Glenn Grothman

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have all heard about the opioid epidemic, and I always feel, despite the fact that it has been very publicized, it has still been underpublicized. Over 40,000 people every year die of this epidemic. I am old enough to remember the Vietnam war, and it was relatively late in that war before we got to 41,000 deaths, and we all remember how that divided the country. There are more people that die in this year, every year, than the number of people who are both murdered and die in car accidents combined. I am on a variety of committees, and if you sit on almost any committee, I think, in this institution, eventually the topic of opioid abuse comes up. One of the things that hits me when it comes up is the degree to which there are varying opinions on what to do with this, and it varies from agency to agency. Therefore, what I am proposing in this bill is a task force that gets together two representatives from the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Labor to look for solutions and look for best practices. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is also supposed to appoint four other members to this task force. I don't want this to be one of the task forces that is hanging out there for too long. They have got to come back with recommendations within 9 months, and, hopefully, we will use these recommendations by this time next year on this floor. It is very frustrating, like I said, to attend these hearings and hear, among the experts, such divergent opinions as to how to save some lives here. We really cannot be spending more time on programs that don't work or having the agencies not work with each other. I look forward to strong leadership in this committee. I expect that they will be taking advice from strong local leaders who have done what they can to address this epidemic around the country. We must put our full weight behind a coordinated strategy to bring stability and health to our communities. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota for introducing this bill. As he said, the North Country Trail is really a gem that goes across seven States. But I take particular interest in it because the 173 miles that we are adding today are so close to the State of Wisconsin. I know there are many outdoor enthusiasts in my district for whom it is very important to do what they can to complete the North Country Trail. As was mentioned right now, to go through the trail you would wind up in an area that would be very difficult to get through. So I am sure there is an economic benefit to this to Minnesota, but to me far more than the economic benefit is the huge benefit so many of our American citizens take and experience in the outdoors, particularly in the area that is relatively undeveloped. I encourage passage of the bill. Add the new 173 miles. I am sure there are plenty of constituents in Wisconsin's Sixth Congressional District who look forward to walking across each one of those miles.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Chair, I would like to speak on this amendment and make a few points. Madam Chair, it is true the public health establishment is opposed to this amendment. It is also true, if you look at the amount of allergies out there, the amount of some other diseases that are affecting young kids, to some degree, the public health establishment is dropping the ball, and I don't think we can trust them entirely. In my district, there is a substantial number of people who drink raw milk, and I would say it is tilted strongly towards people with a scientific background; chiropractors, nurses, veterinarians are the ones who feel strongest about drinking raw milk. My final comment is I like to talk to people from foreign countries about the differences between their country and this country. Last year, I talked to a diplomat from Northern Europe and I asked him what the best and worst things about America were. To my surprise, he said the worst thing about America is the difficulty in getting unpasteurized cheese and unpasteurized milk. Madam Chair, I thought it was a shame that America, the land of the free--when people come here from Europe, we are supposed to be freer in the United States. A complaint from people in Europe where you can drink unpasteurized milk, raw milk is that we don't have those freedoms in America. Madam Chair, I think it is a great amendment for people who believe in freedom. And like I said, the people in my district who drink raw milk are the most informed on health issues.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank again the gentleman from California for bringing forth this amendment and the gentleman from Texas for all of the work that he did on the bill. I think sometimes, rather than have hearings, you find out a lot more about these Federal programs and particularly the SNAP program if you talk to the local clerks at the convenience stores and the grocery stores and the income maintenance workers in the counties or the people who manage the low-income housing to find out what really is going on here. I will bring to light one in particular of the four provisions in the amendment: the idea that participants in training programs have to go through E-Verify. It has been said that you have to be a citizen to get SNAP anyway. I would suggest talking to some of the income maintenance workers or some of the people who talk to some of the people who use the SNAP program, and I think they will tell you that, whatever the official Federal law is, SNAP is routinely used by people who are not here legally. I think by requiring E-Verify for the training programs, we begin to go through the process of making sure that people who are in this country illegally are not taking advantage of taxpayer-funded programs. I really wish we had more information on this topic, but, again, it is my belief that the average clerk in an average convenience store knows a lot more about the SNAP program than most Ph.D.s in sociology.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, as Ms. Foxx has said, we, right now, have the lowest unemployment in years. I think we are doing all we can to improve America's climate. Our taxes are lower. Our regulatory agencies, I think, are the most pro-freedom, pro-business we have had in years. But the biggest problem that I find again and again, as I go around my district--and I should point out that Wisconsin's Sixth Congressional District has more manufacturing jobs in it than any other district in the country--is that we can't find enough people to work. A little bit of that problem is due to the government competing with the private sector and providing people compensation for not working at all. But a lot of the problem is that our educational system has let America down in that they have turned their back on skills-based training. I think the number one thing holding back America's industry manufacturing sector right now is a lack of people with skills to do the job, not only manufacturing, but construction, as well. Again and again, we have a shortage of welders, we have a shortage of CNC operators, in construction, shortages all across the board. If you look at the people who are still working frequently into their fifties and sixties, what is the reason? The reason is this myth out there, perpetrated in part by the mainstream media, but, in part, by the educational establishment, that you should get a vague 4-year degree--a degree in communication arts, a degree in psychology, something like that--which, too often, is leading to a low-paid job and a high-paid college debt. If, instead, you would go to, let's say, a trade school--as I do in my district--you can have people who become apprentices and make money as they are earning. They can wind up making $70,000, or $80,000, or $90,000 before they are 25 years old, when some of their classmates are still ringing up the debt in the traditional college. The Higher Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee, as we work through our bills, again and again is looking to fill this gap. We can no longer do this disservice to so many young people, encouraging them down an expensive path that does not lead to a well-paid job. The future of America depends on its construction and its manufacturing. We cannot continue to be a great country if our factories do not get some of the best minds and hardest working people to do the work. So I encourage anyone out there listening--particularly, anyone advising young people, be they professional guidance counselors who have so often let people down, or parents, or grandparents, or other mentors--look into skills-based education. Carefully compare how much people who take this route are making compared to people who go to a 4- year college. Look at how much debt they are ringing up compared to how much debt other people are ringing up. Mr. Speaker, together, we can work as hard as we can to solve America's skills gap, which is absolutely necessary if the United States continues to become the manufacturing center of the world.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to speak about the Workplace Choice and Flexibility for Individuals with Disabilities Act. This legislation is a solution that will go a long way towards increasing opportunities for people with different abilities and will allow the promise of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, which was passed in 2014, to be fulfilled. Unfortunately, since the time that that act was passed, unnecessary roadblocks have been thrown up in the way of people who want to work in work centers for people with disabilities. These work centers, first of all, frequently provide a great opportunity for people to work; and secondly, provide job training that can be used by people as they get out in the community, which is the goal of so many people. Let us not put these people in a straitjacket and say that between ages 19 and 25 you cannot or should not be able to work in work centers. I know many of the employees at these work centers. They do a tremendous job, and it is time to expand options for people with different abilities. This bill is not threatening WIOA. It is embracing the goals of WIOA.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr Chair, I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking member for their effort to bring this bill forward. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 4. My amendment is intended to offer a pathway to provide authorization for the use of actively tethered unmanned aircraft systems, or UAV's, for public safety purposes, specifically fire engines. My amendment preserves FAA's discretion to determine the conditions that apply to these operations, while denoting congressional intent for the authorization to cover a wide variety of public safety uses. My amendment ensures limited UAV operational authority and is available only to actively tethered UAV's that present a lower level of safety risk. This amendment would apply only to systems that: are physically attached to a ground station with a taut, appropriately load-rated tether that provides continuous power to the unmanned aircraft; and capable of being controlled and retrieved by such ground station through physical manipulation of the tether. These tethered public UAV's operating under the authority granted by subsection (a) shall be operated: within the line of sight of the operator; less than 200 feet above the ground; within class G airspace; and at least 5 statute miles from a tower-controller airport or airport denoted on by the Federal Aviation Administration-with limited exceptions. My amendment will be a huge asset for our men and women fighting fires and will improve their effectiveness. More importantly, passage of this amendment will help save lives. I am happy to offer this amendment and look forward to continue working with my colleagues and the FAA to ensure our first responders can utilize this potential resource.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his work on the Pro-Life Caucus. Only 52 years ago, abortion was illegal in this country, just as it was largely illegal throughout our country's history. It was illegal before ultrasounds which made it so clear to everybody what was in the womb. It was illegal when medical care was a fraction of what it is today. It was illegal when families lived without electricity or running water. Despite these hardships, the public knew abortion should be illegal. How have we responded to our material blessings? How have we responded to these abortions? By saying that we cannot afford these children. I would like to thank Donald Trump for reinstating the Mexico City policy. I would like to thank him for allowing States to not fund Planned Parenthood with their title X funds. I would like to thank him for defunding the United Nations Population Fund. I would like to thank the March for Life people for coming up here this year and reminding Americans about this important cause. I hope that the American citizens stop and think: if abortion could be illegal only 52 years ago in this country before we had ultrasounds, if abortion could be illegal in the 1800s with minimal medical care when people were living six or seven people in a room in a house without air conditioning and without heat, then how did these people keep abortion illegal and how do we respond to our blessings by saying that we have to have one of the most liberal abortion laws in the country?

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my resolution, H. Res. 407, condemning the persecution of Christians around the world. The persecution of Christians is a global human rights problem that Congress needs to address. According to Open Doors' 2017 World Watch List, approximately 1 in 12 Christians around the world is experiencing persecution for their faith. North Korea, which is one of the world's most repressive regimes, is a serious violator of international religious Christian rights, which is not surprising, given it is a communist country. Communist countries throughout history have done what they can to suppress and destroy Christians. Human rights groups have reported that members of underground churches in North Korea have been arrested, beaten, tortured, or killed. In another communist country, China, religious groups, including Christians, are required to register with the government. Those that do not face imprisonment and torture. In 2016, 232 Protestants were imprisoned for their religious activities. As part of the country's anti-cross campaign, some 2,000 crosses and buildings have been demolished since 2014, according to State Department estimates. In the Middle East, the Islamic State and other jihadist militant groups have forced Christians in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and other countries in the region to flee or risk enslavement, execution, or death. Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the number of Christians in Iraq has plunged from 1.5 million to just a couple hundred thousand. In Libya, ISIS and other extremist groups have gained a stronghold in the country since the fall of Qadhafi. I reluctantly have to point out that the Christian persecution going on in Libya and Iraq has happened after the United States decided to get involved in these countries, so we have a special responsibility to look out for the Christians there. In Egypt, ISIS claimed responsibility for killing over 70 Coptic Christians earlier this year. The persecution of Christians in the Middle East doesn't end with terrorists. It is institutional, as well. Pakistan has some of the most extreme blasphemy laws in the world. In June of 2016, two Christians received death sentences for blasphemy convictions. In Iran, approximately 200 Christians were arrested last year. At least 90 remain in illegal detention. Acts of persecution against Christians across the globe is a violation of international law, which is why Congress must act. Sadly, in our own country, the United States, sometimes Christians can be forced to participate in ceremonies with which they don't agree. It is kind of hard to believe that this is going on in the United States of America. H. Res. 407 will condemn the persecution of Christians around the world. It calls for all discriminatory countries and groups to cease their persecution of religious minorities and urge world leaders to uphold the universal human right to religious freedom. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan resolution.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, as the designee of my friend and colleague, Mr. Pocan, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, first of all, I would like to thank the chair and ranking member for their collaborative effort to bring this bill forward. This amendment, which is supported by colleagues on both sides of the aisle, is pretty simple. It requires Federal decisionmakers in the Department of the Interior to consider the threat of invasive species when installing fishways. This was brought to my attention while looking at a dam on the Wisconsin River in Wisconsin. Below that dam, we had Asian carp, an invasive species, a huge fish. If that fish was able to get further north on the Wisconsin River, because of a fishway, you could wind up with this invasive species not only in the northern part of the river, but, and quite frankly, in dozens of lakes throughout northern Wisconsin. As a matter of fact, given where that dam is, if there is even flooding, that invasive species could wind up working its way into Lake Michigan and up the Saint Lawrence Seaway. It is very important that before the Department of the Interior listens to certain environmentalists, they realize that a fishway at this dam would result in big trouble. Because of the devastating effects invasive species can have on the environment, local fish population, and the economy, this amendment will ensure the Federal agencies take into account all consequences before installing fishways. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from Alliant Energy. Alliant Energy, November 8, 2017. Hon. Mark Pocan, Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Glenn Grothman, Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representatives Pocan and Grothman: I am writing in strong support of your invasive species amendment to H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Modernization Act of 2017, which is due to be considered on the floor of the U.S. House today. 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 U.S. 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 may assist you in ushering this much-needed provision into public law. Sincerely, David de Leon, Vice President Operations--Wisconsin, Alliant Energy.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 616.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, before launching into specific comments on this bill, I would like to correct some misconceptions that we heard earlier today. We just heard a lady from Illinois mention that she felt this bill would put employers who respect workers at a competitive disadvantage. All good employers know that respecting workers puts you at a competitive advantage, and I think it is very wrong that anybody would imply that you are advantaged by not respecting your workers. So I want to clarify that. The second thing I want to clarify is, earlier we had somebody talk about temporary workers. Now, temporary workers make less money. It is true with temporary workers, you have a middleman who takes the money off the top, and that is unfortunate. But you have to realize that the reason we have more temporary workers is we make it harder and harder to be an employer in the first place. Whenever you make it harder and harder to be an employer, you force more employers to hire temporary employees so they don't have to be employers in the first place.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, now, on with this bill. One of the tragedies we have had in America is the disappearance of small businesses in America. We had more and more big businesses, you know, big conglomerates. One of the ways you can still be a small business is being a franchisee in which you control your own destiny and are able to respect your workers in your own way. We have to pass this bill to prevent the end--or the practical end of the ability to be your own businessowner by controlling or setting your own contract terms with your own employees. And more than any other reason, that is why I back this bill. I like that we have so many small-business men out there on their own on the franchisor-franchisee model.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for giving me an opportunity to address the Progressive Caucus, their budget. I think the budget is unacceptable. It is something the American people ought to pay attention to because the day may come in which a budget similar to the Progressive Budget passes this floor. The first thing to look at is we are increasing maybe by an average of about a little under--well, around $1 trillion increase in taxes over the next 10 years. So you are taking a lot more money away from Americans. And despite this huge increase in taxes, you are looking at about a $70 billion cut in defense. I suggest that the public and the people who are supporting the Progressive Caucus take some time talking to their people in the current military, talk about the planes that can't fly, talk about the shortage of parts, and ask: How is it possible you could take this much more money from the American people and still feel we have to have significant cuts in our military budget? But then you look at what we have to spend more on: a 4 percent raise for Federal workers. Look, we wish everybody had a raise, but, really, at a time when we are approaching $20 trillion in debt, is it a priority to give Federal workers a raise? We put more and more people dependent on government; a large expansion of the program providing free college to people. At a time when, quite frankly, many people who already have college degrees can't get jobs, we are expanding that program. And, of course, by making it free, people will respect it less. And not only will they respect it less, but by making it free, many people will go to college who perhaps otherwise don't feel it is for them. They won't make adjustments to the food stamp program, which is a problem. We greatly extend the time that you are on unemployment, and this is kind of bizarre because it is a time when our employment is near historic lows. But despite the fact that until now we haven't had such unemployment for a long period of time, we want to extend unemployment, thereby encouraging more people to stay on unemployment. I would like to thank my friends from the Congressional Progressive Caucus for allowing students to refinance their student loans, which shows something or another that there is a heart there, a little bit anyway. I wish I could get my own Conference to put that in. But in any event, I urge rejection of the Progressive budget.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on rollcall No. 538.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I think we have had enough debate, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, which will reduce funding for the National Labor Relations Board by $99 million in fiscal year 2018. Since its inception, the NLRB has served as a partisan board that flips in ideology from one administration to the next, often cutting businesses off at the knees and stifling economic growth. In just the last 8 years of the Obama administration, the NLRB managed to overturn a total of 4,105 collective years of precedent in 90 cases. In cases such as the ambush election rule and the joint employer rule, the board significantly overstepped their bounds and dipped their hands into the day-to-day business operations of hardworking Americans. Now, let me be clear: I am not here to attack the unions. I wish more people would join unions under the amendment that we just dealt with. I believe that employees should have the right to join a union if they think that joining a union is best for them and their family. But the fact remains, since 1990, the NLRB has received 65 percent fewer election petitions and 40 percent fewer unfair labor practice charges. Meanwhile, while private sector labor representation has decreased in the last 25 years, the NLRB's budget has increased in inflation- adjusted dollars by close to $50 million. My amendment would implement a necessary reduction to the NLRB, which will bring their funding in line with their expected workload for the upcoming fiscal year. Specifically, my amendment saves taxpayers close to $100 million in the upcoming fiscal year and provides private industry with relief that the NLRB will have to focus on the most pressing cases that arise rather than engaging in partisan witch hunts. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, my only other comment is assuming that figure of employees is right, and this is not the total number of employees, just the employees that she envisions being cut, 1,500. I always kind of look at my State, which is about typical in size. That would be 30 employees on a board that I wouldn't think our forefathers would have thought of. So people have to consider for themselves, I guess, whether the average State would even need 30 employees. Here we are just cutting 30. We are still leaving the bulk of the agency in existence. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Will the gentleman yield?