[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.

                          ____________________