Glenn Grothman

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Chair, I will point out one more time that we are in a situation here in which our tolerance is well under that of European or other countries. One more time, we are going put ourselves in a position which manufacturing is much more expensive, if not impossible, in the United States compared to other countries. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Chair, my amendment No. 96 prohibits funds to develop, finalize, issue, or use assessments under the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS program. The IRIS program has never been authorized by Congress and was created by the EPA out of thin air in the 1980s. It has been heavily criticized by everyone from former EPA officials, the National Academy of Sciences, Federal agencies, and the Government Accountability Office. Despite that, the EPA spends $20 million to $40 million of taxpayer money per year on the program. IRIS has a demonstrated history of conducting low-quality chemical risk assessments that failed to utilize the best available scientific data and establish very real regulations for private citizens and private companies. EPA has targeted a number of important chemistries, including formaldehyde; uranium; vanadium, a critical mineral; ethylene oxide, for sterilization of medical equipment; naphthalene, to shut down oil production; as well as others. IRIS risk assessments have been put forth at the expense of American jobs and cost public confidence in chemistries that are critical to activity across many sectors of the U.S. economy, from agriculture to furniture making to transportation and national security. Bipartisan concerns have been raised repeatedly in Congress about the failure of the IRIS program to utilize sound science and broad input in its evaluations. These concerns have been largely dismissed or ignored. Recently, IRIS has indicated that they intend to use the formaldehyde IRIS rule, which is below the level in human breath and from natural background levels, as the basis for their high-priority risk evaluation and risk management rule for formaldehyde over the next 2 years. It should be obvious that these bans on formaldehyde, certain formaldehyde-based products or conditions of use, and unachievable workplace standards orders of magnitude below OSHA or European Union requirements will be very damaging mandates for Americans. This would include direct negative impacts on the manufacturing community, including on manufacturing of resins, wood products, adhesives, fertilizers, roofing, coating materials, electrical products, lubricants, fabrics, and other construction materials as well as energy, transportation, and agriculture end uses. There needs to be a change in the way EPA conducts its business around scientific integrity and accountability and the way in which the Federal Government conducts chemical risk evaluations. My amendment is in the interest of protecting American safety and jobs and ensuring chemical risk assessments conducted by the EPA are driven by the best available science rather than political and ideological agendas. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I was involved in an important meeting. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 536. Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Perry

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will address some of the votes that took place on the floor last week, in particular the vote regarding a continuing resolution designed to keep the government open that was taken here last Friday. The effort to keep the government open failed 232-198. Every Democrat voted against that resolution to close the government. What I am going to address is the fact that 21 Republicans voted against keeping the government open at that time. The press, particularly The New York Times, probably other organizations as well, referred to those 21 people as hardcore conservatives. As our country goes under, some people are going to blame the executive, some people will blame Congress, some people will blame the courts, but a lot of it has to fall on the utterly incompetent press corps of this country. Hard-line conservatives? Let's look at the bill that we wanted to have to keep the government open last Friday. First of all, a continuing resolution is primarily about spending, and that spending bill cut spending, discretionary spending, on all but veterans, the border, and defense, by 30 percent. In other words, across-the-board, you put everything else together, discretionary spending on the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior, the State Department, energy, the legislature itself, a 30 percent reduction in spending. How in the world can you say the people who voted for the 30 percent reduction in spending are not conservative? How in the world can the press corps refer to the people who voted against a 30 percent reduction in spending as the hard-line conservatives? We all know part of that bill was not just focused on government spending. Probably the biggest crisis facing America today is the massive group of people coming across the southern border, over 200,000 a month. In addition to that, we have all the unaccompanied minors, 8,000 to 10,000 children, coming across the southern border with no adult accompanying them at all. In that bill, we also tried to add 22,000 new border agents, end catch and release, so people showing up at the southern border would be kept in Mexico, and the policy of inviting unaccompanied minors into our country. In other words, we were dealing with the immigration crisis. We had two parts of the bill: A 30 percent reduction in discretionary spending on so much of the budget and, in essence, closing down the border to prevent all of these people coming here illegally, as well as to prevent the drugs coming across that kill over 100,000 Americans a year. The press corps in this country has the nerve to say that the people who sided with the Democrats to kill this bill are hard-line conservatives. I call upon the slumbering press to wake up and pay attention to what is in these bills and tell us exactly what you mean by hardcore conservatives if they vote against the bill. There may be a variety of motivations to vote against a bill. There may be personalities. Maybe you want to fancy yourself a hardcore conservative and you count on utter incompetence in the news media. I beg the press corps in the future to pay attention to what is in these bills and only use the phrase ``hardcore conservative'' to describe people who are voting for hardcore conservative bills. The next thing that I think we should point out here today and the importance of having that large reduction in spending--and I don't mean to bore you with numbers--is the degree to which, on a daily basis, our country gets in worse and worse shape. That is because the interest rates go up. That is no vote that we take here in Congress. I mean, we fight trench warfare here on a variety of bills. Sometimes the bills are just minor bills that have a few million dollars in them. In the last 2 days, because of an increase in interest rates, the amount of money we are going to have to spend on interest, just interest in the next year, went up $12 billion. Since April, when interest rates were like 3\1/2\ percent, the cost in interest has gone up over $100 billion. We have serious problems here, and the costs in interest should also be reported by the press.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, this week I introduced legislation to rename the post office in Kiel, Wisconsin, after Wisconsin State trooper, Trevor Casper. Now, I know many in this body may not have heard of Trevor, but back in Wisconsin he is not just the son of our State, he is a shining example of dedication and service. Trevor Casper was born in Sheboygan on May 21, 1993, to parents Kevin and Deborah. He graduated from Kiel High School with the class of 2011 where he was active in wrestling, soccer, and coaching youth sports. After high school, Trevor pursued a degree in criminal justice at Lakeshore Technical College, graduating in May of 2014. During Trevor's time there, he was active in color guard and served as president of the LTC student government. It was clear that Trevor was not just interested in a career but passionate about making a difference in his entire community. Trevor's dream was to continue his education at the State Patrol Academy, which he did, successfully graduating on December 18, 2014. Following his graduation, Trooper Casper was stationed at the State trooper base in Fond du Lac where he continued to serve his community with honor and dedication. Tragically, on his first assignment, he made the ultimate sacrifice. On March 24, 2015, he was shot in Fond du Lac while apprehending a bank robbery and murder suspect. Though mortally wounded, Trooper Casper returned fire on the suspect, killing him, and protecting those in the nearby vicinity. Trevor Casper was the youngest law enforcement officer to ever make the ultimate sacrifice in the State of Wisconsin. His bravery in the face of danger, his commitment to upholding the law, and his willingness to protect our community were unwavering. Trooper Casper is a true hero, and he deserves to be remembered and honored for his selfless sacrifice. Renaming the Kiel Post Office in his honor is a small but meaningful gesture and will ensure that future generations see the name Trevor Casper and will hear about his great sacrifice and what a great human being he was.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, we are here today because we think the government is going to shut down on Sunday. That is because there are supposed to be 12 separate bills that comprise our budget that were supposed to be passed by now. We have passed the four most important. Unfortunately, the Senate has not passed any, so we have to move forward from here. We don't know what the shutdown means. I hope the press is on the ball and pays careful attention if anything is shut down that President Trump did not shut down a few years ago. There is a lot of flexibility for Presidents to show if they are compassionate or not. If there is anything shut down that President Trump didn't shut down, it is something we have to talk about. Let's look at the problems we have in this country right now, two big problems. The first is what is going on at the border. We used to have about 10,000 cross the border. We are now over 200,000. We are addressing it. The American public is tired of paying more taxes and spending money and seeing an open border every night. That is one of the reasons why we have to pass the bill. The other reason is we have to make a little bit of a dent in the out-of-control spending. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 5525.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, we just had another vote on this floor regarding the war between Russia and Ukraine. One more time, more money was spent on the war. As bad as the money that is spent on the war, what is worse is the huge cost in human lives and suffering going on as long as the war exists. I think there is a shortage of serious concern as to how this war is going to end and a shortage of desire to end this war. Eventually, this war will end, but I believe the United States has traditionally been the world leader, and we should take our responsibility as world leader and try to push somebody, be it Israel, be it France, be it, Turkiye, into negotiating a peace. The longer this war goes on, the more you will have wounds between countries that are not going to turn around, and the more Russians and Ukrainians die. I remind this body that Ukraine has the second-lowest birthrate in the world. Russia has a very low birthrate as well and, even before the war, was suffering from a lot of its young people leaving Russia and coming to other countries such as the United States. Mr. Speaker, I plead with President Biden to take a leadership role and try to negotiate an end to this war.

Mr. GROTHMAN

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

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I want to comment a little bit on the last speech from the other side. They said the vast majority of fentanyl coming across the border to this country comes from designated points of entry. You hear that said, but I think what they should say is the vast majority of fentanyl that we catch comes across from designated points of entry. There are--depending on the month--30- or 40,000 people who are got- aways who come across between designated points of entry. We never catch them because they are called got-ways, and nobody is monitoring places that are not designated points of entry. Clearly, if you want to sneak fentanyl across the border you would do it between designated points of entry, and it would not show up on any statistics because we don't catch those people.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, first of all, one comment on the people who are more likely to be victims of violence in a natural disaster. Just doing a quick Google search, I noticed that 80 percent of the murder victims in this country are men. Maybe the men are getting killed when the weather is good. I don't know. In any event, as chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs, I have had the opportunity to go down to the border several times. It amazes me what a good job dogs do at detecting drugs coming across our southern border. They are not only able to detect drugs. They also detect explosives, money, and even human beings being trafficked or smuggled. We wonder, if canine units are so effective, why not expand their use along the southern border? To find the answer to this question, my amendment in this en bloc would express the need for a study on the expanded use of canine units along the southern border. Mr. Chair, I would appreciate it if that amendment was included.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Chair, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 431. Amendment No. 149 Offered by Mr. Biggs

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I just reiterate, being at the border and talking to the members of the Border Patrol who are on the border every day, they feel the current situation is untenable and is allowing more people to cross the border than they should. As far as the idea of simply climbing over a fence, I have yet to meet anybody on the border, be it Border Patrol agent, be it American law enforcement, be it people who have land on the border, who do not feel the wall is a good thing. They all realize it is a wall system. It takes more than just a wall. They prefer if we describe it as a wall system, but they all feel we need additional barriers at the border to prevent this over 200,000 people a month streaming in here. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I have been down on the border several times, and every time we are down there, we learn a little bit more. My amendment would highlight the need for alternative methods of management for border wall infrastructure during flood season. The border wall faces a challenge when the waters rise during flood season. These floods can jeopardize the structural integrity of the wall, compromising its effectiveness and putting our border at risk. During a recent hearing I held in Sierra Vista, Arizona, I was surprised to discover the way in which we deal with this issue. We deal with it just by opening up the gates along the wall. You heard that right. Border Patrol agents are required to open vast sections of the wall, allowing migrants to flow into the country unimpeded. This comes at a time when we are facing an unprecedented crisis. Last month, U.S. officials encountered 230,000 migrants crossing the border; 180,000 of those migrants crossed the border between ports of entry, areas that are supposed to be protected by the wall. However, during flood season, these migrants simply walked through because we open up the gates. To address this critical concern, we need to explore alternative methods and technologies that can protect the border wall. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong support of the Protecting Hunting Heritage and Education Act, H.R. 5110. Last year, Congress passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. While most Republicans weren't in favor of its provisions, the few that eventually voted for the bill voted with the assumption that the Biden administration would not try to misconstrue the language to end the vital hunter and archery classes in our K-12 schools. Now, due to the overly antigun Department of Education, the law is being used to pressure schools rather than enhance their security. Republican negotiators feel frustrated by the Department's actions. Democrats feel let down by the Department. Above all, the American people feel wronged by the Department and scared that at a Federal level it would take such actions. This is because the Department has taken the funding ban for the provision of or training in the use of a dangerous weapon and misinterpreted it as a funding ban on archery, shooting, and hunter safety programs--some even speculate culinary programs. How do I know that this anger is widespread? Look no further than the commentary from Democrats over the past few weeks. Without explicitly naming names, Democrats have called the administration overly ambitious, simply mistaken, and with a blatant disregard for the law. Too many people on the other side of the aisle are looking for any pretext to prevent American citizens from using firearms, even if the purpose is to increase safety. Archery and hunting safety programs are not dangerous. They instill core values in schoolchildren--values like responsibility, patience, and discipline. In fact, our society could use more of these values and more of these programs. Moreover, education programs such as hunting and archery foster a sense of connection and belonging among classmates. They are a win-win for our schools and communities. In Wisconsin alone, we have 272 schools offering archery programs, 37 of which are located in my district. What we have here is yet another example of Federal bureaucrats who are out of touch with the American people. I know my constituents back home support these programs, and so do I. Therefore, I urge passage of H.R. 5110, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

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

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5110) to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to clarify that the prohibition on the use of Federal education funds for certain weapons does not apply to the use of such weapons for training in archery, hunting, or other shooting sports, as amended.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens).

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5110, as amended.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, overturning the funding ban on hunting and archery programs is a no-brainer. I was glad, as a member of the Committee on Education, to see that when this bill passed, it came out of committee unanimously 42-0. That is because the value of these programs is universally recognized. They are certainly not unsafe. In fact, the best thing we could do would be to expand them, offer more of them, and teach more children how to handle recreational tools appropriately. Furthermore, just like when the effort was made by the Governor of New Mexico, there is a bipartisan consensus that the people who were trying to restrict ownership or restrict acquainting themselves with firearms were shot down on a bipartisan basis. Because of this administration's actions, however, many schools were proactively nixing hunting and archery programs to comply with the Department's wrongheaded and heavy-handed reading of the law. That is already going too far. Congress should respond quickly with swift action and pass the Protecting Hunting Heritage and Education Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.