left of trying to encourage more and more people, and, in California,
even require people, to build electric vehicles.
Now, I am very concerned, given other policies, that we are making it
harder and harder in America to become a member of the middle class.
One of the things that has kept America a free country is the fact that
we have always had a large, strong, middle class, who when they go to
the polls, protect the freedoms our forefathers have given us.
In order to become a member of the middle class, to me, you have to
buy three things: you need a house; you need food; and in America
today, you need a vehicle.
Americans have been in love with their cars for over 100 years, and
that has been something owned by not only every member of the middle
class, but even people who don't have as much money.
I am very afraid that the high-income, leftwing, liberal element has
taken over the Democratic Party, and by pushing electric vehicles, that
they are creating something that will make it very, very difficult to
achieve middle-class status.
Mr. Speaker, I have been alerted by some insurance agents that when
you buy an electric vehicle, your insurance can go up 125 percent. That
is right, 125 percent.
Now, that is not something that the uber wealthy have to worry about;
they always have money to pay their bills. And, quite frankly, it is
not something that the incredibly poor people have to worry about,
because a lot of times they don't have any auto insurance anyway, or
they try to find a way to get around it.
{time} 1845
However, for the average American to have their auto insurance go up
125 percent is devastating, and you are hitting the most responsible
members of society. Not only is your cost of auto insurance going
through the roof, but I am informed the cost of a new vehicle, if you
have to buy electric instead of buying the old gas engine, will also go
up by 25 percent.
On one shot, the policies we are seeing in California, the policies
we are encouraging on a national level, are going to make it much more
difficult to buy that automobile that all Americans need, make it much
more difficult to obtain middle-class status, much more difficult to
have enough money left over to have children.
It was also recently brought to our attention, at least in Chicago--
we have had a snap of a bit of a cold spell in the Midwest--that it is
frequently true that when the weather gets cold enough you cannot get a
decent charge on these vehicles anyway. Even if you do get a charge, I
am told the maximum mileage you can make on a full charge may drop 35
or 40 percent.
In other words, it may not be a problem for people in Hollywood, it
may not be that big a problem for people on Martha's Vineyard, but I
will tell you, it is a big problem for people in a lot of America,
including Wisconsin.
I think before we continue the laws which encourage more and more use
of electric vehicles, we ought to have a look and see how well they
operate at times like today, when the temperature is under 10 degrees
in my district back home. It is time to stand up to the leftwing,
wealthy set who think it is all cool to buy an electric vehicle,
because they have always got enough money to deal with the insurance,
deal with the high cost, and probably have another car that they can
use when the temperature gets below zero. For the average person, this
is really a body blow as you try to achieve the middle class.
The next thing I am going to deal with is an issue I touched on
briefly last week, and I think some people wrote about it incorrectly.
That is with regard to anchor babies.
Anchor babies are babies that somebody comes here, is not a citizen,
and has a child. By custom today, we are calling those children U.S.
citizens, but this is not guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. It is
important that all Americans understand it is not guaranteed under the
Constitution. People get the idea that you should be able to come here,
have a baby, and go back to China, or go back to wherever, and that
child will immediately become an American citizen. They get that from
looking at the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
To understand why this did not create birthright citizenship, you
have to look at when the 14th Amendment was passed and why it was
passed.
At the time, when the Civil War wrapped up--so many Americans fought
and died in the Civil War. I had at least two ancestors myself who
fought in the Civil War. At that time, there was concern that as the
other party regained power, they would claim that since Black people
who were slaves at the time in the South, that the Southern States
would claim that they were not citizens and their children were not
citizens. At the time,
[[Page H186]]
you became a citizen if your parents were citizens.
They passed the 14th Amendment to make sure if you were in this
country when that child was born, that child was a citizen. Of course,
it was designed to make sure that--some of the people in the South
didn't want to give up the fight--they did not try to say that if your
parents were slaves, you were therefore not citizens.
It was not designed--and it makes no sense to say it was designed--
that if somebody wanted to come here from another country and just have
a child and return back home, that that child would automatically
become an American citizen. That would make no sense.
There are two Supreme Court cases that misinform people and sometimes
try to confuse people into thinking we have birthright citizenship in
this country. One of those cases was in 1898. The court case revolved
around people who were here legally, legal citizens, having a child and
saying that then that child was a citizen. I don't really think that is
what the Congress, after the Civil War, meant. At least it was
restricted to people who were legal citizens here.
Later on, there were some dicta put in there by Justice Brennan,
which is not binding on anybody, talking about birthright citizenship.
Of course, Justice Brennan was one of the most far-left Justices we had
in my lifetime. In any event, that was a case not reaching a decision
on birthright citizenship; that was just some language that Justice
Brennan threw in a decision, but it is not determinative.
When we look at this, we should rely on our common sense. In America
today, while there are bills out there--and I have cosponsored the bill
to get rid of birthright citizenship--any President, if they want to,
can say that the 14th Amendment solely applies to situations which were
anticipated by the Congress after the Civil War. There are really none
of those situations left today, because all the children of slaves have
long since passed away.
It is scandalous that people will take the work done by that
Congress, including people who were related to and were so familiar
with the people who gave all to end slavery in this country, and they
would try to take this amendment designed to protect children of slaves
and claim that creates a situation in which you have a tourist industry
in which somebody can fly here from Asia, come up here from Latin
America, just step across the border, have a child one week after you
are here, go back home, and forever that child is an American citizen.
That obviously makes no sense.
Insofar as journalists try to confuse the public, you have to
remember that the Supreme Court decision in the 1890s was not all
encompassing, was not intended to be all encompassing, and the Supreme
Court decision in which there were some dicta put in there by Justice
Brennan is also not binding.
We should pass legislation, if we have to, but hopefully, we will get
a good President in here who will get rid of birthright citizenship.
The idea that somebody who just comes across the border can have an
American citizen child makes no sense.
My final comment for the day is with regard to a hearing we had
earlier, and that hearing was with regard to deportations or the lack
of deportations under President Biden.
A lot has been talked about with regard to the huge number of people
who are crossing the southern border. I have talked many times at this
microphone that we have gone from under 20,000 people coming here a
month 3 years ago to right now over 300,000 people being left in the
country every month.
It is not as publicized that not only are we trying to change America
by letting an unlimited number of people come here, but we are also
trying to change America by not deporting people even after they have
committed crimes. Right now, we have dropped from a situation in which
over 250,000 people were being deported during the Trump
administration. Perhaps people will remember that under President
Trump, he was rightly criticized for not deporting enough people. That
was one of the few times the Republican Party stood up and was critical
of President Trump.
After getting over 250,000 people deported a year, that has fallen
now to under 75,000. We are in a situation in which we are at about one
quarter the number of people being deported as were deported 3 years
ago. Not only are we changing America by letting so many people in
here; we are also trying to change America by not kicking out people
who I think the average American citizen wish would be deported.
I hope this is something that our leadership team, in negotiating the
appropriations bills with the Democrats at this time, bring to the
floor and insist President Biden deport people at least at the low rate
that President Trump was deporting people. When you see less
deportations today, at a time when there are so many more people that
you could deport, so many more people committing crimes, so many more
people we wouldn't want to have here.
I call upon President Biden to look out for the future of America, to
look out for the future of your children, and not only not let so many
people in the country who we have not vetted but begin to remove the
people that we used to remove after they had committed crimes in
America.
Those are three issues that I don't think have been adequately
covered in the press: Both the degree to which the electric vehicle
scandal is going to put vehicles beyond the reach of the middle class
or create a situation in which you have to spend so much on vehicles
you won't have enough money for food, you won't have enough money for a
house, and you won't have as much money as you should to have children.
The next issue for the press to cover is the lack of deportations in
this country, which goes hand in hand with the unlimited people
crossing the southern border.
Finally, I hope we cover a little bit more accurately the laws in
this country regarding birthright citizenship. We should not say that
someone can come in here from another country, fly in on an American
airline, have a baby within a week, go back home, and forever that
child is an American citizen.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________