Glenn Grothman

Mr. GROTHMAN

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

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

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for their collaborative effort to bring this bill forward. I do rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 3354, which should be amendment No. 46. This amendment deals with project-based rental assistance rather than tenant-based rental assistance. It suffers from the same problems, however. One more time, our President, when he introduced his budget looking at the $20 trillion deficit, decided to reduce this program a little bit. And it probably would be good to reduce the program a little bit because, like many of these programs, it is fundamentally flawed in that it discourages work and also discourages marriage. I have looked at some of these housing projects in my district, and it is again irritating that people who are getting free housing sometimes have better housing than people who are paying for their own housing; therefore, I make the modest request to get rid of the increase in the current budget. I am not going as far as our President who actually decreased this line, but I think it is fair to reduce the current bill by $266 million, which is the increase in the current year. Again, I think, as opposed to when this bill was originally put together, we have had a couple hurricanes which I think would cause everybody in this building to realize that insofar as we can spend any more money in this budget, it should be focused a little bit more on the people in Texas and Florida, and we should not be increasing other programs. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman and ranking member for their collaborative effort to bring this bill forward. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 3219. Nothing is more important than the safety of our men and women in uniform, and I believe that we in Congress are committed to ensuring our armed services receive the best equipment possible. This equipment includes platforms like the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, or JLTV. This vehicle is the centerpiece of the Army and Marine Corps' tactical wheeled vehicle modernization strategy and closes an existing critical capability gap for both services. The JLTV demonstrates many significant improvements over the current vehicle fleet, including strengthened protection for passengers against current and future battlefield threats, more payload capacity, and better automotive performance. This is basically what replaces years ago what you would call your Jeep. Anybody who talks to veterans or hears about people being injured and all, so many of them died or were seriously injured driving in a vehicle that hit an explosive. These vehicles are going to be a dramatic improvement over what we have now as far as saving lives in our troops. As long as we have troops in Afghanistan, it is important that, as quickly as possible, we deliver the best equipment possible. To achieve that goal, Congress should maintain its support for the existing JLTV acquisition plan. Recently, we in the House passed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2018. My amendment to this appropriations bill would simply transfer funds from the operations and maintenance account in the bill and then appropriate those funds to the JLTV program to bring them in line with what we in the House authorized in the NDAA. The JLTV program supports American jobs with more than 300 suppliers from 30 States. Pure and simple, the JLTV platform will save lives and improve our troops' effectiveness in the field. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the Appropriations Committee for the hard work they have done. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, one good thing about voting for this bill is the rhetoric we are hearing from this Chamber today. It sounds like the drumbeat from high school guidance counselors, college recruiters, and politicians kowtowing to the education lobby that everybody has to go to a 4-year college or that it is even wise for people to go to a 4- year college is beginning to come to an end. I am glad, under this bill, we are going to make it easier for students to get a degree focused on skills. For some, that degree could be 1 year; for some, it could be 2 years. Frequently, these degrees lead to jobs that are higher paying than many jobs that you get after you have a 4-year degree. Not only are they higher paying, but I think they result in more job security because you are not a generalist who will get laid off when you are 45 or 50 and not find a job. But if you have a skill, that skill is something in which you can still get a job when you are 50, 55, 60, or 65. Therefore, I am proud to announce for this bill today.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak as well on the Working Families Flexibility Act. Over a period of time, a lot of the rules and regulations that this body has passed, it becomes apparent they are one-size-fits-all and lack common sense. I am glad to be a cosponsor of this bill which gives people the flexibility, if they work more than 40 hours in a week, they can take the cash if they need the cash. But for some people, either because of life circumstances or because they are just less materialistic, they don't want that cash. They would rather spend time with their family. I think particularly in today's world where so many people live in two-parent families in which both people work, a lot of people would love to spend a day with their children instead of having their children in daycare. I think it is right that people should have the freedom to do that. We recognize for government employees we frequently have comp time in which if they work more than 40 hours a week, they can come back, spend more time with their family, or maybe just spend more time on recreation. It is high time we give that freedom to people in the private sector, high time to put family first, and we all have to remember that even though some people always want more money, some people say there are other things in life that are more important.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 241.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, those of us in this institution talk about we are a country of laws. However, over time, more and more of the statements that we have to live by are not laws. They are rules and regulations. Therefore, when the Whistleblower Protection Act was passed in 1989, I am not sure at the time whether it was intended to cover rules and regulations, but, as a practical matter, I think Federal employees will run into problems in which they are asked to disobey rules and regulations even more than statutory laws themselves. On June 7 of last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in Rainey v. Merit Systems Protection Board that, while laws were covered by the Whistleblower Protection Act, rules and regulations were not, at least if you weren't a Federal employee. Why is it relevant that we have to make up for the problems caused by this decision? Dr. Timothy Rainey was a State Department employee who, while serving as a contracting officer in 2013, was ordered by his superior to violate the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Dr. Rainey refused and was subsequently removed from his duties. When Dr. Rainey invoked the right-to-disobey provision of the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Merit Systems Protection Board ruled the law only protected him from violating Federal laws, but such protections don't apply to rules or regulations. Dr. Rainey appealed the case, and the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the Protection Board ruling and, in doing so, exposed a glaring inconsistency in the application of the act. What does this mean? Federal whistleblowers play an important role in exposing mismanagement, the rampant mismanagement at Federal agencies, and supporting the oversight work of Congress. Critical to them is the Whistleblower Protection Act which provides Federal workers with certain legal safeguards to disclose information that an employee reasonably believes evidences gross mismanagement, waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a violation of the law. This ruling will take away the protections when they stand up to bad actors in the Federal workforce. In effect, this ruling will give permission to supervisors in positions of authority to force Federal workers to violate the rules and regulations that Congress, through law, directs the agencies implement. Regardless of your opinion about certain rules, we should not leave, exposed, Federal workers who are just trying to follow the rules instead of obeying supervisors who want them to disobey the rules and regulations. The bipartisan Follow the Rules Act, which I am an original cosponsor of, will close this loophole created by the court's ruling and ensure that Federal employees have protections for refusing to violate the rules and regulations in addition to the law. I ask support for this bill.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleagues to vote for the bill. The reason I ask you to vote for the bill is kind of like the reverse: What is going to happen if this bill fails? If this bill fails, you won't be able to have the huge increase in funding in HSAs, a free-market, patient-centered tax provision which is going to help many people and particularly allow flexibility for older married couples. If this bill doesn't pass, we are going to continue to levy fines on young people who don't want health insurance, as so many people have not had when they are young. We will continue to levy fines on small business that can't afford health insurance. If this bill fails to pass, we are not going to allow States to put work requirements on Medicaid. Quite frankly, Medicaid, in many ways, is a more generous policy than the one that people who do work are able to afford through their insurers. If this bill doesn't pass, we won't be able to stop the bleeding on Medicaid funding. We are approaching a $20 trillion debt. Of course, the bulk of that spiraling debt is caused by mandatory spending, of which Medicaid is one of the worst parts. Finally, for the first time in years, we are passing a law that will make a significant dent in that mandatory spending. If this bill isn't passed, we prevent putting a provision in here requiring documentation of citizenship for Medicaid. Right now, we are becoming the healthcare provider for the world. We cannot afford to become the healthcare provider of the world. Under this bill, we are providing funds, seed money for high-risk pools for States, which will hold down insurance costs, which is the underlying problem we have here. If this bill doesn't pass, we continue to fund abortion providers. I think this is the best bill in decades for those of us who wish we would stop funding these organizations. We are providing assistance for people who can't get insurance through their employer. It is high time the Tax Code provided equality for people who get insurance from their employer and those who don't. Finally, if we don't pass this bill, we don't end ObamaCare.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Already a third of the counties only have one provider. If we don't pass this bill now, we are going to go into the next year and we are going find a lot of people who think they have ObamaCare but have nothing because there will be no providers left. We have got to step in to save those people and provide insurance in those counties in which ObamaCare will leave no insurance companies remaining.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Chairman, it is not a surprise, when you try to take over such a sizable chunk of America's economy, that you have all sorts of unintended bad consequences. I am going to focus on two consequences that are true of so many programs that the government puts out there. First of all, ObamaCare is one more program that discourages work. If you talk to your accountants again and again, they will tell you stories of people who are very conscious of the fact that, as they get a raise, as they work more overtime, they lose big subsidies. If I were to lose my next election, ObamaCare would continue. As my income would go up from $49,000 to $50,000, I would get hammered with a $4,500 loss. So it wouldn't be surprising that people in my position would be very careful not to get a raise or not to work overtime. Even worse, this is one more government program that discourages marriage. If you have a single parent who is making $20,000 and if he decided to marry somebody making $30,000 or $40,000, he would be hammered with a $3,500 loss. Combined with the FoodShare program, the low-income housing subsidies, Pell grants, and various TANF programs, this is just one more step that the American Government has taken to discourage work and to discourage marriage.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, as we look at this bill, what is it about? It is saying that you have got to pay overtime to somebody who is making more than $47,000 a year. What will that mean? It will mean that employers will say: You had better get out of here; we can't have you working more than 40 hours a week. That is what is going to happen. I am reminded of a buddy of mine back home in my district. His daughter had a new job working for salary. He told her: Always make sure you are the first person to show up in the morning and the last person to go home at night, and you will advance in that company. She was the first person to show up in the morning and the last person to go home at night, and she is having a very successful career by doing so. What this bill does is it is kind of an odd thing. It makes it against the law to work hard. Think about that gal now. Now she won't be able to be the first person to show up in the morning and the last person to go home at night because her boss is going to say: Get out of here. It is part of a pattern we are, sadly, seeing from this administration of discouraging hard work. Just like ObamaCare, if you work more hours, then you wind up losing your ObamaCare subsidy. You had better not work hard. There is a plethora of welfare programs around here. I don't care if it is the earned income tax credit, food stamps, low-income housing, whatever; if you work hard, then you will lose your subsidy. We are doing all we can in this country to penalize the hardworking. Furthermore, think just on a day-to-day basis what it means to you as an employee who has worked for salary. Let's say you have to work on a project. It gets near 5 o'clock, and you are not satisfied with your work product. What are you supposed to do? Turn in a bad work product to your boss, or hang around another hour and do a good job? This, in essence, removes the choice from you: I have got to turn in a bad work product because my boss is going to kick me out of here at the end of 8 hours. So my final plea is this. Come, Republicans; come, Democrats, race to the Chamber and vote for the bill, H.R. 6094, and stand up for the hardworking of our society.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 248, I was in a very important meeting. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, one of the frustrating things about the Federal Government is that it acts without realizing the hardship it is causing other people. The reason for this bill is that, recently, the IRS decided not to publish in paper form Publication 17, which is a necessary publication for anybody who has a moderately difficult income tax return to prepare. There are two classes of people who are affected by this-- first of all, the people who do their own returns. Like many other agencies, the IRS only looks at the costs that it is directly imposing on the citizenry. It doesn't look at the costs it is indirectly imposing on the citizenry. In this country, the average cost of a professionally prepared tax return is easily over $200. If we turned around and billed everybody $200 from the government, obviously, we couldn't pass that bill around here; but because of the complexity of our Internal Revenue Code and of people having to go out and pay that $200, we don't associate it with a tax, but it makes people poorer just as if we had directly increased their taxes. When you don't provide copies of instructions for a tax return, you are punishing people who are trying to save that $200, $250, $300 by doing their own returns. Secondly, you are disproportionately affecting people who cannot navigate the Internet as well--in other words, our older population. It just seems offensive--as you have older people out there, some who are not familiar with the Internet--saying: No. No. We won't go with paper for now. That, again, is kind of--I guess I will call it--elitism on the part of the IRS because it doesn't need the paper form. It is saying the 75- or 80-year-old who is still doing his return doesn't need the form. We are, therefore, asking for this bill to be passed and are asking the IRS to, one more time, have sympathy for the people who may not have the additional $200, $250, $300 to pay a professional preparer and for the older citizens who may not be comfortable preparing their return online.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, it is always a big decision when you name a local post office after somebody. I think people should investigate Maya Angelou a little bit and perhaps Google ``Maya Angelou'' and look at other articles in places like the ``American Thinker'' or ``The American Spectator.''

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. First, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma and my colleague from Missouri for saying such nice things about Lieutenant Colonel Megellas. I also thank Senator Johnson, who did a good job of getting this through the U.S. Senate. Mr. Speaker, as has been said, Lieutenant Colonel Megellas was born in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, and went to school in Ripon, Wisconsin, before he joined the military. He was truly a hero of the Greatest Generation. His most notable battle experiences included action in the Italian mountains near the Anzio beachhead, his combat jump into Holland as part of the Operation Market Garden, his crossing of the Waal River under heavy German fire in broad daylight, and the Battle of the Bulge in January of 1945, when he singlehandedly destroyed a German Mark V Panther Tank and led his platoon on one of the most distinctive actions of the war without there being a single American casualty. We have also offered a private bill that tries to get Mr. Megellas the Medal of Honor for his actions during the Battle of the Bulge. Today, Mr. Megellas lives in Colleyville, Texas, with his wife, Carole. I have met him and it was just tremendous. Currently he is 98 years old. In a couple of weeks he will be 99. He is as sharp as a tack and is agile. I am very honored to be able to introduce this bill, and I just can't look forward enough to the day in Fond du Lac when I will see Lieutenant Colonel Megellas' name up there at the post office on 2nd Street.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, in an era where people are so easily offended, where nativity scenes are shut down, where racism is claimed at the tiniest of circumstances, it is surprising that, in 2015, the Federal Government is still funding Planned Parenthood. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, once wrote: ``We don't want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.'' You can see that is a little bit out of context, but there is no doubt that Margaret Sanger is connected with some of the ugliest periods in our country's history involving racism or eugenics. Her endorsements of promiscuity and opposition to Christian teachings and sexual conduct are well known. To this day, Planned Parenthood counsels minors without parental consent. If you really want to strike a blow for equality and strike a blow for not offending people, we should stop spending the hundreds of millions of dollars we do every year on Planned Parenthood.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I love America. America should be number one, and America's capital should be number one. I love to talk to immigrants who do so much of the work in our Capital City. They all know America is great. They gush about how anybody can work in America and realize the American Dream. But when I ask about their kids and where they go to school, they almost uniformly send their kids to Maryland or Virginia schools. Even immigrants who can barely speak English and come from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Eritrea, or Nigeria know that D.C. schools mean stay away. How embarrassing for our country that new immigrants who barely speak English view our Nation's Capital schools with contempt. Finally, President Obama, we love you and Michelle for the love you show your daughters. You show your love for your daughters by spending some of your substantial salary to keep your daughters out of the D.C. Public Schools. Please, President Obama, show a little love for the children who don't have such wealthy parents and sign the SOAR Act.