Glenn Grothman

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Fire Department of Cascade, Wisconsin on 100 years of service to their community. The Cascade Fire Department has a long and proud history of providing fire protection services to the Village of Cascade, the Town of Lyndon, and the Town of Mitchell. On September 2, 1915, a group of citizens met in Cascade to discuss the formation of a fire department. This newly formed department started out with just $681 worth of firefighting equipment. Over the next several years, they acquired more advanced firefighting equipment and learned advanced firefighting practices to make firefighting safer and more effective to make our communities safer. I am grateful to the members of our local fire departments who put their lives on the line to keep their communities healthy and safe. The towns and villages across America continue to enjoy peace of mind knowing that their own community members are willing to step up and protect their neighbors. I join with the people of Cascade, Lyndon, and Mitchell to offer a heartfelt thank you to the Cascade Fire Department for their service. It is a privilege to represent such fine public safety officers in Congress.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, well, one of the many reasons that this is a good bill is that it recognizes that the Federal Government is taking too much control over education in this country. One of the reasons the Federal Government should not get involved in many, many things is they are not very nimble. When they make a mistake, rather than turning something around--you know, if a school board makes a mistake, they may come back in a meeting 2 weeks later and undo the mistake they made. When the Federal Government makes a mistake, it can take 15 or 20 years, if ever, to admit they made a mistake. Now, when the original No Child Left Behind bill passed, I used to meet with school superintendents a couple times a month. They knew within months that that bill was horribly flawed. Chairman Kline has worked very hard on this bill. It is a very good bill, but it is still a very big, complicated bill. And I am sure within months, years, a couple of years, local superintendents will report changes they want to have made. I think this is a very good amendment because, even though it doesn't assure us that we are going to revisit this in 4 years any more than the original No Child Left Behind we were sure we were going to revisit in 7 years, I think it reminds Congress that at least in a 4-year period you ought to be looking at it, see what your local superintendents think, see what your local schoolteachers think, and see if it can be improved. And, of course, it is going to be able to be improved in 4 years. So that is the reason for the amendment. I mean, if you told anybody back home we are passing a law and we don't anticipate even looking at it again for 4 years, I think they would think that is highly unusual. That defines one of the reasons why we shouldn't get the Federal Government involved in a wide variety of things.

Mr. GROTHMAN

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

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, first of all, the gentlewoman from Maine makes a point not about this amendment specifically, but about the overall program. And that is you have a situation right now in which, apparently, the Department of Natural Resources is making a determination that we have unsafe air based upon fires that are hundreds of miles away that the local people can't do anything about. Secondly, the gentlewoman says it is tying the hands of local units of government. That is not true. Under this amendment, the local units of government have more flexibility. The question is can the Federal Government tie the hands of local units of government, which they shouldn't be able to do. So it is a good amendment. I think it is something that is going to, in the long term, benefit American business and, even more, benefit American individuals, particularly poor people, who don't have a lot of extra money, are stuck spending a lot more money on their cars because of determinations made by Federal bureaucrats in far-away cities who probably have enough money to be able to afford to deal with these problems anyway. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, right now, the Environmental Protection Agency makes the determination whether a county is what they call a nonattainment zone based on readings, the amount of ozone that various monitors come up with. If you are a nonattainment zone, it results in problems for both individuals and business. Individuals in counties in my area have two problems. First of all, if you are nonattainment, you might have to have gasoline that is probably a little bit inferior in quality, as well as more expensive. I always think the price of gasoline is an important thing because it doesn't matter; either wealthy or poor, it is something you have to be able to afford. If you are knocking up your price of gasoline by 5 or 10 cents a year, that can be a very damaging thing for someone who doesn't have that great a salary. Secondly, if you are a nonattainment zone, every car has to be checked for emissions. Maybe there are some wealthy environmentalists that it is no big deal--if their car fails the emissions test, they can afford to spend another $900 on a catalytic converter or something wildly more expensive. For somebody not well off, it maybe puts you in a position which you have to buy a whole new car. It is another problem for businesses. Manufacturing is very important to this country. If you crack down on a business and say that you have to do different things to affect the amount of ozone that may be emitted from your factory, it can be very cost prohibitive and put American business at a competitive disadvantage. These determinations are made by air monitors. In every county, the amount of ozone that is detected by these monitors may vary greatly from one part of the county to another part of the county. It is our opinion that sometimes in the past, in my district, if you put an air monitor right on Lake Michigan, due to the effect the sun has on the water, you might get disproportionately high readings and wind up having to put your individuals and businesses in a situation which they are in nonattainment. This is particularly onerous because, sometimes, whether or not you have a high ozone rating or not has nothing whatsoever to do with anything that is going on within your county. My district, for example, is maybe 70 miles from Chicago, where most of the pollutants come from; so here you are, stuck trying to make your air cleaner and cleaner, and there is very little you can do to affect it anyway. In any event, it seems fair that you should be able to put an air monitor anywhere within that county. You shouldn't have a situation in which, in the past, an air monitor was placed at an area where you got a disproportionately high reading. The purpose of this amendment is to say that the Environmental Protection Agency, that I am sure has a budget tight as a drum, should not have to waste any time worrying about where that air monitor is and where we are determining whether or not we have an ozone problem in a county. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, on passage of H.R. 2685, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, I would have voted ``yes'' had I been present for the final roll (Roll no. 358).

Mr. GROTHMAN

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

Mr. GROTHMAN. The first thing we should look at when we look at this budget is cost, and this is one program that is going up in cost. We are still in a position in this budget in which we anticipate borrowing about 14 percent. We have the $18 trillion debt. This amendment will reduce the cost in this budget by $300 million, which by itself is nothing to sneeze at, but the real reason for this amendment is the perverse incentives in Section 8 and other tenant- based rental assistance programs. All of these programs are conditioned upon, first, having little or no income. It is wrong to encourage people not to work. As I get around my district, I find so many employers who cannot find employees today, in part, because they feel it pays better not to work. Secondly, and more importantly, this program, like so many other programs designed to help poor people, has a huge marriage penalty associated with it. In order to get this low-income housing, it almost encourages one--it does encourage one--to have children without a mother and father at home. To continue this program or even expand this program to more people is to just destroy the moral fiber of America. This amendment is tailored to not include or not reduce low-income housing for the elderly or disabled. I am aware of the fact that we have people in this country on Social Security maybe making $500 a month, and they may find it very difficult to find anywhere else to live, so I am not chipping away at that part of the program. I will give you an example. In my district, I talked to someone who ran one of these low-income projects--not Section 8, but more of a project-based one--and they were very proud of what nice, low-income housing it was. It was very nice, very generous. They pointed out the only thing you needed to do to get these apartments for $25 a month was to not have a job. Now, can you imagine anything so foolish as to encourage people to not have a job? In any event, I hope this amendment passes. I hope there is nobody else in this room who would have any objection to this commonsense amendment designed to restore the moral fiber that made America great. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. I do not give up hope that, by the time this budget rolls around next year, you see the wisdom of the amendment. I think a lot of people get confused when they find waiting lists for this sort of program. If you are handing out apartments for $25 a month, of course, there are going to be waiting lists; so that is not surprising. Even then, there are certain areas in my State, in my district, where they are trying to find people who are not in the local area to fill these units because there is an excess of units. Nevertheless, I think you want to think about the perverse incentives you have in a program in which, the more you work, the more your rent goes up. In order to get in, in the first place, you almost can't work at all; and, secondly, what the long-term effect on our society is if you would tell somebody that, if they raise a child out of wedlock, you get a free, air-conditioned, maybe two-bedroom, two-bath apartment, but if you get married to somebody with a job, you lose that apartment--is that the type of incentive we want for the next generation? I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GROTHMAN. I think all we talked about in that last amendment applies to this amendment, with one additional thing that people should find offensive, because here we are dealing with project-based rental assistance. Not only are we encouraging some people not to work very hard, not only are we encouraging people not to raise children in an old- fashioned nuclear family, we are also kind of having a strong element of corporate welfare here, too, which is something I don't care for. Over time, we have this kind of industry growing up in which you operate low-income housing. In some ways, I assume people are entering into it because it is more profitable than a pure, free market sort of thing; and I would think that people who are opposed to corporate welfare ought to be opposed to it for that reason as well. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. First of all, I would like to clarify something in the amendment. The amendment does not apply to people who were receiving rental assistance--and neither did the other amendment--prior to October 1 of this year. It is not a matter of kicking people out; it is a matter of not putting any further people on. Furthermore, I think we have to discuss how generous this benefit is. There are so many people in our society who are living with parents, living with other family members, living with roommates, and working to afford that rent. To give somebody a freestanding apartment--some of these are very nice apartments, two-bedroom, two-bath, air-conditioned apartments--without having to work at all to receive that apartment is just a horrible incentive. I would ask the gentleman to go back in his district and talk to people who live in the neighborhoods where they have these subsidized projects. One of the things I find is that sometimes people who live in maybe high-end areas and are not familiar with these get confused. I think, if you talk to people who know people who live in this subsidized housing, you will have no problem finding many anecdotes of people who are clearly not hurting materially; and, in order to keep their subsidies going, they cannot work, work harder, or get raises. Above all, they can't get married. I think you have to ask yourself whether we ought to continue these programs that are around year after year after year or whether it is high time to look at these programs; change the underlying qualifications; change the time limits; change the amount that has to be paid; and, quite frankly, also sometimes look at the very generous accommodations that the government is providing, quite frankly, more generous accommodations than a lot of people who are working quite hard have. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN

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

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to be here. It shows different people look at this budget and see different things. I look at this budget and see a $614 million increase in Section 8 housing, and I look at the huge debt we have, and I say: Why are we spending more? Other people apparently look at the $614 million increase and say: Why, that is just a pittance. Obviously, a 3 percent increase in any program at a time we are in the huge debt we are should be viewed skeptically. I have an amendment here to get rid of the $614 million increase. Now, as I understand, the reason there is an increase is because we are getting in less receipts on the Section 8 housing and, therefore, we feel that the citizens of this country have to make up the difference. My opinion is they have done nothing that we have to take more out of their pocket, either in taxes or by way of inflation, and we should not be increasing this funding by $614 million. In the debate over the last amendment it was said that there is a waiting list on a lot of these programs. That doesn't mean we have to spend more money on the programs. If we are giving away something for free, there is always going to be a waiting list. If you go out in society, if a store says, we are going to give away something for free, you have a waiting list, right? This is a flawed program for a couple of reasons. I don't object to using it for disabled people. I don't object to using it for elderly people. But like many welfare-related programs, two things help you in eligibility for this program. First of all, you are required not to work very hard. And the gentleman made a point that the income level of a lot of these people in the projects isn't that high. That is because if they made more money, they wouldn't be eligible for the generous subsidies. So, of course they are not making a lot of money. It is wrong to set up a program that discourages industry. The second thing wrong with this program is it discourages marriage. A lot of these housing things are set up such that if somebody marries the mother or father of their children who is working harder, you lose the subsidy. I can't imagine anything more foolish than setting up a program that says we will give you an apartment if you raise a child out of wedlock, but if you get married, we will take away your apartment. The last time we really looked at this program was 1994. It is time we look at it again. And the idea of pouring another $614 million into this program is out of line. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, as you know, we are very in debt in this country. This budget is on path to balance the budget eventually years down the road, but, really, we should be looking to cut spending right now. You look at things the Federal Government is paying for that should be done locally, and one of those things is these new capital improvements on mass transit projects. I think normally these things do not get the ridership that justifies these projects, and we would not be doing these projects, local governments would not be applying for these projects or building these projects if they had to pay their money themselves. The only reason these things go ahead is the Federal Government is paying for them, and the Federal Government has no money. Mr. Chairman, this proposal will bring back down the funding on this line to what the Appropriations Committee wanted only 2 years ago, and for whatever reason, apparently in negotiations, this amount went up last year. But I don't think it is too much to ask that this House not zero out this line--and we could argue that we shouldn't be doing this at all--but at least go back to the levels of 2013, especially given the huge amount of debt that is being piled up at this time. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is all fine and good to move forward, but we are going to borrow about 14 percent of this budget, and we have got to stop saying whenever we see a spending item it is time to move forward. I think what we have to do here is--I can certainly understand if we made commitments today, I can understand how people of goodwill would not want this amendment. But if this amendment doesn't pass, then I think we have to make doubly certain that a year from now we have a dramatic reduction here. If there are any of these projects that are that important, the local unit of government can fund it. There is no surer way to overspend than have the Federal Government give grants to local units of government that they would never dream of spending themselves. That is what is going on here, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be here to speak one more time on Senate Joint Resolution 8. I will make two points again. One of the things we see here is we have new rules which continue a trend, and that is you are fundamentally changing the way things have been for 70 years. In the past, unions have done a good job of organizing. We have added union representation to things, but one of the things that businesses want and that America wants is consistency. One more time, after having no big problems for 70 years, we are turning things fundamentally around. Now, why is that bad? The gentlewoman from Oregon just said this is no big deal because businesses all have lawyers on staff or whatever. Two comments on that: First of all, businesses don't all have lawyers on staff; and, secondly, I think it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how business works and why it is so difficult to go into business today and why it particularly targets small businesses when you come up with new regulations. This would be a problem even for a big company that did have a lawyer on staff and say it is no big deal; but, of course, who is less likely to have a lawyer on staff? A small business who doesn't have full-time HR representatives and that sort of thing. This is targeting those small businesses. Again and again and again in this country, one thing that bothers me is the degree to which people don't have sympathy for small businesses. When you change things, they are the ones who have to go out, hire an outside lawyer, get up to speed on things, pay the big legal bills, and pay the price. That is one reason why, in certain industries, you do see, over time, big businesses continuing to grow because little businesses can't keep up with all the little rules. I will remind people one more time that this invades employee privacy. It is something they are not asking for. There is no reason for outside groups to be able to get somebody's home address or that sort of thing. In any event, I will ask the other people present in the room to go back home and ask, particularly their small employers, when they have to run to a lawyer--first of all, to ask their small employers whether or not they have a lawyer on staff because I think the vast majority of businesses in this country don't have a lawyer on staff; and, secondly, whether they do or don't have a lawyer on staff, if they have to go run to a lawyer, whether they think its no big deal, because I think it is an awfully big deal.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 123 I was detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close then.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, just one more time to emphasize on this amendment, it is my experience, in many, many years dealing with local superintendents, local school boards, very rarely are they appreciative of people on other levels of government without that expertise in education telling them what to do. Right now, I live in the Campbellsport School District. They are not appreciative when the legislature in Madison tells them how to run their schools, and they are certainly not appreciative when the U.S. Congress tells them how to run the schools. I am going to vote for this bill today. I think this bill is a step in the right direction. My guess is, if I talk to my local school boards 6 months from now, a year from now, they will be grateful that this bill passed, but they would like still more freedom. I do think that the local school boards are closer to the parents, closer to the children, and will do a better job of managing those schools than we will. That is why I have introduced this amendment. I mean, maybe 3 years from now, we are going to go back home to our school districts, and they will say: Oh, my goodness, I wish you would have prescribed more or ordered us around more. I don't think that is going to happen. I think what is going to happen is 3 years from today, when we look at this again, the local school districts are one more time going to say: Hey, back there in 2015, when you paused this bill, I am glad you passed that bill, but please give us still more freedom. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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