Glenn Grothman

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, one more time we see people uncomfortable with our Constitution. Our forefathers gave us the right to bear arms because they wanted law-abiding people to have the right to defend themselves. Until Ferguson and the rise of the antipolice movement about 5 years ago, the murder rate in this country fell by over one-half between the early 1990s and around 2014. What happened at that time? We whipped up some antipolice hysteria, and since that time things have gone wildly up. Now the majority party introduces a cache of bills designed to make it more difficult for law-abiding people to access a weapon while not having any impact on people who wouldn't obey the laws anyway. They don't like the idea of private transfers. They don't like the idea of being able to get a gun in less than 10 days. They don't like the idea that if the government doesn't give the proper information over--well, apparently, they like the idea that they want to keep people from getting guns if the government, for whatever reason, is slow in turning things over. In any event, let's go back to the things that worked for 25 years before the rise of the antipolice movement if we really want to see improvement.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to, one more time, address what is going on here and the perceived problem. Here in the United States, the number of murders from the beginning of the 1990s until Ferguson had fallen repeatedly, and the murder rate was half of what it once was with a tough law enforcement stance. At that time, in the Ferguson shooting, when Officer Wilson, who was eventually found entirely innocent by the Obama Justice Department, when that person died, we whipped people into an antipolice frenzy. Because of the antipolice frenzy, we had the murder rate in this country go up by 20 percent. It then began to drop again until last year when we had the horrible events in Minneapolis. One more time, we whipped people up into a frenzy, and the number of murders in 1 year in Minneapolis went up 70 percent; in New York, 40 percent; in Chicago, 55 percent; and in Milwaukee, 95 percent, with the same gun control laws in cities that are run by mayors who are as antigun as you will find. The problem here is we whipped the people into an antipolice frenzy. The police became passive, and a lot of people died. The people who were whipped into the antipolice frenzy ought to stop and consider the huge increase in murders.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will make four points on this bill. First of all, under this bill, you can have a vote on unionization within under 15--I am told even 11--days of finding out the vote is coming. You look at our elections. I know in the State of Wisconsin, probably similar, you get over 2\1/2\ months between filing and knowing you are going to have an election and actually the election. It is hard to believe anybody who really cares about the worker would do that. Secondly, your privacy concerns. You are even giving the addresses of all of the employees to the unions. This is supposedly the party of women. Do you really want to come home at night and have people in your driveway wanting to talk to you about an election? Third, we are getting rid of the secret ballot. I don't know how anybody who cares about anybody would get rid of the secret ballot. And, fourth, you have a situation here, when it is unclear whether something right or wrong happened, automatically you go to a union. So you can have a situation here in which the majority of people did not vote for a union, and the government bureaucrat says, automatically, you are unionized. And one final comment: For people talking about purchasing power, the most recent COVID bill is a strange bill. Your purchasing power is going down.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I was hoping when I flew back last night that the fence would be gone from around the Capitol. Unfortunately, it is still there. But given the bills we have before us today, maybe it is only fitting when you look at the Capitol you see a fence around it. It makes the Capitol appear as if it is a capital of a more totalitarian state looking at the bills we have before us today. The first bill is H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act. They call this an assault on the Second Amendment, something our forefathers put in the Constitution because they knew that the power in this country has to rest with the people. Instead, we have a bill here making it much more difficult to transfer a firearm and putting one in a position where they could face prison or a $100,000 fine if they do something wrong. It is just beyond belief. It is hard to believe when you look at this bill, Madam Speaker, that until 4 years ago when they began a war on the police, the murder rate in this country had fallen over 20 years in a row. Unfortunately, the majority is going to try to make it much more difficult to transfer a firearm as well as create a situation when you are waiting for your NICS check, if the FBI doesn't get back to you, you are delayed in getting a firearm. Madam Speaker, I urge rejection of the rule.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, three things before you print another $1.9 trillion in this bill. If you look at the monetary supply in the last year, M1 is up 67 percent and M2 is up 25 percent. You are inviting inflation big time. Secondly, I have got one local official who asked me for a million bucks. He is getting $21 million. Another one is asking me for $800,000. He is getting $20 million. Ask your local people if they need all this money. Third, I wouldn't even take it to the Senate because there is no way you can spend all this money. I would put some of this in infrastructure, just as a tip.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Let's address COVID. While it appears we have turned the corner on COVID, it still appears as though we have over 2,000 deaths most days. For whatever reason, the CDC and the public health establishment have refused to inform the public of the huge benefits of vitamin D. Almost 40 percent of American adults are vitamin D deficient. This is a bigger problem in winter in the North, where people don't get as much sun, and also a bigger problem with darker skinned populations and a bigger problem with older populations since older people don't produce as much vitamin D. You should take 5,000 units of vitamin D a day. If you have COVID, you should immediately take additional vitamin D. Countries such as England already inform their population of the benefits of vitamin D, and in India, there is a study showing potentially huge benefits of large amounts of vitamin D given to people as soon as they know they have this disease. It is unfortunate that our public health establishment has not pushed vitamin D as much as you would think they should. Please, America, look up the website vitaminDforall.org. Over 200 experts, led by Dr. Karl Pfleger of California and Richard Carmona, Surgeon General under President Bush, are advocates of vitamin D. They believe science is on our side, and they believe that if we had adequately informed the 40 percent of the population that was vitamin D deficient, we could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives in this pandemic. Please, we do not want any more patients to die with a vitamin D deficiency. An interesting thing about vitamin D, a lot of times the medical establishment is reluctant to push something forward because something horrible would happen to a given percentage of the population who take it, but there really is only a minimal downside to taking vitamin D, so I really wish the CDC would step up to the plate, as they have in other countries, and spend some of the time they spend talking about social distancing or masking, which we hear about all the time, educating people to take vitamin D. Dr. Fauci himself let it slip in an interview with a Hollywood actress that he takes vitamin D. But while he let it slip in kind of a fun interview, he doesn't routinely tell the American public that, and I wish he would do that. I don't know why Dr. Fauci would be so quiet about vitamin D when he, himself, has admitted that he takes a significant amount of it. The failure of CDC to issue guidances encouraging people to take vitamin D is one of the reasons why we have had so many fatalities. Let's not lose anyone else. Again, remember to look at the website, vitaminDforAll, and make sure you take vitamin D both for yourself and for your family. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Now, I would like to talk a little bit about an amendment that was done in a bipartisan fashion, and I know far too many people outside of Washington don't realize that the vast majority of things we do here are in a bipartisan fashion. The amendment concerns the Ice Age Trail, a trail that winds throughout the Midwest. But in the State of Wisconsin, it begins in the eastern part of the State in Door County and winds its way out the western part of the State on the Minnesota border. The Ice Age Trail goes through Manitowoc, Sheboygan, Fond du Lac, Columbia, Marquette, and Waushara Counties in my district. According to a study by the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, the trail has had an annual economic impact of $113 million, drawing 1.2 million visitors. Currently, the Ice Age Trail is not categorized as a unit of the National Park System administered by the Department of the Interior. The bipartisan amendment, which I worked on with my friend Congressman Pocan from the Madison area, would allow the Ice Age Trail that opportunity. As a unit of the National Park System, Federal funds will be allowed to go to Wisconsin for maintenance and improvement of these trails, which drive tourism and provide outdoor recreation opportunities for Wisconsinites and visitors alike. More than thousands of years ago, an immense flow of glacial ice sculpted a landscape of remarkable beauty across Wisconsin. And let me tell you, I think Wisconsin is the most beautiful State we have. So, please, everybody come visit our Ice Age Trail. As the glacier retreated, it left behind a variety of landscape features. These glacial remnants are now considered among the world's finest examples of how continental glaciation sculpts our planet. The Ice Age National Scenic Trail is a thousand miles that highlights these landscape features as it travels through some of the State's most beautiful natural areas. The trail is entirely within Wisconsin. The Ice Age Trail is more than a path through the woods. It is a place for mental and physical rejuvenation, a place to unwind after a hard day and enjoy the landscape of Wisconsin. More than a million people use the trail each year to hike and snowshoe, to backpack, to disconnect, and to reconnect. Behind the scenes, a vibrant community of volunteers across the State work to build and maintain the trail, making it one of the country's best hiking experiences. I sincerely hope that the bill that is going to come up that we are going to vote on tomorrow, that this amendment becomes part of that bill. I am confident that it will. It is going to improve the Ice Age Trail, making it even more consumer-friendly for the millions of Wisconsinites who have taken advantage of the trail. Particularly this year, where we have way too many people sitting inside, it is going to be a great year to tour the trail. The trail was begun in the 1950s as the dream of Milwaukeean Ray Zillmer, who had a vision of a long, linear park winding through Wisconsin along the glacier's terminal moraine. This will be a great addition to the trail, and it will improve the experience of those who use it. Benefits of Vitamin D

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, in the past, I have taken time to discuss Black Lives Matter, a powerful group in this past election, which I think was very instrumental in the Democratic Party retaining their majority, and talking about the Marxist roots of their founders. In their statement, ``What We Believe,'' they, Black Lives Matter, clearly state that one of their goals is to disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure. First of all, to say that the traditional family is a Western family is insulting to all the people from East Asia, the Indian subcontinent, the Middle East, Latin America, and sub-Saharan Africa that already have mothers and fathers at home. This is not a Western thing. Nevertheless, it is apparent that the founders of Black Lives Matter did consider the traditional nuclear family something to be disrupted. And that is part of Marxism, to get rid of the traditional families. And it is scary that one of our two major political parties held its majority by closely aligning itself with this group. I have asked for a hearing before the Education Committee on the Pell Grant Program, which already brazenly penalizes nuclear families--no hearing as of yet. But, today, I ran across an article in the City Journal called ``Failure Factory,'' talking about the influence of, to a certain extent, Marxist ideology and, to a certain extent, critical race theory on their curriculum. This curriculum itself denigrates the traditional family. I don't know why we would, in schools--and they are talking about the Buffalo Public Schools here--why in schools we would denigrate a traditional family with father at home. This curriculum appears designed to make young people bitter, defeatist, and antipolice. Our poor children--and by poor, I don't mean materially poor. Our poor children have to put up with this sort of curriculum. In other countries, strong families are the norm, and children are excelling at math, reading, and science. They immigrate here, children from all different racial, religious, and cultural backgrounds, and they will outperform our homegrown students who get this antifamily, antipolice drivel. I would also ask my good friend Education Chairman Bobby Scott to hold a hearing on critical race theory, which is infecting our schools, before any more damage is done. The Federal Government puts $40 billion into K-12 in this country, and we are spending a total of over $12,000 a child. If teachers are going to teach the students that families with fathers are not good, the police are racist, and that it is so difficult to achieve in this country, it doesn't matter how much we spend. Please, chairman of the Education Committee, Bobby Scott, hold a hearing on critical race theory and the influence it has on our public schools. Again, I will mention the article describing the curriculum in the Buffalo Public Schools would be called ``Failure Factory'' in the City Journal. So if you want to Google ``Failure Factory,'' City Journal, you can read about what goes on in our Buffalo Public Schools. Ice Age Trail

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, apprenticeship programs are incredibly important for job growth in the State of Wisconsin and around the Nation; and insofar as this bill highlights apprenticeships, that is a good thing. I was talking again to one of our programs this morning in Wisconsin, and they could desperately use more people going through these apprenticeships and making these $70-, $80-, $90,000-a-year jobs. I think it is particularly important to get more people in the trades because we have so many people going to 4-year universities and maybe they wind up going to apprenticeship 5 or 6 years later, maybe they wind up heavy in debt. If they had made the move to a construction apprenticeship earlier on, they would be a lot better. Unfortunately, this bill is not quite exactly what we need. The registered apprenticeship program through the Department of Labor is important. For many employers it works fine. However, it is a one-size- fits-all approach. In fiscal year 2019, over 250,000 individuals entered registered apprenticeships and only 81,000 graduated from the system. Over the years, some employers have expressed that participation in registered apprenticeships allows the Department of Labor to dictate skills an employer must provide to apprentices in specific industries rather than allowing the business to determine that themselves. Let's face it, employers know what kind of on-the-job training and vocational education their apprentices need more than the Federal Government does. IRAPs still would have to comply with Federal standards and would have been overseen by third parties, such as trade and industry groups, nonprofit organizations, unions, and joint labor management organizations. Of course, the idea of the IRAPs has totally shut down, probably for two reasons. It took control of the apprenticeship program out of the hands of the Federal Government. And, quite frankly, it was an idea proposed by Donald Trump, who did a lot of good things. Our workforce is evolving. So should our models of job training and apprenticeships. I have also offered an amendment to this bill concerning the definition of recognized postsecondary credential. Under the bill, recognized postsecondary credential has a meaning, given the definition in the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act. That definition should specifically include technical diplomas and degrees, which differ from general associate degrees. I look forward to revisiting that when the House brings up WIOA for reauthorization.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, before we deal with the purpose of this speech, I would like to make some observations about changes that have been made in the last few weeks and other rapidly changing aspects of American life. One of the few positive observations I have made since I was a Congressman is the freedom people have normally had to see their Congressmen. Eccentric people can stand at the base of the Capitol steps a few yards away and hand out their pamphlets, nice and free. Easy to meet their Congressmen, for those of us who like to walk outside and not use the tunnel. Now, a chain-link fence stands around the Capitol with razor wire on top. Let's be honest. After about midnight on January 7, I think most of us felt pretty safe. Now, we are almost a month later, and we still have National Guard folks in full combat, ready to protect us. We have the wire on top of the walls, as well as Constitution and Independence Avenues shut down. I feel like I am in East Germany in the 1970s. I am not sure exactly what East Germany was like, but that is how I kind of visualize it, around maybe their parliament or whatever, fencing, police, always afraid of the people. It is a fitting background for our brave new world order in which our high-tech oligarchs are censoring ideas. Perhaps that is this background to the new censor regime. It seems almost appropriate. Our high-tech oligarchs are censoring ideas which are unpopular with the wealthy and powerful in our country. Eventually, we will need some antitrust enforcement or legislation to open up Twitter and allow American citizens to hear all points of view, including points of view that the great and powerful of our country do not want to have heard. I would like to thank the German, Mexican, and French Governments for their support as Americans try to regain their roots as a country with a free flow of ideas. In the meantime, my plea to the Speaker and majority leader is please tear down the walls around this Capitol and begin to undo the damage done to our freedoms. Now, back to the purpose of the speech. One more time last week, I returned to our southern border, and already, we are seeing the results of, I think, reckless comments made by our Chief Executive. We are getting to the point where we have had 300 unaccompanied minors a day crossing our southwest border. That is because we have had a President who has made comments that indicate that the United States is not sincere in protecting our southern border. It does result in more money and more presence for drug cartels at the Southern border. So people understand, people do not just walk across the border. Mexicans are charged $3,000 a person; Central Americans, $5,000 a person; Brazilians, $9,000 a person; and Asians, $20,000 a person to cross the border. And when statements are made indicating that we will no longer be enforcing the border, those statements are conveyed by the cartels to people who they believe will pay to get across. We are, therefore, seeing the increase of people at the border, including unaccompanied minors who are supposedly people we want to protect. Last week, on the Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, just in the Sasabe section alone, after I left that area, there were 120 unaccompanied juveniles. Some already part of a criminal element, but given that they have to deal with the cartels to get across the border, it certainly is not a good influence on them. Also while I was down there, I heard in the last year, on the Tucson sector alone--and there are seven or eight sectors along our Southern border--well over 100 people were found dehydrated to death. This is the result of the current system in which we do not secure our border. Unfortunately, despite the verbiage which indicates we are going to be less stringent in enforcing our border, we are also going to stop building the wall. First of all, you are throwing away about 5,000 jobs right away, and supposedly we are supposed to be looking for new jobs. But more than that, when you end these contracts, you wind up having to pay companies for parts of the wall that have been built but haven't been put up yet, pay them to undo or fill in holes which have been placed there in anticipation of a full wall, pay them to undo the damage to roads. And roads are part of the wall system that is going to be built down there. As a result, we are spending a lot of money which could be used to put in more wall and is not. I should point out that when you put up a wall, it saves money as far as the number of Border Patrol agents you need. If you don't have a wall, it should take about two or three border agents a mile to patrol the border. With a wall, it is about one agent for every two miles. Another benefit for having a wall. But above all, the idea of paying money to wrap up the project rather than paying money to complete the wall is a waste of money and a real problem. Another thing I found out, with the wall, you are going to have less injuries to Border Patrol agents, which is probably one of many reasons why when I have gone down at the wall, I have yet to find a Border Patrol agent or a sheriff's deputy for the counties along the Southern border who is not in favor of the wall. We are going to wind up losing money as we pay money to care for people crossing the wall, losing money to our society as we have more drugs coming across the Southern border. And not surprising, as marijuana becomes more legal in the United States, more of the drugs that cross the Southern border are fentanyl, are meth, are heroin, resulting in more deaths all around the country. Another reason why we should be taking our Southern border seriously. I, therefore, strongly encourage my colleagues, as we look at future appropriation bills, to pay attention to the border. We cannot go back to the days of completely anybody can come across there, because, like I said, you are going to wind up with more people dehydrated to death in the desert. You are going to wind up with more unaccompanied minors who are going to be dealt with by the tender arms of the drug cartels, which control all the immigration and illegal immigration across the Southern border. So, please, I ask my colleagues, do what I did. Go down to Arizona. Go down to Texas. See the situation we have. See whether anybody could possibly think going back to the old system is humane in any way. It is not humane to minors. It is not humane to the people who are guided by the cartels. It is not humane to the people who cross the border and wind up dehydrating across our Southern edge. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, our wonderful country, America, has been given material wealth beyond belief, plus natural beauty that I think is greater than anything around the world. In 1973, how did this country respond to those gifts? The United States Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, legalized abortion, something that even in days before the ultrasound, almost was universally condemned around the world. Since that time, 62 million unborn babies have had their lives cut short in America. The United States is one of only seven countries in the world where late-term abortions are legal, joining countries like China, North Korea, Vietnam, and then Singapore, Canada, and Holland. Now, we, under the current administration, look to push for still more abortions by talking about removing the Hyde amendment allowing for taxpayer funding and, even worse, repealing the new Mexico City policy in which the United States gives money to organizations abroad who will wind up performing abortions. That is what the United States will become known for around the world. How is this to respond to the natural wealth and beauty we have been given.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I know normally Congressmen take this opportunity to talk about some hot-button issue; therefore I feel a little regret that I am going to have to delve into what the great English historian Thomas Carlyle called the dismal science. I am going to have to address economics. I am going to talk about two issues. I am going to talk about the monetary supply, and I am going to talk about inflation. It is a little bit boring, but they are both very important. First, the monetary supply. If you wonder where I get these numbers, Mr. Speaker, you can google John Williams' ``Shadow Government Statistics.'' I am going to talk about M1 and M2. M1 is a narrow definition of the monetary supply. We are now up rocketing at over 65 percent increase. You can go back 20 years and the highest prior increase is under 20 percent. So when you have this much of an outlier, look out. Some people would say M2, which is a more narrow definition, including things like certificates of deposit, is better; but even that amount is shooting up 25 percent a year. The previous high in the last 20 years was 18 percent in 2008. And you remember what happened after 2008. As the great James Garfield, Republican President--oh, how we wish he had a full 4 years--said: ``He who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation.'' Please, I beg the chairman of the Budget Committee, before proceeding forth here, hold a hearing on the money supply. Secondly, I want to talk about inflation a little bit. Sometimes it is forgotten that in both 1980 and 1990, we changed the definition of inflation. But I am old enough to remember the Jimmy Carter years and how devastating it was when we used to have inflation of over 15 percent. Right now, if you had that definition back then, inflation would already be running at about 10 percent a year. Even if you looked after 1990, when, again, the definition changed, we ran inflation at about 5 percent a year. Now, you can only imagine what would happen if we throw another $2 trillion of money and the amount of inflation will go up. Look at the cost of housing in the supposed economic downturn. Already the cost of housing is going up. That should be a danger sign for everybody. I was critical of the past administration on a variety of things. I was opposed to President Trump's $2,000-a-person thing for this reason. I think there is still time to turn back before we have a huge problem with the money supply and the overall stockmarket, and we can still show that this Congress has a little bit of fiscal responsibility. I again beg: Please have a hearing not just on the monetary supply, but a hearing on inflation. As Herbert Stein, an economist of some fame and even more famous as Ben Stein's dad, said: ``If something can't go on forever, it won't.'' I ask the chairman to please have a hearing on monetary supply and inflation.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to strongly object to the Article of Impeachment proposed against President Trump, which makes the preposterous claim that President Trump wanted or expected the riots that took place last week. He clearly said he wanted a peaceful and patriotic demonstration. He did say he wanted people to ``fight like hell or we are not going to have a country anymore,'' but that is obviously standard hyperbole and was not meant to aim at physical fights. But what is offensive is what you are saying--and is inflammatory-- about the tens of thousands of peaceful protesters who were there last week, as well as the tens of millions of people they represent. You don't understand why they are here. They are scared to death we are going to go back to the days without Donald Trump, of hundreds of thousands of people crossing the border every month. They are scared to death nobody is going to keep our manufacturing here. They are scared to death that nobody else will fight the cancel culture as we head toward an era when some things can't be said. They are scared to death that the majority party got here by teaming up with Black Lives Matter, a bunch founded by Marxists and the dislike of family.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, this is an absurd resolution callously politicizing an unpredictable tragedy last week. We all know that President Trump called for a peaceful and patriotic march. I must have attended a half dozen Trump rallies in the past year, and they have always been peaceful, wholesome events, typical of the thousands of peaceful protesters who remained away from the Capitol last week. I never would have expected this in a million years. This is a horrible event, but not like the Black Lives Matter, antifa events that went on day after day in city after city, with prominent Democrats fanning the flames by mischaracterizing police shootings or apparently encouraging bail for lawbreakers. Less than 2 years ago, a Member of this body encouraged harassment of Trump officers at restaurants, gas stations, or department stores. And what happened? She was rewarded with the chairmanship of an ``A'' committee. Even in last week's riots, the Speaker tried to preposterously racialize them, which can only lead to trouble, maybe violence. Everybody back home says we ought to get along. Is this the way to start things? It is time to get back to dealing with the people's business, dealing with the cancel culture.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, as I look around the room here, it looks like I am in the U.S. Congress. I mean, I see the American flag there; George Washington is over there; it says ``In God We Trust.'' But looking at this bill today, it makes me feel like we are in the Parliament of Afghanistan, Burundi, Yemen, or Bolivia. Do we really think the way to improve the quality of life for Americans is to just print more money from the Fed? If you look around, we are going to be printing another $400 billion. Has anybody looked lately at what is going on with the monetary supply? M1 up 50 percent; M2 up 20 percent. Don't people realize that just printing more is not a way to make our citizens wealthier; it is just a way to debase the currency? The way for a wealthy country is to work hard through frugality and through improving one's skills, not by having the Fed print money. Last time, when we sent out $1,200 checks, I stopped by my local Walmart, and the people in charge of the electronics section said they had never seen such sales in their life. Is that really going to improve the lot of Americans, to go over and buy some more electronic junk from China? Apparently so. And let's not forget when we look at inflation. We have inflation right now. Twice, in the recent past, we have changed the definition on what inflation is. So we do have inflation; it is just that we keep changing the definition to mask it. That is why the market is up. The market is up because we really do have inflation. We are in the U.S. Congress. We should not think the way to prosperity is just printing money. We should act like we are the United States. That is why, for my whole life, other countries like to invest in the dollar. They respect the value of the dollar more than the national currencies of Burundi, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Bolivia. Those are four poor countries; that is why I picked them out. So I encourage Senator McConnell to hold the line here, to act responsibly.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, in addition to addressing the Chair, I also want to address any history or civics teachers dealing with America and make some requests to them tonight. In order to understand the current events and understand why I and some other people are so concerned about the outcome of this election, we must have a discussion of Marxism. All American schoolchildren should have an understanding of Marxism. To understand why over 30,000 American troops died in Korea, we must know a little bit about Marxism. To understand why over 50,000 American troops died in the Vietnam war, we must know a little bit about Marxism. When I think of Marxism, I think of three things. I think of their hatred of God and hatred of religion. I think of Karl Marx's thesis when he was back in college. It was in part titled ``I Hate All Gods.'' And, of course, I think when China bragged about getting rid of the last churches, so I always associate Marxism with the end of Christianity. Secondly, I associate Marxism with the elimination of the family as a social unit. As a matter of fact, the elimination of the family as a social unit was one of the original goals of Karl Marx. I believe he was already teaming up with Engels by that time. Finally, the desire to get rid of private property--by ``private property,'' it means: Do individuals have the right to own their own house, to form their own business, to buy whatever they want? Those are the three things I think of when I think of Marxism. I hope all American children are familiar with Communist China, Soviet Russia, Cuba, Vietnam, and Cambodia. Once you learn about the horrible things that have happened to these people and the places, Mr. Speaker, I want you to think about a quote. Now, we spend a great deal on military expenditures here, and we are going to wrap things up some time in the next week around here, spending more money, again, on troops, ships, and airplanes. But Nikita Khrushchev warned us--actually bragged about--we will take America without firing a shot. Now, think of that. Here we spent all this money on nuclear weapons, airplanes, ships, troops, and tanks--some made in my district--but Nikita Khrushchev said: That is not how we are going to defeat you. We are going to defeat you internally. I would assume if they are going to defeat us, it is because we don't understand what Marxism is. Things that concern me right now is the elevation of Black Lives Matter. Two of the three founders of Black Lives Matter made no qualms about it: We are Marxists. To drive it home, on their website, which they took down when it became a little embarrassing going into the election: We disrupt the Western-prescribed family. I recently ran into a woman in my district who complained that her children were driven into debt because she and her husband worked hard and had a good middle-class family. She felt other parents who did not get married and did not form nuclear families were given preference as far as getting university grants. Of course, they are given preferences as far as healthcare, as well. So, I think we should be concerned when we have a group that, as far as I can see, almost nobody has publicly disassociated themselves from that makes no bones about the fact that they are Marxists. It is one of the reasons why I am concerned when I see one of my colleagues from California having a relationship of some sort with someone who was apparently working for Marxist Communist China. That is why I am scared when I see that the mayor of New York, our greatest city, gets elected after he apparently went on a honeymoon to Cuba and apparently idealized something like Cuba. He didn't go there because he thought it was a horrible place. When we look at this, we have to say: Are we in danger? I think we are very much in danger when we look at those three things. Americans do not know what Marxism is. Someday, I would like to have a museum to Marxism just as we have a museum to the Holocaust because all Americans should know about the tens of millions of people who died, the promises the Marxists made to those people, and how it worked out. I do think, as I said, that as young people are educated about what is going on in the world in the last 100 years, they should learn about Marxism and all the people who died and all the people whose freedoms have been taken away and realize that there are genuinely people out there who want to get rid of the old-fashioned nuclear family. I should interrupt myself for just one second here. The people who wrote on the website for Black Lives Matter described it as a Western patriarchic family. The idea of having a mom and dad at home and a dad being part of a child growing up is not just an American or Western thing. It is an African thing, and it is an Asian thing. It has happened all the time, and it is a little bit of a slam on these other cultures to imply that they do not have an old-fashioned nuclear family in other cultures as well. Nevertheless, when I look at that many people without firing a shot who apparently don't have a big problem with Marxism, it does scare me. So, tonight, I will ask my colleagues to do what they can as they get out and about and as they give speeches to tell particularly young people what Marxism is. I hope all teachers of our young people educate them as to what type of government a lot of very powerful people around this world wish we had and how things worked out for other countries when they adopted that Marxism model. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on vitamin D a bit in the past, and I know we are on the verge of passing another coronavirus bill. I would ask people negotiating that bill to do something to make sure that the public is aware of the benefits of vitamin D. Yesterday, I talked to a Dr. David Meltzer at the University of Chicago, a very brilliant man, and I hope some of the negotiators talk to him before a final deal is cut. While he cannot nail down a specific amount of people who will not have to suffer the severe consequences of vitamin D deficiency, or even die at the hands of vitamin D, it is probably somewhere between 40 and 70 percent. Right now, about half of Americans have a vitamin D deficiency. That is going to get worse as we head into the winter months and people are not outside getting vitamin D. So, I strongly request the negotiators to do something to make sure that we stand up to the public health establishment and educate people on the importance of vitamin D and see what we can do about getting products to the market which accelerate getting vitamin D into your bloodstream, because even if you start taking vitamin D tomorrow, you don't get the level that you should have for quite a while. I am encouraging the negotiators to talk to Dr. David Meltzer, who will also fill you in on studies from Ireland, Spain, MIT, Harvard, and Northwestern.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, we just wrapped up an election here, and we were told this election was about hatred and bias. I don't really know any haters on my campaign, and I don't think there is this huge amount of bias, in general, in this country that some people tried to make this election about. Recently, I did have a woman come up to me from my district talking about real bias and perhaps hatred in America. She talked about her children who went to college. Her and her husband got married before they had children, and both worked hard and made an average income. Both of her kids had about 30 or $40,000 in student loan debt, and she had good kids who were working hard to pay off that debt. But she felt that if her and her husband had not gotten married, the government probably would have given them something they couldn't get as married and working people. Her kids may have gotten $30,000 plus in Pell Grants, and they were probably eligible for other grants. At least in the State of Wisconsin you would receive similar State grants, as well as be eligible for a work study program. Unfortunately, her kids were not eligible for that, and at least she feels they are being significantly discriminated against, and hatred is being displayed by the American Government. Here is real hatred and real bias. Is she right? Is there really U.S. Government hatred and bias against people who got married? How did this happen? I have talked about this issue before, and people imply that maybe it happened by mistake, not just the Pell Grant program, but other government assistance programs just inadvertently sprung up and punished people who got married. However, in this election I had a little bit of an eye-opener. In this election we had Black Lives Matter get involved. If you read the website, which was eventually scrubbed or taken down in part about two months ago with a month left to go in the campaign, on its website it said, first of all, two of its three co-founders were trained Marxists, and secondly, it said one of their goals was to disrupt the western-prescribed nuclear family structure. First of all, I think they are a little bit historically inaccurate. I think there are all sorts of cultures in the world, other than just European cultures, in which you have a wife and a husband and kids. But nevertheless, they clearly consider it a problem. And it doesn't surprise me that this group would have this on their website that they consider it a problem, since they were founded by two Marxists. And when I think of Marxists, I think of three things: First of all, of course, I think of Socialism and the fact that government should own everything, and we shouldn't have lots of different people own lots of different businesses or different rental units or what have you. They want everything controlled by the government. The other two things I always think of when I think of Marxism is: First of all, they hate God. And whether you are talking about countries in which Marxists take over, be it Red China, Vietnam, Russia, they follow Karl Marx in saying abolition of religion is demanded for the true happiness of people. So when I associate Marxism and people associating with such a group, I associate the hatred for God. But the other thing we have got to remember is Karl Marx himself was very antifamily, and that is why I assume on the website it appeared that Black Lives Matter wants to disrupt the western-prescribed nuclear family. So here is a group that I am sure cheers programs which penalizes people who are married and discriminates in favor of people who aren't married. And to my surprise, people did not run from this group. To me, every politician should say for some groups, I am not going to ask for your help. Years ago, when I was in the State legislature, I fought the drug companies who I think are over-drugging our kids. I fought the drug companies who I think were prescribing too many opiates, which were leading to deaths, and so, I don't take money from the prescription drug companies. I don't take money from the payday lenders because I think it is a horrible service, and they rip people off. I have known people who got cancer. I don't take money from the cigarette companies. So you don't have to take support from everybody who is willing to support you. But when Black Lives Matter puts on their website, we disrupt the western-prescribed nuclear family, and we have an American government right now which, to me, is discriminating against couples who are married, you have to wonder, was this by chance, or are these people who want to set up government programs to discriminate against families? I would like to give people a chance to publicize this problem in hearings and see if there's something we can do about this problem. So I have asked the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, which has something to do with programs like Pell grants, to have a hearing and see whether my constituent is right: Are we really, in the United States Government, expressing strong bias against couples who are married, and penalizing them? I have forwarded a request like this to the chairman of the committee. I think it is a problem that has been out there ever since Lyndon Johnson, in the 1960s, began his war on the family. I personally think he was the worst President in this country's history, and it is not just because he declared war on the family. He did a bad job in prosecuting the Vietnam war, his personal life was a hodgepodge, but of all the bad things he did, I think his programs aimed at destroying the family was the worst thing. So I guess to illustrate that Members of the other party are also a little bit concerned about these programs that penalize what they refer to as the traditional western family, though it is the traditional family used by people who are not western European at all, I would like to ask for such a hearing.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1434.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Representative from Colorado for putting together this fine ceremony for National Bible Week. Mr. Speaker, it is kind of fitting that we be here on the floor of the Congress. I am not sure how many people realize, in this day in which so many people run from the Bible, the degree to which the Bible itself had such a great influence on the building we stand in and in the room we stand in right here. Look in front of us: ``In God We Trust.'' For people who aren't aware back home, around us we have the reliefs of 23 wise men: Mason, Hannibal, Justinian, Hammurabi, Solon. But the one who gets the greatest place of honor behind us here is that of Moses, who, of course, wrote the first five books of the Bible. When you review the statements of our Founding Fathers, again and again you find statements of this. And I will lead off by quoting William Penn: I do declare to the whole world that we believe the Scriptures to contain a declaration of the mind and will of God. We accept the Bible as the Words of God himself. The first Chief Justice of the United States, John Jay, was the president of the American Bible Society. Can you imagine that happening today? You can barely become a Justice if you are a member of the Knights of Columbus. Noah Webster said: ``Education is useless without the Bible.'' Noah Webster, of course, known as the father of American education. Again and again, people of that era learned to read by learning the Bible. When you review the statements or the Bible quotations of the early Founders, the Bible Book that they quoted the most was the Book of Deuteronomy, which is perhaps not surprising, because in Deuteronomy were largely laid out a lot of the laws that eventually God's people of Israel were to live under. So it is not surprising that Deuteronomy was quoted so frequently. Early American Presidents like John Adams and, later, Abraham Lincoln, looked to the Bible as they declared days of fasting and prayer. Again, when we look in our history, there is no book that had more to do with the founding of our country and the type of country our forefathers anticipated than the Bible, so it is only fitting that today we honor the Bible.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I think, without question, one of the parts of our history that has been underreported is that of the great wars against communism, one of which was the Vietnam war. One part of the Vietnam war that hasn't been discussed enough is that of Air America. It was a CIA-run operation in which they would take airlines, scrub off the markings related to the U.S. Air Force, and then fly over Laos maybe to drop off supplies, maybe to do rescue missions, both with regard to American troops and our Hmong allies. I have the honor to introduce, together along with Congresswoman Maloney, the bipartisan Air America Act, which will give those people who risked their lives, and many of them have died, the same retirement benefits as other people who fought for the military in the Vietnam war. But today I would just like to salute those veterans of Air America, many of whom are still alive, some in my district, and hope that we act quickly to give them the retirement benefits that they should have had many years ago.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, this past July, medical research teams at Israel's Hebrew University in Jerusalem and New York's Mount Sinai Hospital released a study indicating that the FDA-approved cholesterol drug fenofibrate may significantly downgrade the severity of COVID-19. The medical teams were led by Hebrew University Professor Ya'acov Nahmias and Mount Sinai's Dr. Benjamin tenOever. During their research, they found the novel coronavirus and studies conducted on human lung tissue found that COVID-19 prevents the routine burning of carbohydrates, which leads to fat in the lungs, which causes people to die. What happens is that people take fenofibrate, which is a drug that was commonly used for high cholesterol treatment, and it stops this inflammation and improves people's respiratory systems. Right now, these doctors are not given the support they should be given by the CDC and the NIH. We have a lot of people dying of coronavirus, and I think our people should not be too proud to recognize that sometimes cures are made in other countries. I strongly encourage the CDC to look at fenofibrate and these two great researchers.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, this speech is being given kind of on short notice, a little earlier than I expected. But we don't want to have the listening audience back home get any dead air, so I am rushing to give the talk. Hopefully, you will be satisfied, with not an excess of preparation. Today, I address something I don't think has been addressed nearly enough with regard to the crisis of the COVID virus. In the last couple of weeks, we have gone over 250,000 deaths at least partially attributed to the coronavirus, and I want to talk about something we can do to decrease that number of deaths that I think has been far and away underpublicized, underpublicized despite the fact that we have appropriated over $3 trillion to fighting this disease, underpublicized despite the fact that public health professionals are constantly being interviewed on our news programs and are out and about on advertisements telling us what we can do to reduce the huge number of deaths attributed to this disease. One thing I want to do today is I am going to talk one more time about vitamin D. I know some of the folks back home are familiar with vitamin D, but I don't think the huge number of studies that recommend vitamin D have been publicized anywhere near enough. Right before I got here, I was talking to one of my constituents back home, a bright, well-informed person. He was surprised that vitamin D can be used to reduce the mortality rate from the COVID. I want to go over some of the things that have been determined about vitamin D. We have had many universities doing studies. I mentioned all the way back in April and May, Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, and Northwestern University down in Illinois have found studies showing a strong correlation between vitamin D deficiencies in patients leading to COVID complications and mortality. Those with adequate vitamin D levels were less likely to experience hyperinflammation within their lungs and less susceptible to severe COVID symptoms. Recently, in September, the University of Chicago Medicine and University of Boston Medicine, both conducted research studies substantiating the preliminary evidence between the correlation between vitamin D deficiencies and even getting COVID-19. Professors at Harvard have also published articles highlighting vitamin D's benefits for respiratory health and mentioning the connection between vitamin D and COVID-19 as quite compelling. European health professionals and right now the U.K., they have upped their recommendation for vitamin D among their citizens, something that it is high time our professionals were more aggressive in doing. In late October, as part of a study in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, researchers looked at 216 COVID-19 patients in a hospital in Spain. Over 80 percent of the patients were deficient in vitamin D if they had severe COVID. Only 40 percent of the population as a whole had longer hospital stays and higher inflammatory markers within their lungs. If you look at this, again and again and again, the researchers are talking about the correlation between adequate levels of vitamin D and not having as much mortality or serious things happening, and you wonder why our public health professionals and the CDC are not talking about this more, as they should. I know a couple of months ago, finally, Dr. Fauci talked about evidence of vitamin D's benefits, after waiting months and months for it. He finally talked about it, but he only talked about it in some interview with a Hollywood personality. He shouldn't wait for a Hollywood personality asking questions to point out that he himself, as the most prominent member of our public health community, takes vitamin D. How much vitamin D should you take? I have talked to different doctors. By the way, I come to this conclusion not just by looking at the plethora of research studies done by colleges and universities around the world, but by talking to individual doctors. Right before coming up here, I talked to a doctor from my district who routinely, every day, takes 5,000 international units of vitamin D. I will point out that is not the only way you can get vitamin D. You can get vitamin D from wonderful, healthy milk, and you can get vitamin D as well from interaction with the Sun. Sadly, during a lot of this coronavirus, people have been encouraged to stay inside rather than outside and getting the Sun, which would actually increase your vitamin D levels. I would ask Dr. Fauci, the CDC, the NIH, and public health professionals across the country: When you begin to tell people what you can do to save yourself or save your loved ones, make sure they are taking their vitamin D. There are obviously some communities more than other communities who are susceptible to vitamin D deficiencies. People with darker skin are much more likely to be vitamin D deficient; and, therefore, if you have darker skin, pay special attention to the necessity of taking vitamin D. Again, it is not just for yourself. Make sure if you have any loved ones with cardiovascular problems, loved ones who may be a little overweight--I am a little overweight here, so I am not signaling anybody out, but if you are a little bit overweight, make sure you are taking that vitamin D. If you have got any diabetes, make sure you are taking that vitamin D. Actually, earlier today, I found out another acquaintance of mine from back in the district passed away from COVID, and it kind of bugs me that the vitamin D is not being stressed. A little while ago, I had the Surgeon General in my district. He rattled off five things to do. And they always talk about social distances. Fine. They always talk about masks. Fine. They always talk about wash your hands. Fine. But they don't talk about vitamin D, despite all of these studies. I don't have an exact figure, but I would bet, if the entire American public had adequate levels of vitamin D--and right now, about 40 percent of the American population does not have adequate levels--I would bet that the number of fatalities in this country would be decreased by at least a third. Like I said, none of these studies have an exact amount, but I think that could be that high. And if that is true, you are talking about maybe 80,000 deaths if only the public health professionals would put taking vitamin D in the same talks they give you about a mask or social distancing or whatever. I am going to point out that it is more important than ever because we are going into the winter, and in winter you get what? At least in Wisconsin, you go outside less and you get less sun. And going outside less and getting less sun are both things that are going to accelerate the number of people who get the COVID, and get the COVID seriously. So now I will say it one more time to emphasize: It is a good time to make a list of all the older people or people with preexisting conditions and make sure they get vitamin D. Actually, as I am giving the talk up here, I would suggest for Thanksgiving--or for Christmas, even--stopping by one of our fine chains of drugstores and getting some vitamin D. You can, on your own, look on the internet and hear what they say about zinc. A lot of people say some zinc is good as well, supplementing it. It is something else you don't hear the professionals talk about a lot, but when I talk to doctors in their own right, talk to nurses in their own right, yes, grab some zinc as well. They talk about patients who are taking both vitamin D and zinc and how they have almost no patients who have had to be hospitalized for the COVID. So, in summary, I want to emphasize for the political geeks who tune in and watch this show: Make sure you are taking your vitamin D. Make sure you give vitamin D to older people who you know or people with preexisting conditions. I especially emphasize to any public health professionals who are watching this little speech: Next time you are giving a talk on the radio station or if anybody is out there preparing the next set of commercials on how to deal with the COVID, emphasize the vitamin D and familiarize yourself with the studies from Trinity College in Ireland, the Spanish studies, what has been said at Harvard, the studies at Northwestern, and the studies at the University of Chicago and you will learn a little bit more about things your occupation ought to be talking about. So that is all the time I have today, and thank you for allowing me to give this little speech. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to, with the other people, say it was very enjoyable working with Congresswoman Davis. I wish she would have given me a chance before she made a decision to try to convince her to stay here because we are going to miss her. Apprenticeships are very important. We have a good apprenticeship program in Wisconsin. We are told that, right now, people who complete both the work and classroom requirements of the apprenticeship program have a median income of $80,000. That shows the importance of having a bill like this brought to the floor. And I will tell you, it is not only an $80,000 salary but, I am sure, a much lower debt load than many people who use a 4-year degree. I think it is important for everybody in this Chamber to continue to emphasize to young people the pathway to a career through apprenticeships, which probably results in more job security, more income, and less debt than other things. It is with great regret I am going to vote against this bill today. I do believe that there is such a high demand for what I call skills- based education that it is important we open up alternative avenues to apprenticeships. We have talked today about a need to recognize the apprenticeship programs. That is certainly one way. It is unfortunate that didn't make it in this bill. I know a lot of effort was made to make this a bipartisan bill, and maybe we can come back in the appropriations process or something and somehow make a few tweaks in there to make it something that would be more bipartisan. But I am glad the bill is coming this far. It provides us all an opportunity to go back home in our districts and bring it up to young people and tell them about the benefits of apprenticeships and that you are missing something big-time if you don't take advantage of it.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of provisions in this bill that are offensive. My colleague, Congressman Rice, just pointed out the tax cut aimed primarily at the very wealthy. But I am going to focus on the $1,200. In my prior life, I used to be an estate planning attorney, and I would write out wills. People would come in to see me, and one of their goals was to leave a shot in the arm, leave something for the next generation, save up some money and give them part of a house, part of a bank account. In this bill, the $1,200 to everybody in the country, including people who do not need any extra assistance because of this, is a little bit offensive. I don't know who put together this bill, but kind of unlike the Greatest Generation that always wanted to leave a little more assets to their children and grandchildren, this bill lets everybody spend $1,200 so they can leave increased debt to their children and grandchildren. I think that is a little bit embarrassing. The second thing that I would point out is that the $1,200 goes not just to American citizens but to illegal immigrants, and this is part of a scary trend around here. Whether you are talking about free medical care for illegal immigrants, welfare for illegal immigrants, or, now, $1,200 checks to illegal immigrants, it is just sending us down the wrong way and pretending we don't even have a country here at all. Not to mention, at least, when I went to my local Walmart, he said the last time you sent out these checks, there were huge amounts of increase in spending in the electronics department. So we are going to send the next generation further into debt so this generation can buy more, or at least part of this generation can buy more, electronic junk from China at Walmart. I just can't imagine what went on in the room when they put together this deal, but I am voting ``no'' tomorrow or later tonight.