Glenn Grothman

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, obviously, most of the newspapers, insofar as people still read newspapers, most of the TV shows in the last month have focused on the impeachment hearings. And we all know that, at the end of the day, impeachment or no impeachment, President Trump is not going to be removed in the next year. So the question is: Why are we spending so much time on impeachment? I have felt, in the long-term future of America, the most significant thing going on right now is what is going on with immigration policy in the United States; and as long as this impeachment hearing has taken the top of the page in the newspaper, immigration is at the bottom of the page. I believe one of the primary reasons for keeping immigration from the public is they don't want the public to know what is going on in immigration or what isn't going on in Congress with regard to immigration. At its worst, we allowed over 140,000 people in this country in May. President Trump has been asking for help in this crisis, and he has gotten no--or virtually no help from Congress. Nevertheless, things that President Trump has done on his own have reduced that figure, if only temporarily. I mention again, 145,000 people caught and processed in May and probably over another 10,000 people not even processed. That number has gone down to around 45,000 in September, and we believe it will be even lower in October. This is largely because of things that President Trump has done on his own. He has negotiated with the Mexican Government--to a certain extent, under threat of tariffs--to put Mexican troops on the southern border. The Mexican Government is patrolling the interior of its country for people trying to work their way north, and President Trump has reached agreements with the triangle countries of Central America, the countries of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, and they are currently taking people coming from farther south who need asylum. President Trump has also--we wish he was doing more here, but he began building a wall, and we are working our way toward adding another 450 miles of wall by the end of next year. This is a significant improvement toward what it should be, but we are still well short of where we want to be. What should Congress be doing, or what should we be focusing on while Congress is spending time debating impeachment? First of all, we have a shortage of detention beds. So, when ICE is trying to remove people from this country, there are a lack of beds to place people in. There is no reason why, given the amount of money we are spending here, that should not be taken care of. There have been requests for another 5,000 people in the Border Patrol, and there are still, unquestionably, people streaming across this border every month who aren't even counted because we are not taking care of them. But there are other things that can be done as well. There is the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Some people talk about children being separated from their parents. This is something that Congress can solve on its own. Right now, if children try to come here, single children from Mexico and Canada, they are returned to their parents to make their families whole. In a loophole in the law, if children come here from countries other than Canada and Mexico, we are bound to keep them and separate them from their families. Congress should act, and the same law that applies to Mexico and Canada should apply to Venezuela or Honduras or Guatemala. We have no business allowing the current law to continue in which people are coming here while their parents are in another country. We have the Flores settlement in which, right now, people have to be released after being detained for 20 days. Given the slowness of our court system, it is not unusual for people to have to be released prior to the time when a hearing takes place. Again, Congress should act and spend time on that rather than continue to spend time on impeachment. We continue to have a problem with sanctuary cities in which, when we want to remove people even from incarceration types of facilities or from jails, particularly from jails, sanctuary municipalities are not allowing us to remove people, even criminal people. Congress should act, and Congress has not acted, so that we do not allow these sanctuary cities to forbid access to the jails for ICE to remove people from this country. Another thing that should be done is something should be done about the credible fear standard and when people are allowed in this country and when people are not allowed in this country. But, again, Congress has refused to act. I want to point out that we can do all these things without being anti-immigrant. And something that hasn't been noticed in the most recent year: Over 800,000 new people were sworn into this country, and President Trump is doing nothing to reduce that figure. As a matter of fact, that 830,000 figure is well over the 700,000 figure of the relatively recent past. President Trump is a friend of legal immigration, but we have to stop being a friend of illegal immigration. In other things that encourage people to come here, Secretary Carson is going to bat and trying to keep our limited, low-income housing stock available for our own citizens and not people who are here illegally. It would be good if Congress stepped up to the plate and said we are going to put our homeless veterans ahead of people who are in this country illegally. President Trump is also trying to put work requirements in the SNAP program. And let's be honest: If we have a program giving away free food without a work requirement, that is an inducement for people from other countries to come here. Congress should, again, convene and bring bills to the floor that put a work requirement with the SNAP benefit. A work requirement with a SNAP benefit, making it a less advantageous welfare program, would stop sending the message for the rest of the world to come into the country. So, in summary, there are a variety of things that have to be done and that Congress should be acting on and that the mainstream media and even the conservative media should be paying attention to because they are going to affect the future of this country for the next 10 or 20 or 30 years, unlike the impeachment inquiries which we know are going nowhere, although the impeachment inquiries are keeping other things off the page. We need more detention beds. We have to change the credible fear standard so that less people are able to come in this country without doing something, without having a genuine fear. We have to change the 20 days in the Flores settlement so we are not required to release people in the country. And above all, we have to change the Trafficking Victims Protection Act so that we can remove children from this country and send them back to their parents in Central America. I don't know why, with so many people in this institution purporting to claim that they want families together, we do not amend our current laws and do with other countries what we already do with Mexico and Canada, and that is tell an unaccompanied minor: You belong with your parents. We are not going to separate you from your parents. However, Congress is not acting. And I think one of the reasons they are able to get away with not acting on this is because the papers are filled with impeachment, impeachment, impeachment all day long. So, in summary, I hope we pay attention to the number of people coming in this country. I hope we congratulate President Trump on the things he was able to do without Congress doing anything, congratulate him on the reduction of--I will play with my mind here a little bit--reduction of over 70 percent, about 75 percent reduction in the number of people who are processed in this country compared to 4 or 5 months ago. But I also think we have to pay attention to the things that we are not finishing at this time, and I hope the media and the American public does not take its eye off the immigration ball while we focus on the impeachment hearing. And I really hate to say it, but I do believe one of the reasons why some people want to keep impeachment in the news is, as long as impeachment dominates the news, we are not talking about Congress' neglect in doing what they should do to secure our border and to make sure that the people coming here are people coming here for legal green cards, legal work visas, and, eventually, to be sworn in as legal citizens. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address National Bible Week. The Bible is very important in this country. In part, it is important because it is the Word of God, and that makes it the most important book, but it is a particularly important book in America, and it is a book that everybody should familiarize themselves with because I don't think you can understand either the Declaration of Independence or our Constitution without reading the Bible. You have to remember what America was like in its founding and probably at least the first 125 years after its founding. People learned to read by either learning to read the Bible itself or maybe learning to read another book, such as ``The New England Primer,'' which had many excerpts from the Bible in it, or ``McGuffey's Fourth Reader,'' which had 10 chapters, which were solely parts of the Bible and also included the Sermon on the Mount. The Puritans, of course, who were such an important factor in the founding of America, encouraged everyone to read the Bible. In 1782, the U.S. Congress even commemorated an American Bible. The reason they commemorated an American Bible is, at that time, there was somewhat of a crisis in America. We had a Revolutionary War going on. It was difficult to get Bibles from England. So somebody else had to get a Bible or they had to get Bibles in other ways, and Congress talked about that. But when you think about that, you realize why, for so many early Americans, the Bible was so important to them. It is kind of funny nowadays where they pretend that there is a separation between church and state in America, because John Jay, who was the first Chief Justice of the United States, was also president of the American Bible Society; and I could go on at length from early Supreme Court decisions in which they talked about the importance of God and made reference to the Bible. Other important Americans early on, Andrew Jackson, the Bible is ``the rock on which our Republic rests.'' We can take two things out of this: First of all, we could remember that the great Andrew Jackson felt the Bible was very important, and, secondly, remind people--because a lot of people around here don't know it--that we are a Republic. Abraham Lincoln, of course, was known as our greatest Biblical President. There are all sorts of lessons in the Bible. I think in First Samuel it is interesting to read when the Lord did not like Israel turning from Him and viewing Him as primarily their king over Israel, but instead they wanted kind of a strong central government under a king--example one of many lessons that I think our forefathers read when they designed our wonderful country. But in any event, I think, for National Bible Week, what every one of us should do is take some time to read the Bible, particularly the parts of the Bible in which Israel was formed, because I think it was very important for our forefathers because they envisioned our country as a country which would be pleasing to God, and they wanted the type of country that God would love and bless. I think we have been given that love and blessings not so much because of the way we behave today, but because of the faith of our forefathers. So, again, my encouragement for whoever sits at home and listens to this, maybe say: Can I read the book of Deuteronomy or read First Samuel and learn a little bit of the Bible, not only the Bible for its own right, but to remember the type of books that were being read by our forefathers when they wrote our Constitution, when they wrote our Declaration of Independence, and those books which created their view of the world.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I stand first of all to thank President Trump for the work he has done at the border and for something that has been almost unpublicized since the mainstream media is busy focusing solely on impeachment. In May of this year, over 100,000 people were processed at the border and placed in the United States. In September, that number has fallen to under 1,000, solely because of the efforts of President Trump to keep people who come to this country seeking asylum south of the border and because of agreements reached in countries in northern Central America. However, we must ask this body to stop solely focusing on impeachment and deal with the southern border, making permanent the policy changes of President Trump. My fear is that if President Trump ever leaves, then the real motivation of this impeachment hearing will become apparent, and that is to return to the days of open borders.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, as some of our other Members have, I rise to commemorate the observance of National Apprenticeship Week. Whether you are talking to people who are manufacturers, whether you are talking to people in the medical community, you know that one of the biggest problems we have in America today is we don't have enough people to fill the vital jobs that are necessary for our economy and necessary for the health of our citizens. To a certain extent, this is because the educational system has let people down, allowing them to spend tens of thousands of dollars and go tens of thousands of dollars in debt without getting the skills needed in these two vital areas. For too long, we have just focused on a vague 4-year degree path, but we are right now in a position in which we are ruining people's lives or putting them in a very difficult position as they become 30 years old, 35 years old, and still don't have a job commensurate with repaying these loans. Apprenticeships are good for employers, good for workers, and good for our country. As Members of Congress, people on the Education Committee and others must do more to expand and promote the apprenticeship program.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I realized that a lot of what has been said here the last few days focuses on an impeachment inquiry, and one has to ask oneself why we have so many people who have been wanting to try to impeachment President Trump immediately. It was, obviously, a very important vote today, but it is the fourth vote I have taken, I believe, since President Trump has been sworn in on impeachment. So far, nothing has turned up. I don't expect anything to turn up in the future. But I think one of the motivations for this impeachment inquiry is to keep other stories off the page, to keep other stories out of the mainstream media. And that is why, today, I want to address what I think is the biggest threat to America in the short term and a threat, unless we deal with it, which will ultimately destroy our country, and that is the threat of illegal immigration, of people flowing across the southern border. I have been at the southern border three times this year to see for myself what Border Patrol and other people in charge of securing our border have to put up with, and I would like to say that they have done a tremendous job. Yesterday, in this building, while so many people were focused on the impeachment inquiry, we had a hearing in the subcommittee of the Oversight and Reform Committee in which Ken Cuccinelli, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services office head, and Matthew Albence, Acting Director of ICE, were testifying before our subcommittee. It was interesting, the appalling comments that they had to put up with from Members of this House, being called white supremacists, just doing their job trying to secure the border. Those are the type of things that every American should be aware of what is going on in this building. But I would like to update people on the good job that President Trump has been able to do in the last 6 months, why he has been able to do this job, and the hatred which it has brought our President. In May, over 145,000 people were processed trying to get into this country, and we allowed over 100,000 people in this country. About a year ago, there was a study put out by MIT and Yale which increased the estimated number of people in this country illegally from 10 to 11 million to 20 to 22 million people. That is a lot of people. Obviously, we could not forever go on, May after May after May, in which 100,000 people were allowed in this country. That, by the way, is in addition to people who sneak in the country without being detected because we have no wall and we have not adequately funded our Border Patrol. I think experts believe another 10,000 people probably came in, at least 10,000 came into this country in May undetected. Since that time, President Trump has reached agreements with Mexico, in part by threatening tariffs, in part by just general suasion, and we have reduced the number of people coming into this country from over 100,000 in May to, I am told by the Border Patrol, perhaps under 5,000 in September after processing 40,000 to 50,000. This is because President Trump reached an agreement with Mexico that they will hold asylum seekers down there. He has reached out and reached agreements or received help from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, in addition to Mexico, in not only keeping more of their citizens there, but if people try to leave other countries for asylum, more are being kept in places like Mexico, El Salvador, and Honduras. I want to point out, too, that this is not something that Congress helped him with. These are things that he has had to do on his own. There are other things that he is trying to do that Congress should be taking up, but isn't. He has been trying to keep people from coming into this country if they are a public charge. We have enough people who we are taking care of in our country--some through their own fault, some through no fault of their own--on various welfare programs. President Trump tried to say: Hey, we will maybe take people who are working. We will take people who want to come here legally. But courts, including a prominent judge appointed by President Clinton, struck that down. So President Trump was denied the opportunity to prevent people from coming here who are going to be a public charge. President Trump is still waiting--and I hope he does--to do something about birthright citizenship, another situation that I saw when I was on the border in which, obviously, America, being 1 of only 2 of the 40 wealthiest countries in the world to say, if you have a child here, you get to be a citizen. His Border Patrol has been acting with inadequate funding. They have had, up until recently, 2,000 vacancies. They could use more people in addition to that. We are in the process of building 500 miles of wall. It is not going to be enough. But we like to believe we are going to be able to get that done by the end of December. But, in any event, after doing all of these actions, we have done a much better job--I would say the best job we have had in years--of holding down the number of immigrants in this country. Like I said, the sad thing is, largely, this is President Trump acting on his own while Congress tries to remove the immigration crisis from the headlines by spending day after day talking about impeachment, trying to chase some rumor down, or maybe somebody operating under the guidance of a Congressman making charges against President Trump. But I will just ask the American public to keep their eye on the ball, and that ball is immigration. We cannot go back to the days of 100,000 people being allowed in this country every month. We have to make sure that the policies that President Trump has implemented in the last 5 months continue to be implemented. We have to demand from Congress action on the variety of things that they should be doing instead of filling up the press with stories on impeachment. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, it is an honor to be here on the floor of the House of Representatives this 502nd anniversary of Reformation Day. Madam Speaker, prior to discussing immigration policy and the other issues of the day, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).

Mr. GROTHMAN

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

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to address the body on the topic of the recent decline of murders in the United States of America. For people who watch this House, we know that there are all sorts of bad things we can dwell on. We can dwell on the immigration crisis, we can dwell on high healthcare costs, we can dwell on the debt, but recently some relatively good news--we have more work to do--was brought forth, and that is the murder rates for 2018 were published. Largely in this country, murder rates skyrocketed from the early 1960s, when we had the beginning of the welfare culture, the war on the family under Lyndon Johnson, and murder rates rose from around 5 per 100,000 to over 10 per 100,000 in 1980. Murder rates stayed relatively high throughout the 1980s and the early 1990s. Since that time, I think in part because of increased incarceration, those murder rates were falling until 2015. And then, I think in part because of a government that spoke negatively of police, talked about or implied that police shootings were racially motivated, something happened opposite of what had been going on the 25 years before that. All of a sudden for 2 years in a row, the number of people murdered in this country jumped up, jumped up from a low of 4.4 to 5.4 per 100,000 in the years 2015 and 2016. After that, we can talk about whether it was because of this or not, but Donald Trump took over, somebody who ran encouraging support of the police, respect of the police, and the murder rate began to drop a little bit in 2017, and last year, it one more time fell to less than 5 per 100,000. President Trump ran, of course, on respect for police. That is one of the reasons I think people wanted him in there. The prior President, a dignified man, had Al Sharpton in the White House over 80 times. And I think if you look, Barack Obama is praising Black Lives Matter, is encouraging people to view police with distrust, was perhaps one of the reasons why, completely out of the ordinary at a time when the economy was not bad, we had police shootings rise significantly. Now we have a President who, as the yard signs in my district say, ``Respect the Badge'', we have somebody as a President who is more a respect-the-badge sort of guy, and in 1 year we have a decrease in murders in this country--despite the fact the population continues to grow--of 1,000 people; 1,000 lives saved. We have to ask ourselves, why was there a spike in murders before President Trump took office and why was there a reduction in murders after he took office? As I mentioned, I think the embracing of people like Al Sharpton, who encourages disrespect for police, or at least blames them, blames sad shootings on racial motivation, I think that is one of the reasons why you had an increase. You had police who were afraid to do what they could do for fear of being sanctioned. You had people maybe afraid to go to the police to report criminals, perhaps because they were told the police were their enemy. But in any event, in this era, I haven't checked, but I am sure Al Sharpton hasn't been invited to the White House a dozen times in President Trump's first 3 years. I would be surprised if he was there at all, actually. Instead, we have someone who knows that as long as the police are appropriately doing their job, he has their back. And we have seen that significant drop in the last 2 years, which is rare good news that you get. I anxiously await when the statistics come out for the year 2019. We know there was another drop of about 7 percent in the massive city south of me in Chicago, I believe, in the first 7 months of the year. We saw another 10 percent drop in Milwaukee. There was another drop in New York. Is this a coincidence or is it because our police know that they are respected at the highest level of government? So I know when I get back home, I hear some people talk about crime and worry about crime, and there is more work that has to be done. Obviously, having as many people as we have murdered every year is still a figure way too high, but a drop of 1,000 was a significant drop. I hope everybody pays attention to what I believe is another drop that is going to happen in 2019, and I hope everybody realizes that this may not have been just an aberration. One thousand lives are a lot of lives. It could be the result of a policy based on respect for the police, punishing police when they are wrong, no doubt about that, and there are bad police, but not a love affair with Black Lives Matter; respecting the fact that when studies have been done by groups such as the National Academy of Sciences, they find that when police do kill people, it is collectively not a racially motivated or a racial thing. It is, sadly, something that happens because sometimes people do wrong things and it is usually people that are in the process of or are trying not to be apprehended from very dangerous crimes. And a couple times, a few times, it does happen because police make mistakes. But when it is, it shouldn't be used to tarnish police as a whole and it shouldn't be used to come out with the idea that these things are racially motivated. So there is my report on the good news to the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I intend to address the good news that we had a significant drop in murders in this country in 2017 over the recent peak in 2016. However, before I address the House on that matter, I would like to yield to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney), my good friend.

Mr. GROTHMAN

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

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 545.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will address the underlying bills on this rule. I have been at the border three times this year, and while I have been to a lot of workplaces, a lot of work environments, there is nobody I have more respect for than the professional job that the U.S. Border Patrol does of protecting this country, and they do it under the most difficult of circumstances. Last time I was down there, they had 2,000 vacant positions. They were, in May, staffed at a level that was maybe a third of what it should have been, given the huge number of people coming across. In addition to just apprehending people, they had to do mounds of paperwork. They had to, in essence, act as a daycare for all the young people who are sneaking in this country, but they did it without complaining, with the utmost professionalism. I find it hard to believe, after watching these professional Border Patrol agents, that other people went down to the border and felt the problem is we have to tie their hands still more with another ombudsman, more paperwork, inviting people to file false complaints, particularly since we already have an inspector general and an Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in the Department of Homeland Security. So in addition to the watchmen on the Border Patrol, we had all sorts of new people down here. I guess I am still surprised, but maybe I shouldn't be surprised. There are some people who look at an interaction between police and a criminal and think there is something wrong with the policeman and instinctually don't like him. There are people in a corrections facility who look at the corrections officers and the prisoners and automatically think the problem in the corrections facility is the corrections officers. That is what we have down at the border right now, which is being submitted in this bill. Rather than giving a thank-you to our Border Patrol by adding additional people, we give them a kick in the teeth by saying: There must be something wrong with you. We need more people to watch over you, make it easier to file paperwork against you, have you have to look out more than you have in the past--and such a dangerous job. I mean, you figure some of these folks, they are out there in the middle of the night, maybe they catch a caravan of 30 or 50 people sneaking into this country, and one Border Patrol agent is supposed to bring all these people in. What sacrifice for our country. And what do they get from this body? Do they get filling out the empty positions? They don't get that. What they get is a kick in the teeth, saying: We have something wrong with you. Mr. Speaker, I hope we vote against the rule, and I hope we vote against the acts.

Mr. GROTHMAN

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

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, prior to discussing the current state of immigration law, I would like to yield some time to my good friend and colleague, Congressman Duffy, who I think is going to address some important issues of Congress tonight. I hope everybody pays attention because I think, other than perhaps lecturing us on logging and fishing and hunting, this will be his last official speech as a Congressman for a few years. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), my colleague. Final Address to Congress

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, Congress, last week, got back from their time in district in August, and quite a bit happened on the immigration front since then; some good news, some bad news, but it is important to address what Congress has yet to do. I do want to point out the good news. So far this year, we have built or rehabbed 66 miles of the wall on the southern border, and we are on track to do another 390 miles by the end of 2020. When that is done, we will have built 700 miles along the 2,000-mile border. Some more will probably have to be done at that time, but we are, at last, doing this. The other good news is that it is a tremendous wall. That wall is going to be 30 feet high and 6 feet under the ground. I have been down there looking at parts of that wall. There are things that we have done on top of the wall that will make it still more difficult to get over. I am told that, so far, four people have tried to get across the wall and all have failed. For those people who thought a wall does not work, I suggest that they look at that wall that is currently being built. I will point out; the USA will not be the first country to have success with a wall. Israel along the Egyptian border has a wall. India along the Bangladesh border has a wall; a wall, quite frankly, a lot--a border a lot longer than the America/Mexican border; and Hungary has a considerable border wall with Serbia. All those other walls are effective. I am glad the United States is finally getting going on the wall. The next thing I will count as good news on the immigration front is that I was able to attend a ceremony in which legal immigrants were being sworn in, in Milwaukee. Every month in a city as small as Milwaukee, about 400 new citizens are being sworn in. Neither Donald Trump nor virtually any Republican who I am aware of wants to stop those 400 new citizens coming here each month. It is very exhilarating to talk to them. So many of them have already founded their own businesses. Obviously, the rest already have jobs and have spent a considerable amount of time working in this country and are very proud to renounce the citizenship of their native land and become American citizens. Overall, we swear in 700,000 new citizens a year and have 4 million people on work visas. But there is other news that probably can be considered not quite as good. We had 64,000 people cross the border in August. That is down from 144,000 in May, but it is still 20,000 more than it was last year. When we talk about 64,000 people being processed into this country or processed at the border, we don't include other people who haven't even been caught, and those are the most dangerous people of all. Many of the people being processed on the border feel that they will be able to come to this country through an asylum process legally. When people are not checking themselves in at the border, it means they feel they have to sneak through the border and probably have something to hide. While the Border Patrol doesn't know exactly how many people they are not processing, they are guessing it is over 10,000 people a month. That is certainly something that has to be addressed. The next thing to talk about, as far as people coming across the border, is why it is higher than it was a year ago, and why is that still higher than it was 20 or 30 years ago? Some people think the reason so many people try to come across our border is that things are worse in other countries. That is not so. There were times in the relatively recent past in which we had outright civil wars in Central America. People did not come to the United States even though there were civil wars in their home country because they felt they couldn't. They felt the United States would enforce its current immigration laws. The reason we had so many more people try to get in here in the past year is because the word was out in other countries. The word was out among the cartels that escort so many people to this country that the United States was not enforcing its immigration laws. I was at the border again at the end of July, and it was interesting to hear from the Border Patrol that at the time Donald Trump was first elected, they were almost bored at the border. There was nobody trying to come in here. Why was that? Because Donald Trump ran on immigration reform and immigration stability, and they felt they wouldn't have a chance to come to the United States. The reason we had 64,000 people checked in at the border, plus who knows how many sneaking across, in August is the word is still out in other countries that the United States is not enforcing its laws. The question is, what can we do to stop the floodgates of 60,000 people still coming here? First of all, we need more personnel. As we have had a flood of more people coming on the border, the Border Patrol has to spend their time on paperwork, and the Border Patrol has to spend its time babysitting children, not guarding the border. These new employees are less costly than the Border Patrol. I respect the Border Patrol so much after being down there three times. Can you imagine, in the middle of the night, maybe finding 50 people and having to, in essence, arrest them yourself and escort them back to the border? We could use some personnel to do--I don't know what I can refer to it as--the babysitting part of the job, the paperwork part of the job, to free up the Border Patrol so they can enforce the border. Secondly, this Congress that is so quick to spend money on anything can give us more technology at the points of entry, and I would also add more dogs at the point of entry, which do such a great job of identifying people trying to sneak across. Another thing that Congress should do is get rid of birthright citizenship. When I was at the El Paso sector and saw people waiting to come in, it was obvious there were a disproportionate number of pregnant women coming into this country, which is what we have heard. People 6, 7 months pregnant, whether they fly in from Asia or cross the southern border, they come here because the United States is one of only two of the, I believe, the 40th wealthiest countries in the world to have birthright citizenship. Donald Trump had promised to get rid of that when he first ran for election, and I hope that is something he follows up on. Another problem we have is that, right now, families are still allowed in the United States under the Flores settlement after they are here for maybe 20 days. If they were here for 60 days, they wouldn't be able to sneak in this country and disappear into kind of the ether, but they would be able to stay here until they have their court hearing. It is so important for this Congress to pass a law saying that you can keep these families at the border or not let them in the United States for at least 60 days pending their court hearing. While I talk about families at the border, I want to make some other observations that the Border Patrol gave me. First of all, it frustrates them that people coming here get such better healthcare than people who are already here in America. The vast majority of us have some sort of large deductible. They have copays. People coming from other countries when they come to the border are given whatever they want for anything wrong. I can understand that we don't want anything bad to happen to people, but it is an inducement for more people to sneak in here as long as we give away free medical care. The next thing that we need is the ability to return children to their parents. Under current law, we can return unaccompanied children to their parents in Canada and Mexico. We cannot do that to Central American countries. The Central American countries are frustrated that we are taking their youth and bringing them to the United States. These bills are available to be brought to the floor. It is time that Congress act and say we are not going to tear apart families. If we catch a 15-year-old coming into this country from Honduras, we should be able to return them to their parents in Honduras. We shouldn't, as under current law, be required to keep them in this country. It is kind of the ugly America at its worst that we tear apart families and take young children who have fled their parents. The next thing that we have to do is we have to raise the standard of credible fear. We cannot continue to have people come into this country sometimes without the strongest evidence that they are genuinely in fear of what is going on in their country, particularly because, right now, immigration attorneys assist people in allowing them to come into our country. We need more money for ICE to remove illegal immigrants, particularly illegal immigrants who are criminals. Donald Trump must be allowed to continue on his plan of not letting people in this country if they are probably going to wind up on public assistance or welfare. That would be a disaster for their country. If we do these things, I think we can finally secure our border. Again, Donald Trump has done a lot on his own. He has reassigned money that was originally going to the Department of Defense. He has tried to change the way we deal with asylum. Congress has to step up with President Trump and do something: hire more personnel at the border; get more technology at the border; get rid of the birthright citizenship; change the law so we can keep people at the border for 60 days; return children, particularly unaccompanied children, to their parents when they try to sneak in here; change the standard of credible fear. Then we will go the rest of the way toward having a good immigration system. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. H.R. 2134 is legislation to reauthorize the Helen Keller National Center for Deaf-Blind Youths and Adults. The center offers groundbreaking educational programs across the country that help deaf- blind individuals triumph over adversity, just as Helen Keller did more than 50 years ago. By passing today's legislation, we ensure this center can continue its critical work providing our Nation's deaf-blind with the resources needed to lead successful and independent lives. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague, Congressman Pocan, whom I thank for authoring this bill. I once again urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2134, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 2134, the legislation to reauthorize the Helen Keller National Center Act. Originally enacted in 1967, the law established the Helen Keller National Center for Deaf- Blind Youths and Adults. Today's legislation allows the important center--the only organization of its kind--to continue to support individuals with combined vision and hearing loss, as well as their families and service providers. Helen Keller's story is well-known to us all. It is an example of determination and hard work. Not only did she overcome her difficulties, she also worked tirelessly to benefit the lives of others. In doing so, she showed the world there are no boundaries. I would like to read a couple of quotes of Helen Keller: ``Remember, no effort that we make to attain something beautiful is ever lost.'' ``Sometime, somewhere, somehow we shall find that which we seek.'' In an article from 1933, entitled, ``The Simplest Way to Be Happy,'' she wrote: ``A happy life consists not in the absence, but in the mastery of hardships.'' These quotes embody her perseverance. The Helen Keller National Center carries on this message by working to give the deaf-blind community the tools they need to work and thrive in communities of their choice. The center offers hope and dignity to those it serves through on- campus assistive technology education; vocational, orientation and mobility, and communication services; and independent living support through its headquarters in Sands Point, New York. Individuals from across the country travel to their headquarters for these incredible resources. The National Center also provides similar services to local communities in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories. The goal of these programs and services is to advance the personal development and independence of individuals who are deaf- blind. Federal support allows the center to continue its invaluable research and development programs in several areas, including communication techniques and teaching methods. All of this leads to improved program offerings and, ultimately, better lives for deaf-blind Americans and their families. H.R. 2134 will reauthorize the Helen Keller Center through the year 2023, which demonstrates this body's continued commitment to providing deaf-blind youths and adults with opportunities to lead successful, independent lives. By passing this legislation, Congress recognizes the unique needs of individuals who are deaf-blind as well as the unique care and developmental programs they need. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill. Doing so allows us to carry on Hellen Keller's incredible story of independence and success that has given hope to generations of those who are deaf-blind. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Kansas for yielding. I also rise today to speak urging consideration of USMCA. Mr. Speaker, I have been an elected official for a while, and even when I first began this job in the 1990s, I would get complaints from people as to why we couldn't do something about NAFTA. After four Presidents, we watched NAFTA be approved and watched jobs leave America. We finally have a President who is willing to do something about it. As mentioned before, this agreement is important for Wisconsin manufacturers and manufacturers all over the country. Wisconsin, of all of the States, has the second highest percent of our workforce involved in manufacturing, and that is why when I get home, I hear about the importance of this agreement so much. But as important as it is to manufacturing, the major reason why I wish so much this would be brought to the floor is when I go back home, I hear so much from my agriculture sector. This is important for your corn farmer, but it is even more important for your dairy farmer. Dairy is in the worst position it has been, I think, since I was in law school in the 1980s, and I was a law clerk for someone who had a primarily dairy clientele. It was so tough watching what these guys and gals went through in dairy in the 1980s. Now, due to low prices, we are back to where we again and again watch dairy farmers wondering whether they are going to be able to hang on for another week, another month without going under. And here we have this agreement, which has been sitting here waiting to be voted on, and we are not allowed to come in here and vote on it. I beg people. I realize that there may be some things you don't like about President Trump, but he has negotiated a very important agreement here, a very important agreement for manufacturers, a very important agreement for the agriculture sector, especially dairy. Please, do not let this agreement wait any more. Do not drive more people out of business just for partisan reasons. This is such a good agreement. It is so rare that we get a big improvement around here.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of sympathy for the people we are trying to help in H.R. 397, and that is one of the reasons why I feel we need a real solution to this. Obviously, the pension plans are in such horrible shape that to continue with the current system and to continue with this bill would be a very expensive bailout for the taxpayer. Unlike some of my colleagues, I realize that the taxpayer will ultimately have to put something in thes plans. And the reason I say that is the multiemployer pension plan system was set up by Congress in the 1950s, and my guess is, the way it was set up, it is not surprising that it will fail. While the Congressmen who are at fault for this have long since retired and left us, we as a successor Congress, are supposed to do something. However, first of all, I don't think this is a sincere proposal. If it was a sincere proposal, it would have been passed when President Obama was President, and when the Democratic Party was in total control around here, about 10 years ago. We are going to have to, as part of this plan, change things in the future so we don't begin to run up more debt immediately. We are probably going to have to have the taxpayer do something to make up for the damage that has been done in the past, but to pass this bill will only delay that, in that it is really, quite frankly, just a political move. I strongly recommend that we get together, put together a new committee of four or eight people, and begin to do something. We know something has got to be done eventually, because not only do we have these workers hanging out there, but the way this multiemployer pension plan is set up, a lot of businesses are going to go under too unless something is done. But I am saddened today that the bill before us, I don't believe is a bill that, for all their talking, people really believe is a serious solution. Because if it was a serious solution, they would have passed that bill 10 years ago.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, prior to talking about the Census, I just want to make one brief point in response to some of the debate on the other side. I will give some of the speakers a little bit of a project here. When we say the Pledge of Allegiance, we pledge allegiance to the flag and the Republic for which it stands, and perhaps some of the speakers on the other side can do a little research as to why we pledge allegiance to the Republic. Today, again, we are debating because of a potential question on the Census. There are certain people who feel that it would be wrong to ask about citizenship on the Census. I can tell you, as a lawmaker, I would certainly like to know how many people in this country are citizens. I would also like to know how many people are legal or illegal, both of which may affect decisions we make, formulas we make here. I have a bill up--in the past; I already introduced it this year-- that says that people who are noncitizens shouldn't be eligible for public benefits. If that bill were ever to become law, I can easily imagine distributions of money from this place being affected by the results on a Census like that. Other countries do not have problems getting numbers if they ask about citizenship. Canada doesn't have a problem. Mexico doesn't have a problem. That is why the United Nations recommends we ask about citizenship. It didn't result in bad Censuses until 1950. It doesn't result in bad results on the long form or bad results on the Community Survey. It doesn't result in problems in the State of Wisconsin, where we have a citizenship question that you have to answer prior to getting a driver's license. So I wish we would put away this resolution today. I don't think it is right to spend more time debating the Census question. I hope if this does not appear on this Census, that it is eventually put on the Census for 2030.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the current threat coming out of Washington to work centers or community rehabilitation programs. So people understand, these are what used to be referred to as sheltered workshops. People born with disabilities that cause people to have different abilities than most of the rest of us have, frequently now they work in work centers, frequently packaging or other light manufacturing sort of jobs. They sometimes make minimum wage, they sometimes make less than minimum wage. If you have not toured one of these facilities, you have really missed out on one of the joys of life. Here we find people working hard, earning their own paycheck, proud to go to work each day with friends and a social network, sometimes working in the same place for 20 or 25 years, who feel very good about themselves, and, quite frankly, should make the rest of us ashamed if we are ever unhappy in our own life, seeing people so happy with the jobs they have. However, friends of people with different abilities, be they family members, be they guardians, be they just next-door neighbors, have to wake up, because there are small, powerful forces who want to shut down these work centers. Why do they want to do so and how are they going to do it? They are going to do it two ways. Tomorrow, or soon, in this place, we are going to take up what will be publicly discussed as the increase the minimum wage bill. However, the increase the minimum wage bill is going to do something more than just that. It is going to get rid of 14(c) waivers for minimum wage, which allows people to work for less than minimum wage. This is not an oversight. We tried, in something called the Rules Committee, to amend the minimum wage bill. There are people out there who feel it is below people's dignity to ever work for less than minimum wage. People familiar with the sheltered workshops and the abilities of the people there know that already there are people who are not going to be able to find employment at $7.50 an hour. There is no way these folks are going to find employment, or many of these folks are going to find employment, at $15 an hour. What is going to happen when you lose the ability to grant waivers and have somebody make $3 or $4 or $5 an hour? What happens when that disappears? People are no longer going to be able to work in the community, they are no longer going to be able to work at the community rehabilitation centers. These folks are going to wind up sitting at home. They might wind up in day services, but in day services, you don't get the pride of going to work. You aren't going to work every day like your parents did or like your siblings do or like your friends do. You will no longer have the social network that comes with every job, in which you will be able to have the same friends, which are so vital, because family members, parents eventually pass away. It is so important to have this other social network. It is so important to have the self-satisfaction that comes with getting your own paycheck, the self-satisfaction that comes with buying your own clothes, maybe buying gifts for relatives, that people are going to lose if there are no jobs at all. The people who don't like community work centers are also on the attack in the Department of Education. And there, they want to remove the ability for folks in this situation to have competitive integrated employment. They feel we are isolating people in these facilities. First of all, I implore all of my colleagues and anybody who cares about people born with different abilities, to tour facilities like this. Folks in these facilities are not segregated away in some dark corner. Like I said, if you meet them, they are so happy and proud to show visitors the work they are doing. They are more happy than even the average citizen in our society to get their own paycheck and deposit it in a bank and know that they are buying their own clothes or buying things for other people. Everybody should see what we have an opportunity to lose and everybody should ponder what will happen when these facilities are gone, because we are in a situation in which employers are not going to be able to afford to spend $15 an hour for a lot of these folks, just as right now employers are not able to spend $7.50 for these folks. What they will also find is many folks like working in the work centers and prefer working in the work centers to other places in society. Just as people with different abilities perhaps prefer participating in Special Olympics or prefer going to special church services with people in similar situations, folks like this frequently prefer working with their friends in the sheltered workshop. They feel very good about the situation. When these radicals succeed in closing the local work center, it is very difficult for folks like this. Even if you were able to find another job in the community with a work coach, you are no longer working with your friends, you no longer have the continuity of perhaps working with the same people, both in management and on the floor, for 20 or 25 years. If you get a job at a fast food restaurant, even if you are able to work a few hours a week there, there is much more turnover. And frequently people do not like the stress that comes with not working with other people in their own situation. It is time for the parents, the employees, just friends of people with disabilities to stand up and tell Congress, ``Do not be swayed by a loud minority.'' It bothers me when bossy people in Washington think they know what is best for people around the country. It bothers me when they feel that way about anybody, but it especially bothers me when they feel that way about the most vulnerable members of society, because I am convinced there is a loud majority of people, both the people with disabilities and relatives of people with disabilities, who just think that the work centers are going to be there forever. The time has come to fight for the work centers, because there is a radical group who philosophically, apparently, thinks that when the minimum wage is $15 an hour, that jobs are going to spring up for these folks, and that they can shut down the work centers, and that employers are going to say, Sure. We can afford--whatever that is--$600 a week to have someone like this work for us. Guess what? You are going to find almost no jobs. You may find a few employers, kind of as a charity type of thing, will take people in for 3 or 4 hours a week, but that is not like having a job for 30 or 40 hours a week like everybody else in society has. These folks do not want to feel different. They do not want to be different than everybody else. They want to be like their siblings and their friends and their parents and go to work 30 or 35 hours in a week. Just like the rest of us, they like to socialize and have friends who have worked in the same offices or the same factories for years. They do not want to be working 2 or 3 hours a week or not at all. They do not want to be in a situation in which they are stuck with a job coach. Now, I happened to bring along some testimonials that have floated onto my desk as examples, from either people who work in the work centers or parents of people who work in the work centers, and this is typical of what you will find, whether you talk to the parents or the employees. Here is a story, Yael Kerzan's story. And I will just read bits of them. ``Yael does not feel segregated at Northwoods''--which is the local community rehabilitation work center--``because it is a community to her. She values socializing with her longtime friends. The work she does at her CRP helps her be more productive and appropriate'' at a job outside of the work center. ``In addition, Yael's CRP provides a place for her to work when she is not at her'' independent job. ``She does not want to stay home, watch TV and do nothing. If she was not working, she would be miserable. In fact, Yael happily gets up every morning at 4:30a so she has plenty of time to be ready by 6:50a for her ride to work.'' Which, by the way, is typical. I think folks like this have much more pride with their job than a lot of people who at least appear to be born with more. ``Yael wants to work and feel valued. She takes great pride in earning her paychecks and contributing to the household expenses. Yael does not care if she earns minimum wage or not. She feels she is compensated fairly by the special wage she is paid. She understands that she does not work as fast as'' some other folks, ``and therefore is paid according to her productivity. ``Yael would rather be paid the special wage than participate in day services'', which amounts to babysitting, whatever else they call it. Next, another woman from Wisconsin. I want to voice my opinion of passing the bill affecting 14(c). ``I do not want to see sheltered workshops close. Workshops are a meaningful way of life for many people born with disabilities. ``I am not against rehabilitation for individuals that rehabilitation may work for. But believe me, not all individuals born with disabilities are able to work outside of sheltered employment. ``My sister is one. She has been through DVR, has been employed several times, at several different jobs, only to fail. All was well when the job coach was present; not so when they weren't. ``She was abused emotionally and physically by employers. She got the jobs no one else wanted or would do. I could go on and on.'' This woman, again, says her sister would be incredibly damaged if they got rid of the local sheltered workshop. Another person, talking about his daughter. ``Save for 200 sight- words, she remains illiterate, unable to read or write at a level commensurate with the rest of the adult world, unable to discern character differences in others (which has led to others taking unfair advantage of her time and again), unable to grasp complex subject matter or multipart instruction, unable to understand numbers, let alone grasp the concept of arithmetic,'' it makes it very difficult for her to do normal independent employment. ``Thankfully, the only positive light in her'' life ``has been the Black Hills Works here in Rapid City, South Dakota . . .'', here again, a community support provider. Another example of a person with different abilities, whose joy in life comes from working at the work center. And we have people who want to shut down these work centers because they feel the people are segregated there. And we have people who want to shut down the work centers because they feel, for some bizarre reason, that there is no dignity in working for less than $7.50 an hour, or soon to say there is no dignity in working for less than $15 an hour. I realize this isn't primarily what the minimum wage bill is about. But, again, I will emphasize, it is not accidental that they are getting rid of the right to work for less than minimum wage. These people know exactly what they are doing. There were opportunities to amend this bill in committee and opportunities to amend this bill in the Rules Committee, and we will not have a chance to make exceptions for these people with different abilities on the floor. There are radicals who believe it should be against the law for them to work for less than $15 an hour, which means, as a practical matter, it will be against the law for them to work. And what it will do is it means they will have to go back either to sitting at home watching TV or going to work centers, which is, like I said, tantamount to babysitting. Maybe nice babysitting. But they will know very well they are no longer working like normal productive people. They will know very well that now they are just being taken care of and babysat. These adult people should have the right to work. It is not up to these people in Congress, or people in the Department of Education, or the Department of Labor to tell them it is against the law to work for $5 an hour, particularly given their situation. Another testimonial: ``My husband and I are parents of identical twin sons, 35 years of age, who have autism, schizophrenia, seizure disorder, and they stutter. ``They have received services from Black Hills Works, a community support provider, in Rapid City, South Dakota, since the end of the fiscal year when they reached their 21st birthday. ``Because of this sheltered work environment, they were able to learn basic job skills, which have now enabled them to obtain employment in the competitive work realm. ``Because of their autism and mental health issues, it takes a long time and a lot of patience to develop routines that help them adjust to the rigors of a workplace . . . '' They were only able to do this because of the 14(c) waivers, which allow them to work for less than minimum wage. ``My son Jonathan is a delightful, nonverbal, autistic 20-year-old man. Powerfully built, he has a supercharged energy and a deep well of affection for loved ones and his iTunes library. ``But Jonny is also profoundly intellectually impaired. Accomplishing even simple tasks requires vigorous prompting and continuous oversight, and chances are that along the way he might bite, stand on, or even throw his chair. As muscular and lovable though he may be, his chances of landing a competitive job are exactly zero.'' But I am sure Jonathan, right now, is proud of the job he has. I am sure, like all the people I see when I tour my workshops, they are so proud to show me what they have accomplished, they are so proud to talk about their paycheck, and they are so proud to talk about the new Packers jersey they bought or whatever. You are taking that right away from people by having people in Washington, who think they know better, say: No, Jonathan, just go out in the community. Find your $15-an-hour job. Guess what? Jonathan ain't going to find a $15-an-hour job, and Jonathan is going to lose the joy he has and the satisfaction he has in the job he currently has. I am Leslie and I am disabled. Eventually I will be able to go in the community and make minimum wage, maybe, although some people may not be able to work out in the community. I think it would be sad if they do not have the option to make less than minimum wage. These folks look out for each other. I started my first support employment program in 1985 and strongly believe in the right to access employment and to receive necessary accommodations. The use of 14(c) is a necessity. Many people with significant disabilities cannot successfully perform a job to industry standards. 14(c) opens the door to those who fit in this picture. It allows the person to actually set his or her own standard and to increase pay as their performance improves. We need a full range of services and to recognize the reality of challenges many people have and then to support their strengths through 14(c) and other accommodations. I will also point out that people who are asked to work in the community may be able to work in the community but don't like it because of the stress it puts on them to do a job that is very difficult for them to do. A lot of times what happens is some of these folks find a job for maybe 4 or 5 hours a week in the community and 30 hours a week in the work center. Frequently, they prefer their job in the work center because it is at a pace which they are more comfortable handling. And they are working with people who are the same people they have worked with over a period of years. Another testimonial: I like working here and I make less than minimum wage. People should have the option to work at a company that pays less than minimum wage or work in the community and make minimum wage. I don't want to work in the community. I like coming here and making friends also with my coworkers and making money. What these people are doing is they are taking away the freedom from people. I think it is so arrogant for people who purport to be looking out for the disabled people in our society to say, I am taking away an option from you because I know best. Again and again you meet people who are very happy in the work centers and it is horrible to take away that option. I had a job about 10 years ago, but I got very sick and I lost it. I am here making boxes and palletizing and going to class and stuff. I like to come to work and continue making money every day. I know I don't make minimum wage. It is okay I don't make minimum wage. I am not as fast as I used to be. I like my friends. I love my job. I don't like to stay at home. It is boring. I hope we don't take away this guy's option. I work in the community at Publix, but I don't get very many hours. 14(c) helps me supplement my hours so I have something to do when I am not at the grocery store and can still make some money. If the workshop went away, I would have to find someplace else. I like coming here and it gives me something to do and helps my friend. Here, I am going to make a point. A lot of these folks do find something in the community for 4 or 5 hours a week. Now, I am going to let people wonder when somebody works only 4 or 5 hours a week, particularly in this employment, why that is. Some of these lack-of- common-sense advocates feel that if somebody is able to find a job for 4 hours a week at the local grocery store, they should be able to find a job for 36 hours a week at the local grocery store. I will tell you, if you talk to the owners of these places, which are very nice people, frequently they are giving out jobs kind of as a community service, which is why these folks are only working 4 to 6 hours a week at one of these places. They are not going to be able to get jobs for 35 or 36 hours a week. And when the sheltered workshop closes, it is not going to be replaced with a job in the community. It is going to be hour after hour sitting at home watching TV, or it is going to be at day services, which amounts to babysitting. They are going to lose the satisfaction and pride that comes with work, and they are going to lose the independence of getting their own paycheck and not being as dependent on government support. I like getting a paycheck. I used to have a job in the community, but I fell and couldn't keep up. I love working in the workshop until I can get another job in the community. If there was no workshop, I would just color all day. I like having work to do. Bingo. And there are people who would be happy to just have day services and have somebody color all day and not have the satisfaction of having a job. I am a person with a disability who knows that not everyone can work in a job in the community. It takes hard work in being able to follow directions. Sometimes bosses are hard on you and want you to do more than you can. It is not easy to have a job and follow all the rules. I have friends who got fired or quit because it is hard. Why can't people with disabilities have choices? Some people might say they want to work, but when they do leave a sheltered workshop, they come back because it is hard out there in the work world. Maybe there are some agencies holding people back who really can work, bagging groceries or doing janitorial work. But there are very good agencies out there who are giving people with significant disabilities an opportunity to earn money because they can't work in the community. Please, please, please consider people with IDD and low IQ and not make this work go away. I have many regular jobs, but I like my program because it is not as stressful and more understanding. Staff are easy to talk to and you don't have to worry if the place will be staffed. Someone is there. Regular jobs are a lot harder. Applications are online, and that is not easy. Some people are not understanding in a competitive job. Communication is hard. They don't understand disabilities. I don't get minimum wage, but it is not worth it. The more work I do, my pay goes up. I am not forced to do anything I can't do. Breaks and hours are better than at another job. I feel like I work more on a team than I ever have. Other jobs don't give you enough time. I think my program is cool and gets people ready for regular jobs, if they want to. Don't take away 14(c). It would hurt me. I get to be with my friends and make money, too. Again, this person is pointing out that frequently people in these work centers are working with people with similar abilities, they enjoy being with people with similar abilities, and it is more stressful not being with people with these abilities. So even if other jobs are available, you are sometimes hurting these people, and you should not be telling them what they should be doing. I work at a 14(c) program. Programs like mine perform a valuable service by offering much-needed alternatives to workplace environments that people with intellectual disabilities may not be totally comfortable with. The staff are much more tolerant and understanding of the difficulties that people with disabilities have versus staff at a CI environment. Ever since I was a little kid, people such as teachers and relatives have all tried to push me to be as normal as possible, but with programs like this I can be myself. I guess I will wrap it up. There are other testimonials that I can read. I will wrap it up by saying that the silent majority has to speak up. And I would strongly encourage my colleagues to tour the local work centers. It will make them feel better to see how these people are working. It will make them feel better to see the pride that these folks take in a job. If they talk to them, they will tell them how much they enjoy working in the work center. And then they can ask themselves, if this minimum wage bill passes as is, if the new rules that are proposed in the Department of Education go forward, they will ask themselves, What will become of these folks? They should feel very guilty when they charge ahead, not paying attention to what the most vulnerable members of society will have happen to them, because people in this institution, or bureaucrats a few buildings away, have decided that they know best what is for people other than themselves and have decided against all common sense that everybody in our society is capable of making $15 an hour. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN

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

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, on July 12, 2019, the House voted to pass the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2020. I missed the vote and was not recorded due to a previously scheduled engagement in Wisconsin with President Trump. Had I been present I would have voted no on Roll Call 473.

Mr. GROTHMAN

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

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