Glenn Grothman

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. No. It is a 2 percent cut in administration, inspector general, and student aid.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of an amendment to reduce funding by 2 percent for the Department of Education's Office of Program Administration, Inspector General, and Student Aid Administration. I say this because, even a month ago, it was apparent that when we wind up doing the appropriations bill or an omnibus bill or wherever we are, we are probably going to be borrowing about 14 percent of that budget. Then in the last month, we have had two hurricanes hit America, and we have already set aside another $15 billion. I want to remind people here that we are approaching $20 trillion in debt--$60,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. If you have a family of four, they are $240,000 in debt. I think given those numbers, every Congressman, when they look at this appropriation document, ought to make as their primary goal spending less money. And again, we are borrowing like 14 percent. When I was a State legislator, I dealt several times with people from the Department of Education; and, honestly, the few times I dealt with them, I never felt that their positions or what they were doing helped anybody at all. It looked like they almost had too many people there. So I think a small reduction of 2 percent is something that we should all be supportive of, make a little bit of a dent on that deficit and a little bit of a dent on that huge sea of money we voted for--including myself--working its way towards Florida and Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have 30 seconds, so I will give any listeners a suggestion. I suggest you spend some time at your local tech school or your local trade school and ask the people who teach there how many of their students are former 4-year students who cannot find a job in the field in which they thought. These people can have a family-supporting job 8 or 9 years earlier if they are directed to a technical education or a trade school. They will be supporting their families and be able to do that when they are 21 or 22 rather than 31 or 32. You will learn a lot if you talk to your local tech school or trade school.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to point something out. I am glad I have a chance to speak on this amendment. When I was growing up, I spent a lot of time before school, a lot of time after school, and a lot of time in summer school being supervised by my parents. They did a great job. I think before we fall all over ourselves to make sure the government is the one supervising people all the time, we ought to remember it is good to educate the public that parents are responsible for a little of this as well, and nobody loves their kids like their parents.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, as mentioned, this amendment was actually drafted by Representative Buck from Colorado. I understand this amendment passed on a voice vote last time. I do have a nice speech that Representative Buck's office has prepared for me, but I am not going to read a speech that is not my speech. I am sure it is a wonderful speech. I hope the chairman allows this amendment in. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am going to disagree a little bit with one of those past statements. We have heard the statement made, sometimes behind closed doors by a lot of people, and that is we have an increase of discretionary spending over the last 3 years. This is a mild cut this year, but over the last 3 years, collectively, it is an increase, 3 or 4 years. There are some people who feel that we shouldn't scrutinize that spending because so much of our budget is mandatory spending. I do feel that we need a larger cut in mandatory spending than the rather modest cut that came out of the Budget Committee, and I hope everybody in our Conference will demand a more significant cut in mandatory spending. But, nevertheless, discretionary spending is 30 percent of the budget. Common sense will tell you that, as things become more technology oriented, it should be easier for an agency that processes data, like the ATF, to do their business with a little bit less money. And one more time I will emphasize that there haven't been cuts to reflect these scandals in the ATF, and I think that, if we are not going to kind of slap them on the wrist now, when will we? Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck), I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 3354. Since we last met, we began spending, I guess, a new $15 billion on the tragedies in Florida and Texas. I haven't had a chance to see how all of my colleagues are doing, but I sure hope that we are getting nothing but amendments designed to reduce spending to make up for the difference. I hope that is so. I am looking at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. I am on the Government Oversight Committee. We recently had another hearing on Fast and Furious. I don't think there has been enough contrition there at all. This was, I think, probably the biggest scandal in my lifetime, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has to consider themselves to be a big part of that scandal. Being from Wisconsin, I am also familiar with a local scandal we had there. If you google ``ATF'' and ``Milwaukee,'' you will find a situation in which they were selling guns which they shouldn't have been selling and buying guns which they shouldn't have been buying. So there is another reason why we should look at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Despite these scandals, their funding has gone nothing but up over the last few years. We are, in this budget, looking to borrow between 13 to 14 percent of this budget, and that is before we begin to have to spend money on the Florida and Texas hurricanes. I am introducing a bill with a mild 5 percent across-the-board cut to ATF. President Trump had wanted a smaller increase. The Appropriations Committee went $20 million over what President Trump wanted. I don't think that is right. I think they need a little bit of a slap-down here. I am looking to reduce the amount of spending on this organization by $64 million. I think that is very appropriate given the scandals that they have been involved in. It is very appropriate given that we are borrowing 14 percent of our money. In the sane world, we would almost take every agency down 14 percent. We don't have time for that, but this agency, based on their behavior, seems in favor of that. I know some people are going to probably not want to cut anything here. We just heard in the last amendment that it appears like some people want to go up. I think this is a modest decrease, and I think they should have no problem finding this small amount of money. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 3354. The purpose of my amendment is to prohibit use of funds made available by this act to implement, administer, and enforce the EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone rule, which was originally published on October 26, 2015. This rule will make the standards more stringent in other places, in the State of Wisconsin, up and down Lake Michigan, including counties such as Sheboygan County. As you make these standards more stringent-- first of all, it makes no sense because they don't take in the fact that there are areas like mine in which the ozone is coming from outside my district. For example, Sheboygan County, whatever they do, I don't think they could ever meet those standards because there is so much ozone coming up from the Chicago area. But there is an effect to these standards as well. The standards make it more difficult for industry along Lake Michigan to operate, to comply with the standards, putting us at a competitive disadvantage not only with other parts around the country, but a competitive disadvantage compared to other areas around the world with much more pollution than we have. Right now our ozone is much less than it was when I was a child. Quite frankly, when I was a child, nobody complained anyway. Another thing about these ozone standards, it is something that people who are looking out for that not particularly wealthy people should pay attention to. When you aren't meeting the standards, it creates a situation in which your owners of automobiles have to have their cars tested every year. And sometimes these cars have to go through very expensive repairs to meet the standards. Now, there are people who are going to think that is no big deal because they are maybe wealthy Congressmen and they need to buy a car every 3 or 4 years and they don't have a problem. But if you are somebody who has a 10- or 15-year-old car, maybe you can only afford to spend $500, $1,000 on a car, and then once a year you have to get the car tested. You flunk the test and you have to put $1,000 or $1,500 into it. No wonder we have some people in this country who can't get ahead as long as the environmental extremists are running the EPA. So, in any event, I think it would be good if we don't spend any more money implementing this new rule. Give the EPA more time to reconsider this rule and come up with something a little bit more reasonable. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, yesterday, we voted $8 billion for the tragedies in the Gulf Coast. I wake up this morning and I find out we are supposed to vote for another $8 billion, which is fine. But I think, as a result, we should also look extra hard to find ways to see if, in the bill as it passed out of the Appropriations Committee, maybe we can spend a little less somewhere. I have a very modest suggestion for cutting a little bit of spending here. I would like a 1 percent reduction in the Economic Support Fund. This was in the Trump budget, combined with another fund, and subject to a 40 percent cut, I think because President Trump wanted to make good on his promise to put America first. I realize political reality is such that we will not get the 40 percent cut that President Trump wanted, but I ask for a small, approximately 1 percent, cut of $12 million. Part of the money of the Economic Support Fund goes for universities abroad. Sometimes these universities have, like our own universities, a little bit of an anti-American, perhaps anti-Israeli bent; and for that reason, I think there is no question but that we should eagerly look forward to the chance to cut the spending in the Economic Support Fund by 1 percent, particularly in light of the fact that we have now a $20 trillion debt and, particularly, because later today, I bet, after spending $8 billion yesterday, we are going to go for another $8 billion today. Mr. Chair, I would like to ask for support for this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, we love the chairman. We just feel that we are kind of broke here, and a 1 percent cut on something going for programs abroad would not be out of line. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, just one more time I will point out, it is all fine and good to say the Federal Government ought to be spending more money. We are broke, and we got a lot more broke in August when those hurricanes hit. I think it would be appropriate for everybody around here to remember that the day will come when we can no longer borrow money, and that will be a very ugly day indeed. Like I said, we could have introduced the amendment to go back where Donald Trump wanted. I know he is a warrior and cares a lot about this country's children and grandchildren. I put a 2 percent upper in there. I think it is sad when people feel a 2 percent increase is being difficult on people. If there are problems back home, there is nothing that prevents local States or counties or individuals out of their own pocketbook to put more money in this sort of program. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I don't see how in our current position we can afford 4 percent increases on anything. Like I said, I think there is kind of an inference here that this is overall a good program, and people ought to be looking at this program. Like so many of these means-based programs, they kind of create a situation in which we both discourage work and discourage marriage. I am disappointed that there would be any alliance in this budget that people would feel a 4 percent upper was appropriate. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, this amendment reduces the total funding for public housing tenant-based rental assistance, excluding veterans, elderly, and the disabled, by $177 million. Our President, Donald Trump, who was trying to do what he could to balance the budget, actually had less funding for this program than what there was last year. Because I am a person who believes in getting things done through compromise, I am reducing the increase in this program to only 2 percent from the 4 percent as the bill was shot out of the Appropriations Committee. I have always had problems with this program. Like a lot of these programs, it kind of discourages work in that the more you work the more your rent goes up. I think, like a lot of these programs, it discourages marriage, because if you are married to somebody with a good job, you could lose your apartment. And, finally, like a lot of these programs, you could take the time to look at some of these projects. I talked to some of the people in my area who administer them. The apartments or rental units given to people who get Section 8 are better than a lot of working people, which doesn't seem right either. I will also point out, since these appropriations bills were originally looked at, I mean at that time we already knew we were looking at blowing through a $20 trillion deficit, since that time, we have had a couple major hurricanes out there which I think would cause everybody to look for ways to reduce the spending that was put in these bills in July. Mr. Chair, I am going to ask that amendment No. 39 pass. I am going to ask that we restrict the increase to 2 percent. I can't believe I compromised so much on that, but we will go for a 2 percent increase instead of a 4 percent increase, and hope you will all be glad. Consider it a down payment to help the struggling people in Texas and Florida. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for their collaborative effort to bring this bill forward. As we all know, we are heading towards $20 trillion in debt. One of the agencies that I think has been criticized for a long period of time, to a certain extent for incompetence and to a certain extent wondering whether a lot of their functions are even things appropriate for the Federal Government, is the Department of Housing and Urban Development. President Trump, who got elected to look out for our children and our grandchildren, proposed cutting this budget overall by 18 percent. I commend President Trump for trying to look out for our children and grandchildren. The Appropriations Committee has shaved that reduction to 1 percent. The purpose of my amendment is to increase it to approximately a 3 percent reduction, only about one-sixth of the reduction that President Trump wanted. Since we last met in July, we have gone through two hurricanes. We already voted on an $8 billion appropriation. We know that is just a small downpayment on the new obligations that we are going to have. I would ask this House to increase that 1 percent reduction to a 3 percent reduction, which is what we have here. I think that is very modest. It is not at all what the President wanted. It is just one- sixth of what the President wanted. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.