Glenn Grothman

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, normally, or frequently, people use this microphone to give negative news, and I would like to lead off with three little positive stories that I don't think have been in the news enough, and then we will talk about a story--I don't know if it is true or not--but we are going to ask for a committee hearing. First of all, I was at a committee about 10 days ago in which we had a hearing on Afghanistan. So many of us back home have heard stories, attended funerals of people, people frequently in the National Guard, who have died fighting in Afghanistan. We have now gone 7 months without any combat deaths in Afghanistan. I don't think that story has been told enough. I am kind of really surprised it hasn't been told a lot during this campaign season, but it hasn't. So let's celebrate the fact that we have gone 7 months, hard to believe, without a combat casualty in Afghanistan. Now, the second piece of good news. I was talking to the head of the border patrol, and it was not long ago, about 15, 16 months ago, when 90,000 people a month were apprehended at the southern border and allowed in the United States, frequently given a hearing, an asylum hearing. But they were allowed in the United States, frequently lost track of, and people who we weren't appropriately vetting becoming a permanent part of our American fabric. In the last month, in part due to three different things--a negotiation that President Trump had with Mexico, where when we apprehend people, we send them back to Mexico, pending the asylum hearing; secondly, negotiations with Central America, where people walking through Central America headed to the United States are kept in Central America; and third, a directive that if people try to come into this country because of fears of COVID-19, they are also immediately turned around and led back--we now have gone from about 90,000 people to under 2,000, as a matter of fact, he told me under 1,000 people a month being let in this country who are apprehended or talked to by the Border Patrol. There are still people who sneak across the border who are not apprehended by the Border Patrol. But among these people who they touch, we have gone from 90,000 to under 1,000. That is good news, and I am surprised how many people, even on the floor of this institution, do not know what an improvement we have had at the border. The third piece of good news I am going to give a tip of the hat to, when I drove in 2 weeks ago, I took an Uber from the airport. I talked to the Uber driver, who not only was driving for Uber, but he also had a job, I believe he told me, with CVS, and he was living the American Dream. When I asked him what was great about America, he said anybody can make it in America, the land of opportunity. Here you have an Afghan Uber driver. He wasn't of European heritage. I don't believe he was Christian. I don't believe in the family growing up he could speak English. But despite all these disadvantages, he is living the American Dream--and it wasn't rocket science--driving an Uber, working at CVS. I hope we remember him as other Congressmen, for whatever political reason, want to tear down America and say you can't make it in America. I will tell you, if that Afghan Uber driver can make it in America and live the American Dream, anybody can live the American Dream. But now I would like to ask for a hearing because I had some, perhaps, bad news back home. I talked to a woman who had two children. One is $30,000 in debt, one is $40,000 in debt, from taking out student loans. She told me that she felt that if she and her husband weren't married, there would have been government programs, and her children wouldn't be so in debt. She has raised good kids. Those kids are going to pay off their loans, even if they were discriminated against because their parents were married, or not. But it occurred to me, at a time when so much of the rhetoric in this institution is about discrimination, we ought to have a hearing on the Education and Labor Committee: Is it really true that we have government programs out here penalizing people for getting married? I would ask, again, that my wonderful chairman of the Education and Labor Committee have a hearing on this topic. We can find out whether it is the official policy of the United States, when determining government grants helping people go through school, that we discriminate against children of married couples. And they have to delay having children, delay buying a house, as they have to pay off their student loans. So I would like to have a hearing. I hope what my constituent told me is not true, that it is the official policy of the United States Government to discriminate against people who decide to get married. But I am afraid it might be, and that is why I would like to have a hearing.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will remove my mask here for the speech since we are all alone. Today I would like to address the Chamber with regard to something I consider good news, because there is not enough good news that we talk about here. We always talk about the problems. But then I am going to address one potential problem brought to my attention by one of my constituents, and I am going to ask the Committee on Education and Labor to take up that problem. The first issue in which I received good news is with regard to immigration. Only 15 months ago, about 90,000 people were let in this country, largely because they asked to come here on asylum and, pending an asylum hearing, were let into the country. Obviously, it would be preferable for our country if every person who was allowed in the country is appropriately vetted and we know will become a productive citizen. When we allow people in the country for other reasons, we get people here who will not necessarily be an asset to America and will ultimately, perhaps, ruin America. This has been done by three things. First of all, we have reached an agreement with Mexico, whereby the Mexican Government is holding people who in the past were allowed into the United States and told to show up for a court hearing at some future date, maybe years down the road. Obviously, when you let somebody in the United States and tell them to show up for a court date years down the road, you are not maintaining control of our borders. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Trump administration and the Mexican Government for agreeing to hold a considerable number of people south of the border. The second thing that was done was President Trump reached agreements with countries such as Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador to stop the spigot of more people coming into our country even south of Mexico. And, of course, these people came not only from other Central American countries, but South America and Africa as well. Four times I toured the border, and I found people were coming across not only from Mexico, but from Central America. And, actually, people were coming from Asia and Africa to Brazil, to Central America to work their way north. So I thank President Trump and I thank the Governments of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador for not allowing people through their country who are clearly planning on coming to the United States other than through the legal mechanisms that we have available. Finally, President Trump allowed our Border Patrol to turn people around to deal with the COVID epidemic. I know a lot of people wouldn't have liked to do that, but President Trump put the United States first and now allows our Border Patrol to immediately turn people around. The combination of these three things means we have gone from over 90,000 people a month coming into this country who we really haven't vetted and are now, among people who are touched by the Border Patrol, under 2,000 people a month. As a matter of fact, I am told it is under 1,000 people a month, but that is almost too good to believe. But that is good news for the American people, particularly when you consider all the people who come here are not appropriately vetted, wind up becoming a public charge perhaps, wind up involved in drug dealing perhaps. So that is your first good news of the night for America. The second good news: I know when President Trump ran for this office, he talked about reducing the number of troops abroad and keeping them out of harm's way. However, this week, showing up on a subcommittee of Government Oversight and Reform, to my surprise--again, these are statistics I almost can't believe, they are so good--in the last 7 months since a preliminary agreement was reached between the Taliban and the Afghan Government and the United States, there have been no military-connected casualties in Afghanistan. We have gone 7 months without a combat casualty of our troops in Afghanistan despite the fact that we have 8,000 or 9,000 troops there. If you would have told me that was possible 4 or 5 months ago, I wouldn't have believed it. No military casualties during a 7-month period. I was not aware of it until this week, and I, therefore, assume the vast number of Americans were not aware of it, but we should all be grateful that we have now gone 7 months in a row without a military casualty in Afghanistan. The third thing I would like to address tonight is dealing with possible medical advancements that can help us deal with the COVID pandemic. I sometimes feel, as I address the COVID pandemic, that our government agencies are focused solely on a vaccine and are not thinking outside the box. Today I talked to a couple of researchers from Israel who continue to be optimistic on using fenofibrate, which is a drug which has traditionally been used to fight cholesterol. Well, they don't like to be nailed down because nobody knows how many lives would be saved if we gave people, in the beginning stages of the pandemic, fenofibrate. It is possible that we could reduce the number of fatalities by 30 or 40 percent. Again, fenofibrate is an easily available, in generic form, drug used to treat cholesterol. There are, right now, over time, better drugs. It is not as used as it once was. But, nevertheless, their preliminary studies are very positive. I wish our own CDC or NIH would get on the ball and help these researchers a little bit, because they feel they can have a definitive answer by winter. They feel that 3 months from now, we may have something that will be a cure for something like 30 to 40 percent-- maybe 20 percent, maybe 30 percent--of the people who have this virus who now die. Can you imagine if we could reduce the number of fatalities by 30 percent by a simple expedient, not of developing an expensive vaccine, but if we could save all these lives with an easily available generic drug used for cholesterol today? Mr. Speaker, I again ask CDC and NIH to think outside the box and help these researchers and find out if their preliminary work is accurate, and then we can save so many lives even if a vaccine is not developed. So there is the good news, kind of good news and bad news in that one. The good news is we are on the cusp of a cure; the bad news is we have got to get the American bureaucracy to think outside the box. The final thing I am going to address is some unfortunate news. The prior speaker talked about people being treated differently, depending on who they are. It was brought to my attention 2 weeks ago of something I normally run on, or I ran on originally, by a woman who had two children who went to college. She and her husband were hardworking, middle-class Americans. And like most hardworking, middle-class Americans, when their children went to college, they had to take out loans and both of their children had loans in the $30,000 to $50,000 category. Because she did a good job of raising her children, they were hardworking, and working their way to paying off those loans, which is a good thing. But she has talked to other people and she found out other people, who perhaps weren't married, weren't working as hard, that their children received grants from the government. So in other words, if you get married and work hard, we treat your children different than people who don't get married. And, of course, there are wonderful parents in all sorts of families. But just particularly, after we just got done with a speech pointing out that we should treat everybody the same, I would like to ask the Committee on Education and Labor to hold a hearing and find out if it is really true. Are we penalizing children of married couples because of their parents' marital status? Are they stuck repaying $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 worth of student loans just because their parents are married, and they wouldn't have had to take them out if their parents hadn't been married? So I am going to ask my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, to look into this. Recently, it has been in the paper that there are some powerful groups at work in the United States who are opposed to the nuclear family. So whether this is something that happened by accident, or whether it happened intentionally because of longstanding groups that are opposed to the old-fashioned, nuclear family, I would like to know. And I think, given all of the hearings we have had around here on discrimination, it would be great if we could get to the bottom of this and find out whether my constituent is right and her children were both penalized $30,000 to $50,000 each just because their parents were married. So I ask my good buddy from Virginia to hold that hearing, and I appreciate the time on the floor tonight. Mr. Speaker, I ask that we adjourn, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 194.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time and ask for adjournment.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to address several issues. The first issue that has been in the paper lately is vitamin D. I have spoken before this Chamber several times in the past on the importance of taking vitamin D. Over 40 percent of American adults do not have an adequate amount of vitamin D in their system. Several institutions of higher learning have done research and strongly suggest that vitamin D is a way to reduce the number of people who get COVID as well as greatly reduce the effects of COVID on those people who unfortunately get it. This has been found by MIT, by Northwestern in Evanston, and by Trinity College in Iowa. It has been my disappointment to this point that the appropriate government agencies that have no problem sending out press releases and advertisements on COVID have not addressed vitamin D. I was, therefore, elated to find out that, late last week, Dr. Fauci came out and supported the evidence behind vitamin D's benefits. Even more than that, Dr. Fauci said that he has been taking vitamin D himself, which is very good. This is a change. Traditionally, many people out there said that you should even stay inside, and one way to get vitamin D is to be out in the Sun. So, the idea that we need more vitamin D is the opposite of what some of the experts or at least what some politicians have told us. Vitamin D, of course, is good not only to prevent COVID but to prevent other sorts of infections and respiratory problems as well. Now that Dr. Fauci has come out and told us that getting more vitamin D is a good idea, and particularly now that Dr. Fauci has admitted that he himself has been taking vitamin D, I strongly encourage the CDC and all other appropriate government agencies to publicize the benefits of vitamin D. We have to do something other than just wait for a vaccine, which may or may not happen. And we all know, when it does happen, many people will not take that vaccine. I strongly encourage Dr. Fauci to follow up on his statements with approving TV commercials talking about vitamin D and the fact that he takes vitamin D in his future interviews. Harvard estimates that 1 billion individuals worldwide may be vitamin D deficient, and of course, the rest of the world looks to the United States for leadership. So, the benefits would not only accrue to American citizens but to citizens around the world. Mr. Speaker, I remind you to take vitamin D, particularly if you have any friends or relatives who may be vitamin D deficient or have special problems. I would talk to your doctor and anybody who is going in for a regular check-up. I would ask for a vitamin D test as well because there are ways to reduce the number of people getting COVID and to reduce the number of fatalities other than just hanging around and waiting for a vaccine. Mr. Speaker, the next topic I would like to address tonight is also a medical topic that has been something I would have liked to address since I got here. I came across some information with regard to biosimilars, and that is people who need insulin. I consider myself an advocate for the Juvenile Diabetes Association, and I am aware of many different people who have diabetes. Depending upon the type of insurance you have, Mr. Speaker, if you have diabetes, you may be spending $100 a month on insulin. I have run into people who are spending $800 or $1,000 a month for insulin. Can you imagine if you have a child and you have to go out of pocket for another $1,000 a month just to keep your child alive? I ran into the fact that people are working on substitutes for insulin called biosimilars. I am introducing H.R. 8190, the Biosimilar Insulin Access Act, which will increase competition in the insulin market by making biosimilars available. Biosimilars are to insulin what generics are to normal prescription drugs. It would be tremendous if we could get more of these to the market. Right now, for whatever reason, it takes far too long to get these products to market. Sometimes, they aren't available at all. Because they are not available, people continue to have to overpay to keep themselves or their loved ones alive. Interchangeable biosimilar products are able to be automatically dispensed at the pharmacy counter for their brand-name reference product or brand-named insulin. We want to generate the same type of cost savings for insulin that we have already done in the past for generic drugs. I realize it is late in the session, but things can move fast. We all know that bills pass around here relatively soon after they are introduced. When I think of the people who are having to pay $1,000 a month or maybe just $500 or $600 a month for themselves or their children, I hope people in this building and the relevant committees and relevant leadership find a way to get this bill to the floor. I will be available to explain the importance of this bill. I am ready to explain the importance of this bill to any of the Members. I will be on the floor the next couple of days talking about it. I hope to get a good cosponsorship list, but I do hope that the relevant committees immediately take up this bill and get it to the floor so that we can save as much money as possible for the people who are stuck with this disease. The final point I am going to bring up tonight is concerning border security. It is an issue that, because of the COVID, has been pushed to the background. But pushed to the background or not, it remains to be important for this country. No country can continue to exist if they have open borders and unlimited and unvetted people continue to come here. Now, there are people who come here whom we do not expect to come here, who are caught or who come in contact with the border security, and there are other people who sneak across the border. They are never contacted by border security because, quite frankly, we have a shortage of agents, though they are caught on cameras. A year ago in May, right now about 15 months ago, 16 months ago, about 90,000 people came into contact with the Border Patrol and were allowed in this country--people who were not coming here through the normal immigration channels. Since that time--it is something that has been underpublicized, and quite frankly, it ought to be more publicized by President Trump himself because he is not afraid to publicize his successes--we have dropped from 90,000 people to under 2,000 people coming into contact with our Border Patrol and let in the country. This has been done by three things, all underpublicized. One, President Trump, in part by talking about tariffs--I believe, maybe not--has gotten the Mexican Government to agree to hold people on the Mexican side of the border instead of having people who are asking for asylum come to the United States and be released into the American interior where we never see them again. We all know that some of these people are probably drug-running. We know that some of these people are breaking the law. And we know that some of these people are going to wind up on some sort of public assistance. So we salute President Trump for reaching an agreement and holding people south of the border. The next thing President Trump has done is he has contacted the countries in Central America, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras and made sure they are holding more people of not only their own nations, but people further south in their countries rather than allowing them into Mexico. Now, the United States does provide foreign aid to these countries, and I think it is important that we maintain good relations with these countries. But I think it has been under-publicized that President Trump, through negotiations with these countries, is further decreasing the number of people who are coming into this country who we do not necessarily want to have come into this country. And the final situation, is now people coming into this country, who may have COVID, are immediately turned around and told to go back home. So you combine these three things, and you go from about 90,000 people coming into contact with the border patrol and being allowed in here to--I am told--under 1,000. It is almost too good to believe. But that is what happens when you have a man of action, a person who is committed to holding people south of the border. This is particularly true because in the future, we have people talking about giving people coming across the border free healthcare. We already know--unless you are blind--that people are taking advantage of public benefits who are coming here illegally. So I think at a time when there is so much bad news out of government, we ought to pay attention to exactly what happened when we went over 90,000 to certainly under 2,000--and maybe under 1,000 people--allowed in the country. I will point out that this does not include people who do not come in contact with the border patrol. And in the year that is wrapping up, we estimate that about 10,000 people have come in here without contact with the border patrol. We know this because we have cameras taking pictures of people sneaking across the border. We do not have enough border control to turn these people around. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the border patrol for the number of pounds of cocaine, methamphetamines, and fentanyl which they have turned around at the border in the most recent year. That is certainly a degree of success. I know fentanyl, in particular, has been the newest lately, and I wish Congress would pay much closer attention to the people who are dying of fentanyl overdoses this year as the number of people who are dying of other unfortunate incidents. In any event, those are three things I want the American public to pay attention to. I, again, emphasize the importance of taking vitamin D. I emphasize the importance of getting biosimilars to the market so that we can save money for the poor people who have to take insulin. And I salute the border patrol and the administration for all they have done in greatly decreasing the number of people who are coming into this country illegally. Now, of course, in the Chamber today, we have many different people. And I am prepared to ask to adjourn, but if the people in the front of the room would rather hear a little bit more about fenofibrates, I would be happy to talk about fenofibrates. Do you want to hear about fenofibrates?

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon). Recognizing Dean C. Mathisen's Service to our Nation and Nebraska's Second District

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, at this time when the coronavirus is going on, I realize a lot of energy is expended as we work toward a possible vaccine, but I would like the Centers for Disease Control to bring up two other topics which may be helpful, though not quite as expensive. One is three universities--Trinity in Dublin, Harvard, and Northwestern University--have shown that Vitamin D can do a lot toward lessening the damage of COVID. Madam Speaker, 40 percent of Americans suffer from a lack of vitamin D, and you can get enough vitamin D--in addition to going outside, if you are not staying inside too much--you can get it at your local drugstore. I wish the Centers for Disease Control would spend more time publicizing this, as 40 percent of Americans are short of vitamin D. I also wish they would spend more time dealing with fenofibrate, which in Israel they are looking at. Perhaps this common anticholesterol can also save a lot of lives as we await the vaccine.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is a very interesting debate today. I think it would be a good debate to be reviewed by every political science class in the country as we analyze how Congress has spent us to a $25 trillion debt. We have a situation today in which the U.S. Postal Service is sitting on $15 billion. They have the right to borrow $10 billion from a stimulus package bill we passed earlier. They are making more money this year than last year because deliveries of packages are up. But despite all these numbers, the majority party has decided to spend an additional $25 billion. Now, I like the post office. I really do. But when you have an agency that can spend $25 billion that is unspent right now, $24 billion, and you introduce a bill to say they need another $25 billion, and if you don't vote for that $25 billion bill, it means you don't want children to get little toys they are going receive in the mail, or it means that we don't like the post office, that is outlandish. There are other things we can look at as well. They talk about getting rid of post offices. In the first 3 years in which President Trump has complete control of the administration, they will be getting rid of less post office boxes than Obama from 2013 to 2016--I don't have the numbers before 2013; it might be 4 years in a row--in the greatest year in which President Trump got rid of mailboxes. Another thing to point out is, even if every single person in this country votes absentee, which they won't, it would only increase mail that month by 1\1/2\ percent. So we have no crisis here. It is something they will easily be able to handle. The idea that we are even talking about spending another $25 billion today is indicative of why this country is going to wind up spending itself into oblivion.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Bernell Trammell. Bernell was one of 10 children of Delores Jackson, born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, who attended Milwaukee Lincoln High School in its heyday. He followed the steps of his grandfather, Cecil Ballenger, who was one of the first African-American businesses in Milwaukee when he founded Expressions Printing. He was well-read and liked to read the books of Abraham Lincoln and Malcolm X. He was not afraid to speak the truth. He liked to show us signs of Bible verses and signs supporting Trump. He was killed with his Trump sign a little over a week ago. I would like to read a short Bible verse, which is one of the ones he is pictured with. Matthew, chapter 12, verse 38: Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him saying, Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you. And he answered them, An evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it. Again, I rise today in honor of Bernell Trammell, who was murdered with his sign a little over a week ago.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan amendment would transfer $21.3 billion from the procurement account to the Marine Corps' JLTV and transfer it from the funds from the Defense-wide operation and maintenance account. We want to make sure the JLTV is delivered to our servicemembers on schedule and on cost. I have come to understand that, last year, the Marine Corps had substantially higher fielding costs than they anticipated for this vehicle, so they had to transfer funds from purchasing more vehicles to fielding the vehicles they had. I understand why the Appropriations Committee, being fiscally responsible, saw that they shifted money and therefore gave them less of these new vehicles than they thought they needed. However, the Marine Corps had two options: pay the incurred costs or not pay for these costs and not have operational JLTVs. The Marine Corps has demonstrated the need for these trucks and requested funding for 752 of them to be appropriated in FY21. My bipartisan amendment will accomplish this. I think we in Congress can work with the Marine Corps, the least-funded branch of the armed services.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address what I guess I will refer to as the statue bill that we passed a couple days ago in this House. It was well known all the statues that were supposed to be removed there. And to be honest, I always bristle a little bit when I hear Mr. Stephens from Georgia, the former vice president of the Confederacy, getting a statue in this building. However, I don't think enough people knew that in that bill, we are also going to require a statue or bust of Thurgood Marshall. In 1973, during Roe v. Wade, Justice Marshall was one of seven Justices who found a right to abortion, after it was illegal in this country for years and years, found a right to abortion in the Constitution put together by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. Worse, in the deliberations, there originally was going to be abortion allowed in the first 3 months. Justice Marshall, along with Justice Brennan, weighed in to make it until viability. So the United States is, right now, one of only seven countries in the world to allow abortions this late, which is really just a horrific thing. I will say, if his bust is ever put in the Capitol, or a statue, I will always remember in 1973 when Justice Marshall was one of the ones who weighed in to legalize abortion in the country as well as weighed in to make sure we were one of seven countries to allow abortion up to viability.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the following letter in support of my amendment to H.R. 2. This letter is from a stakeholder in my district that owns and operates the dam located in waters where invasive species, like Asian carp, have been found. July 9, 2020. Hon. Glenn Grothman, Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Mark Pocan, Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representatives Grothman and Pocan: I am writing in strong support of your invasive species amendment to H.R. 2, the INVEST in America Act which passed the House by unanimous consent on July 1, 2020. Alliant Energy deeply appreciates your commitment to this pro-environment measure and for protecting Wisconsin's watersheds. As you know, an Alliant subsidiary, Wisconsin Power and Light, owns and operates a dam located in Prairie du Sac, Wisconsin, on the Wisconsin River. The Prairie du Sac dam, now over 100 years old, is responsible for the formation of Lake Wisconsin, which serves as an enormous recreational and wildlife resource for our state. Over a decade ago, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sought to impose a fishway requirement on the license for the dam, essentially calling for a ``fishway'' to be installed to allow for the upstream migration of native fish. Since that time, however, scientists and state officials have discovered the existence of non-native, invasive fish species (Asian carp) at the base of the dam. If a fishway were now installed, it seems clear that these invasive species would also be able to migrate--and thereby endanger native fish populations upstream, including Lake Wisconsin. Your amendment would ensure that, in this particular case, the Fish and Wildlife Service would be required to consider the threats posed by invasive species before imposing a fishway condition on a hydroelectric license. We believe strongly that such decisions should be predicated on the most up to date information available, and your amendment will help guarantee that invasive species are not permitted to threaten the Lake Wisconsin watershed. Again, thank you for offering your amendment. Please let me know how Alliant Energy may assist you in ushering this much- needed provision into public law. Sincerely, David de Leon, President--Wisconsin Power and Light Company, Alliant Energy.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This amendment, which mirrors bipartisan bill H.R. 380 is straightforward. It requires the Federal decision makers at the Department of the Interior to consider the threat of invasive species when installing fishways. We all know that over time, the number of dams in this country have decreased. As the number of dams has decreased, a benefit is a lot of times fish are able to swim upstream, spawn more, and improve the overall health of our rivers. However, there are times where there are some fish that are not so good, and that is when we have invasive species. I have a big problem with that on the most significant river in the State of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin River. There is a dam there, and they were talking about putting up a fishway, which, on the face of it, sounds nice. The problem is, below the dam we have Asian carp; they are large fish, not native to Wisconsin. It would be devastating to the local fish. If they were ever able to work their way over the dam, they would not only pollute the Wisconsin River, but the lakes which feed into the Wisconsin River all over northern Wisconsin could also be polluted. And it is even possible that because there are areas that are kind of dicey, they could even work their way into the Great Lakes and all the way up the Saint Lawrence River. I appreciate the fact that we have considered this amendment. I hope it is adopted as part of the en bloc.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, we have heard several speeches this morning about the COVID epidemic. Like a lot of Americans, every day, I like to get up and see whether we are moving in the right direction or not. I was sad to see this morning--I checked the Worldometer's website because a lot of my constituents tell me that is the one to check, and I was sad to see that, this morning, when they gave the number of deaths yesterday, on Tuesday, they list 764 Americans who had passed away. However, the Worldometer website kind of goes up and down by the day. It is always very low on Sunday and Saturday. It gets higher on Wednesday and Thursday. However, I did notice that the 764 deaths yesterday, on Tuesday, was the lowest on a Tuesday since March 23. Mondays are always very low. We had 366 deaths on Monday. That was also the lowest since March. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we continue to have the progress as we work the number of people who die of this horrible disease down every day, but I have a feeling that a lot of Americans are being misled. So I am just pointing out the way these statistics are going.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, first of all, a little comment, maybe clearing things up. I will point out to everyone in the room that when we say the Pledge of Allegiance, the phrase ``to the Republic for which it stands'' is in the pledge. And I think we all remember the memorable comment of Benjamin Franklin at a time around when the Constitution was drafted. He talked about he was giving us ``a Republic, if we can keep it.'' Now, at the time the Constitution was drafted, our forefathers did include a district, which would be the capital for the country. Our forefathers put together the United States and reached a compromise between the 13 States. They realized at the time it would be ridiculous to break apart a State and give it two Senators, like all of the other States. In part, that is because it is so different and has such a different interest in the States. All of the States, the 50 States, to a variety of degree, have been given an amount of agriculture. There is virtually no agriculture-- maybe no agriculture--maybe somewhere there is a greenhouse or something in the District of Columbia. There is no manufacturing. There is no mining or logging. Or if there is, it is so tiny we can barely see it. Mr. Speaker, it is a unique city because it is based on government jobs and tourist jobs connected to people coming and visiting those government buildings. It is not like any other State out there. If it were to become a State, its representatives would have spent all their time almost devoted to getting more money for the city. And already the Federal Government puts a great deal of money into the city. You couldn't complain that they do not have enough funds for their schools or their city. I believe their schools are somewhere in the top--if you considered it a State--somewhere in the top three or four in the country, as far as funding per person. Mr. Speaker, it would make no sense, say, for Wisconsin to break off and give two Senators to Milwaukee and give two Senators to the rest of the State. Milwaukee is not a State.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, it is going to be hard to think of something original to say, but I will give it a go. First of all, I would like to point out that nobody I know defends Derek Chauvin. And nobody I know doesn't have sympathy for George Floyd and his family. That should go without saying. The question is, what can we do to prevent this sort of thing in the future? I personally believe that part of the problem stems from the close relationship that big city governments have with the local unions. I had introduced a bill when I was in the State legislature about 13 years ago making it easier to get rid of an underperforming policeman. That bill went nowhere, as most of these bills go nowhere because very few people are willing to take on the unions. That being said, when I introduced the bill, I did expect it would save lives and would pass. I expected it to save Black lives, and I expected it to save White lives. Right now, you can Google Heather Mac Donald. She's pretty good on this issue. First of all, the number of lives lost in which an unarmed person was shot by a police officer has fallen the last 4 years, from 70 lives to 28 lives, which is a good step in the right direction. It doesn't mean we shouldn't do more. We should do more. The second thing I will point out is, when adjusted for violent crime, actually, a higher percentage of White people are killed by police than Black people, and it offends me that we don't bring that up. We try to racialize the issue. The same day Breonna Taylor died, Duncan Lemp died in a situation, killed by the police, the exact same situation. But you don't hear about it talked about by anybody in this body or anybody on national TV. You know why they don't talk about it? Because they want to tear this country apart. They don't want to talk about when White people are killed because they want to enrage Black people, and they want to make White people feel guilty and not like America. But if you look at the studies, that is what it shows. Now, hopefully, these local governments can do something to make it easier to get rid of bad cops. But let's look at how this bill affects the average person. The majority of cops, the vast majority of cops, are great cops. What does it do to them? What it does is you take away qualified immunity, which means if you are a police officer, you become afraid to arrest somebody, you become afraid to resist somebody, you become afraid to pursue somebody. What is going to happen when we have a timid, neutered police force? Right now, in Milwaukee--I don't represent Milwaukee, but my districts goes right up to it--the number of murders this year has gone up from 37 to 72 murders in the first 5-plus months, this year compared to last year. Does anybody care about all the people who are dying in the city of Milwaukee who aren't killed by police? I don't hear a lot about it. Already, they have cut the number of police this year, and they are talking about cutting the number of police next year. What effect will that have on people dying? Does anybody care? I don't hear anybody care about that. All they want to do is tear down the police.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, then, finally, you talk about Black Lives Matter. I want to talk about Black Lives Matter a little bit. You look on their website, and they want to disrupt the westernized, prescribed nuclear family. I thought everybody was for the family. Black Lives Matter, on their website, is against the strong family. Cofounder Patrisse Cullors says government controls everything, and she says, we are trained Marxists. That person is the cofounder of Black Lives Matter. Do you want to follow them down the path of complete government control over everything?

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, as America opens up and we go over 100,000 deaths attributed to the COVID, it is important that we look at all our options to reduce the number of deaths related to this disease. I feel the government is leaving too much to the pharmaceutical industry to develop a vaccine. Well, the answer may be a more natural one and one that is a lot cheaper for the American public. Madam Speaker, I strongly believe that we should be looking more at the benefits of vitamin D. Vitamin D is from the Sun. It is free. I encourage people to ignore the politicians who say you have to spend all day indoors, but get out and grab the Sun. We have been told since we were children that you get vitamin D from the Sun, and that is the way you stay healthy. If you can't grab the rays, grab some vitamin D pills. That is another way to get your vitamin D. It is not just me saying it. I encourage folks back home to Google ``Northwestern University vitamin D,'' or ``Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, vitamin D,'' and you will see there are a lot of experts outside of the CDC who are already pushing it. Madam Speaker, I encourage people to use that method to keep the number of deaths from COVID down.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, the first point I would like to make is some people feel this bill is a political instrument that will never become law. I see the current leader in the polls for next year's Presidential election signing this bill next February. So we have to pay careful attention to what is in it. I take three things out of this bill. First of all, another $3 trillion further in debt together with the $3 trillion we have already passed and the natural trillion-dollar deficit we have here. In the current year, we will go about $22,000 more in debt for every man, woman, and child in the country. The second thing we take out of this bill is it is designed to discourage work. We extend, by Wisconsin standards, another 6 months in which people will be paid the equivalent of $50,000 a year not to work, and we are moving the work requirements for SNAP. In other words, it is an embracing of the idea that we want to discourage work and destroy our economy. Finally, it is this effort to get more and more people to come here illegally. We are removing the requirement that you have to have a Social Security number for the earned income tax credit, and we are saying not only the new $1,200 per person but the old $1,200 per person will go to people who do not have a Social Security number. I cannot think of a quicker way to ruin the country.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will bring up three things that are very wrong with proxy voting that I don't think have been brought up today. First of all, one of the problems we have in this building is, even though we all represent 700,000 people, there are some Congressmen who are a great deal more powerful than others, and this bill will greatly increase the power of leadership. Right now, people run into each other in the halls, talk to each other in the Cloakroom, question parts of the bill, and sometimes question leadership's narrative. This bill says everybody is going to be back at home, which greatly strengthens the power of leadership because people aren't around to question the bill. Secondly, it lessens bipartisanship. When we are gone, we do have conference calls with other Republicans, but I find I talk to Democrats much more when we are in this building; and by taking people out of this building, you will decrease bipartisanship as you make proxy voting the norm. Finally, you are penalizing the press. We should all be available to the press after these votes so they get a variety of perspectives. We are going to work our way down to the point where it is the Speaker and a few other Democrats around, and the press are not going to be able to talk to us all. It is an insult to the press.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, like all bills, this bill comes down to how it is implemented. Right now we have a problem, and I hope that bureaucracy does a better job of implementing it. The PPP in this program is going to, I believe, a lot of businesses that are actually even better off because of the virus, because it is being so sloppily administered. I hope in the future, if we pass this bill, that people pay attention to that. I also realize a lot of money is going to hospitals who have relied on predictions coming out of Washington that they were going to get a lot of patients that they may not be getting. Right now in my district and many other districts, nurses and other hospital personnel are being laid off and hospitals are losing money because they were expecting a deluge of patients that never came, gratefully. I hope in the future that the recommendations out of Washington are more on target and the employees of my hospitals can get back to work as we begin to do colonoscopies, mammograms, hips, knees, and diagnostic tests one more time.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, we have gone from a story that barely affected Americans 3 weeks ago to a $2 trillion bill today. The cost is too high. But the crisis in response to government experts may be right and may be wrong, who said: Don't fly, don't eat out, don't worship together, and don't go to school. Our economy was shattered. Was our President held up by irresponsible Democrats and too many irresponsible Republicans for excessive spending? Yes. But we must act to calm the panic and move back to normalcy. I flew here yesterday with five passengers on the only Southwest flight from Milwaukee. Usually there are two almost-full flights. Restaurants are shuttered by the government, and their employees are laid off. President Trump is right to act and stand up to the purists who have let businesses go under or don't understand that even the greatest of Presidents have had to compromise. I am concerned about the unemployment benefits going over $900 a week--more than most Wisconsin people make. I want to help Americans laid off, but this provision delays the recovery, and I hope Americans don't bite on it.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I think one more time we have to address what I feel 10 years from today will be viewed as the most significant issue that our Congress has to deal with, and that is immigration. Madam Speaker, I want to mention the issue one more time, because a couple of weeks ago, I again went to the Arizona border to see what is going on, and I have since talked to a leader of the union of the Border Patrol agents. I say this is the most important issue because our immigrants are going to determine where America is or what America is like 10 or 20 years from now. Donald Trump has made a lot of progress on the border, but we have to remember all of this progress--or almost all of this progress--is solely caused by our President. First of all, let's recount the progress. He has begun to build the wall. When I was down in Arizona, I saw 12 miles of the wall along the Arizona border. While it is possible to get over the wall, it is very difficult. The wall is 30-feet high. It is very difficult, and people, I think, only in the best of physical shape can get 30 feet up. There is sometimes concertina wire at the top, which causes some people, at least in Nogales, to get stuck at the top, and it is very difficult to get back down. So that is some progress. We also have made progress, and we have reached agreement with Mexico, saying ``if you are coming here for asylum, you have to be held on the Mexican side of the border pending a hearing.'' Not only does this cause people not to be able to come across immediately but discourages people from Central America or Africa or South America from coming here in the first place. Because prior to President Trump becoming President or reaching an agreement with the Mexican Government, people would come here, say they were seeking asylum, and they would be placed somewhere in the United States and never show up at the hearing anyway. Therefore, this is the way we have many people who are going to wind up living in America. And the third thing President Trump has done, is he has put in a public charge rule covering people coming here legally, saying, ``we do not want you in this country if you are going to wind up taking advantage of our public benefits.'' It is not too strict of a law. He allows people to stay for 1 or 2 months, if they are on food stamps during that period of time--but, obviously, given that we can pick whoever we want around the world, we do not--our country right now, which is running a trillion-dollar deficit--want to take more people who are taking money out of this system rather than putting money in this system. So the question is: What should Congress do now that we have kind of begun to take control of our borders? The first thing we have to do is we have to permanently change our asylum laws so that in the future when people come here, we know we are dealing with people who genuinely have to seek asylum. We should not be taking--per President Trump--people who have to cross several countries to get here. If you are in Venezuela, and you are genuinely at risk for your life, what would you do? You would move to Colombia. You would move to Panama. You would move to Costa Rica. You won't go through six or seven countries to get to the United States. Secondly, we have to hire more people at the border. As we put up our wall, and as we hold people south of the border who are seeking asylum, more people will try to sneak in the country. As more people try to sneak in the country, it is more important that we have border patrol agents. Over time, the drug cartels, which run the southern border, become more and more sophisticated. They have spotters along the border. And, quite frankly, they have equipment that is superior sometimes to the equipment our own Border Patrol has. As long as we continue to allow this to happen, the cartels south of the border break up families. And they break up families by using minors, 16-, 15-, 14-year-olds to smuggle drugs across the border. They use these young people as spotters, knowing full well that if they are caught, they will not wind up in American jails but just turned around and sent back south of the border again. Another thing that we have to look at is we should pass a bill, which I have introduced in the past, saying no public benefits for people who are not American citizens. Historically, in this country, when people come here, many return to their country of origin. The reason they return to their country of origin is they are not able to find work here. We ought to across-the-board say, ``no public benefits for people who are not citizens.'' As far as the few situations in which help is needed, that can always be handled by the many generous Americans who do feel these people should stay in the country, but it should not be a guaranteed right. The next thing we have to do--as long as people are coming into our country--is get rid of the rule, which is the birthright citizenship rule. Among westernized countries, United States and Canada are the only two countries who allow someone to become a citizen if you are born in the country. There is a reason other nations don't do this. We want to properly vet the new families that are coming here. If we say that anybody who has a child in the United States becomes a citizen, the parents will follow, and our new generations will not be picked by appropriately vetting the future immigrants. They will be picked by whoever happens to come here. Our intent has never been that if you get a green card, that if you are here on a student visa--much less sneak into the country illegally--that your children become citizens. I think it is important that we deal with these issues promptly. And I say that because we will go back to the days of 140,000 people being apprehended at the border if we have a President who doesn't go ahead with these three commonsense measures that President Trump has taken time to deal with. I implore the press to report any progress on these issues, and to summarize again and again for the American public the progress that is made by President Trump and what would happen if President Trump would leave. It would result in a permanent change of America. Again, we want immigrants. President Trump has increased the number of people being legally sworn in this country over the last few years, but we have to pick our immigrants. And if we do not pick our immigrants, we are going to wind up permanently changing an America in which we do not like.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 88.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.