Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss the speech the President gave last night. I was disturbed to see that some people, in dealing with the crisis, including a leader on the other side of the aisle, said that some people felt that a wall would be immoral. There are people on late-night talk shows saying we don't have a crisis here.

I am going to point out that 90 percent of the heroin that comes in this country, that kills over tens of thousands of people every year in this country, comes across the border. I don't see how anybody could be so insensitive as to say that is not a crisis and not something we have to deal with at this time.

In the last 10 years in Texas alone, they have arrested over 2,900 people who they believe commit homicide who have come across the border. How in the world is it not a crisis when 2,900 people--that is almost as many people who died in the Twin Towers--are killed by people who are in this country illegally? It is completely undermining our immigration law.

Mr. Speaker, I will just take a minute of your time to follow up on what Congressman Garrett just said. It seems to me, in my lifetime--I am not an expert on foreign affairs--there are good things the United States has done, and bad things. But the worst things are, when people who are counting on us, people who we set up and relied on us, we decide to leave them to whatever will happen.

I think, in particular, a much bigger thing is when we stopped funding people in Vietnam. Obviously, during the Obama administration leaving Iraq, we left all sorts of people who were our friends, and created a huge vacuum. I am just very afraid today, and I would encourage President Trump to reconsider the decision to withdraw what troops we do have in the Syrian area because we have a lot of allies who felt they could count on the United States, whom I am afraid now will be left to whatever other forces in the region--who are not friendly to Western values--left to whatever they want to do with them. And I hope that is being taken into account right now.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Congressman Lamborn for setting aside this Special Order.

We are following up National Bible Week, so as the listeners know, National Bible Week is the week surrounding Thanksgiving.

Why is National Bible Week relevant to us today? As those of us who look at America and see storm clouds ahead, we have got to remember John Adams' statement: ``Our Constitution was only for a moral religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.''

We have to remember, if we are going to continue to enjoy the benefits we have of our Constitution, we must one more time become that moral and religious people who John Adams warned us we had to be.

One more quote from John Adams on the Bible: ``A society that adopted the Bible as its only law book and lived according to its precepts would be a utopia.''

So, clearly, by a moral and religious people, John Adams meant a people who believe in the Bible.

Now, which parts of the Bible did our forefathers look at? There are quotes all over the place from our forefathers in the Bible.

It kind of surprised me a couple of years ago when I found out that the

book in the Bible that our forefathers quoted the most was Deuteronomy. How often, when you hear somebody quote a Bible verse, do they turn to Deuteronomy? Not very often.

Why did our forefathers turn to Deuteronomy? Because the rules and the buildup to the founding of Israel took place in the Book of Deuteronomy, which may have largely been by Moses himself.

And I will point out in the room that we are right now, we have a relief of Moses. We have 30-some reliefs of various great thinkers throughout society in this room, but whoever put together this room in the Capitol put Moses in the head position overlooking this Chamber.

Now, I will encourage listeners out there, including clergy, as they reflect on National Bible Week, to read a book of the Bible you usually don't read. Read Deuteronomy. Tell your congregation about it. It was the book that I think our forefathers felt should be read so that we could duplicate the Jewish republic, which was soon to be founded, because I think our forefathers wanted America to be a country blessed by God as well.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Congressman Lamborn one more time for setting aside this time on National Bible Week.

Mr. Speaker, I will emphasize something I think that has been said before. You always try to think of something new.

You can't help but notice that the number of people who do not want the gray wolf delisted live in areas that don't have gray wolves. The State of Wisconsin is maybe typical in this. They introduced gray wolves to northern Wisconsin. When there was controversy about it, they said, Well, that is okay. These are northern areas where very few people live. Of course, even then I had a problem with it because people did live up there.

I don't think the people near where this judge lived would want the gray wolves wandering around the Virginia and Maryland suburbs. They would not want the concern, walking around at night with the wolves, even though

they don't normally attack humans. They would not want the concern of the wolves out there if they have dogs or other pets around. If they had cattle, they wouldn't want that concern.

Wisconsin being very typical, I think the gray wolves that began in the northern part of the State are now all the way down to areas like Columbia County or Sheboygan County in the southern part of the State. And they will, unless somebody does something about it, continue to grow, continue to go further south, and the herds will continue to grow.

I would ask people who are going to vote against this: Think how you would feel if you have a significant number of gray wolves wandering around your subdivision--or even one gray wolf wandering around your subdivision--and then have more respect for the Congressmen who are living with these gray wolves.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this bill.

As anybody who talks to the average person knows, in this country today, we have a huge labor shortage of people ready to do the type of jobs that industry needs.

I have more manufacturing jobs in my district than any other congressman around the country, and the number one problem we have is we can't find people to do those jobs. We all have medical facilities around this country, and again and again, nurses or other skilled people are not available for the huge number of job openings that are out there.

Meanwhile, we have hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people getting 4-year degrees or part of 4-year degrees and not finding jobs that pay anywhere near as good as some of the jobs you can get at a technical school.

Earlier this morning I looked at a local technical school here in town that had a demonstration project on some of the robotics training that they are doing, and we had people who are starting at $25, $30, $35 an hour, and that is before overtime. And these people, because the degrees take only 2 years to get and frequently allow you to live at home, are graduating without debt, unlike many people who have been foolishly told to go to a 4-year college and are not getting a lot out of it.

So I am pleased today to vote for the Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act, which will also reduce, to a degree, paperwork required by the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I would also just like to thank those businesses out there that are training people out there without the benefit of government education at all, because those are also sometimes frequently very good jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I came down to the floor today to address the resolution we have talked about regarding the carbon tax, but since then, I think something else has come up.

We just heard one of my colleagues, I think, kind of belittle Uber drivers and waiters and waitresses. I tell you, when I take an Uber, I don't think it is something that you have to resort to, to take that job. I think it is a very hard job, going all about the city, being able to get along with sometimes difficult people, working nights. Waiters and waitresses, same thing. I have worked in kitchens. I don't think one should say that one has to resort to these jobs.

It is kind of a thing that some Congressmen have around here that I don't like. They become removed, and they sometimes think that they are more important than people doing other jobs.

I think those are both fine jobs. I respect the Uber drivers who drive me around this city. I used to work in a kitchen, and I respect the waiters and waitresses. I don't believe one should describe working as an Uber driver or a waiter and a waitress as something people have to resort to. They are fine jobs.

Now, I guess I came down here for the carbon tax. I will point out that I think the carbon tax, if implemented and people throw it out there, the carbon tax will fall on the average guy the most. It is something that falls on people who drive a car, which will be a regressive tax. It falls on people who heat

their homes, which will be a regressive tax.

It bothers me, particularly when disproportionately it comes from the party that purports to represent the average guy, that when they think of a new tax to apply out there, they are going to promote a tax that disproportionately affects the average guy, because everybody has a heat bill, almost everybody has a car.

I think, among the other things that would cause a damper on the American economy, I don't like taxes that disproportionately hit the average guy.

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

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to deal with the new rule entitled, ``National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone,'' which affects several Wisconsin counties that I represent along Lake Michigan.

Since the original CLEAR Act came into effect, the Environmental Protection Agency has had the authority to regulate air emissions from stationary and mobile sources. They have--and this is a good thing-- over time, progressively come up with new rules, making the standards more and more stringent for the counties along Lake Michigan.

If you are ruled a nonattainment, it is a burden. It is a burden on industry that has to spend substantial amounts of additional money dealing with stricter and stricter standards, putting them at a competitive disadvantage compared to other parts of the country and other parts of the world. It is also

a difficult thing for individual motorists who find their cars have to be repaired. It is very expensive.

Some of it is easy for people who have a high salary to deal with. Maybe they don't have an older car. But I have always felt that some of this disproportionately affects the people who are just struggling to get a goal in life.

Therefore, when the EPA comes up with new standards, it is not without effect. They need to come up with new standards they proposed a couple of years ago.

The purpose of the amendment is to prevent them from spending money promulgating these new standards so that our industries may have a predictable situation and not be at a competitive disadvantage.

I should point out that, insofar as the counties along Lake Michigan are ruled a nonattainment, it may be through no fault of their own. In part, for historical reasons, they have monitored the ozone by placing the monitors real near Lake Michigan, where there are artificially high amounts of ozone.

Secondly, we have a situation where, insofar as there are pollutants in the area, almost all of them come from south of Wisconsin, out of Chicago or areas further south. As a practical matter, it can be almost impossible, or even impossible, for these Wisconsin counties to deal with these problems.

I have been working with the Environmental Protection Agency on this issue. After introducing the amendment, I have continued to work with the Environmental Protection Agency.

While I would like to deal with this problem statutorily, I realize it would be probably better for all concerned if the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the business community in Wisconsin, and I could reach a conclusion.

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

Mr. Chair, I withdraw my amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment in the form I have placed at the desk. There was a minor change in the figure there.

Mr. Chair, I will address the amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to try to make a small dent in what I consider to be the overall excessive spending that is going on here.

In the year which we are currently in, we anticipate borrowing about 22 percent of the Federal budget. A few years ago, we had that number down to around 11 percent--and to a certain extent because of the hurricanes, but to a certain extent not--we now are borrowing up to 22 percent.

President Trump, at the time he originally submitted the budget for this time, which was before the budget agreement was reached, I think, anticipated spending over $50 billion less than the amount that was spent in the last year. I tried to look at something to just give a little bit, a tip of the cap, to President Trump's request. I think he is paying a lot more attention to the burden we are placing on our children and grandchildren than Congress collectively.

And I looked at the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. I am requesting a 15 percent reduction in both of those numbers. It seems when you reduce anything else, it seems to plan that it is a matter of life and death, and horrible things are going to happen.

I like the arts. I don't know if I like the humanities quite as much as the arts, but they are okay, too. But it is hard to believe, at a time when we are borrowing 22 percent of our overall budget, that a minor 15 percent cut in these two items would be inappropriate.

We are, right now, going up in the National Endowment of the Humanities, hitting an all-time high this year, at the time of this huge deficit, and we are also increasing in the proposed budget the amount we are spending on the humanities.

It seems to me that these things, you could argue, are not necessarily a Federal purpose at all. I am not like President Trump was 2 years ago and trying to zero out these two lines altogether, but I think it is a little bit of an insult to our President, an insult to our children, an insult to our grandchildren to go up to high numbers on both these items.

So the purpose of my amendment, a minor 15 percent reduction. There is still more in both these accounts than we had just a few years ago.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Just a comment from the humble Congressman from Wisconsin. It was said that this is a small amount. I still think $300 million is a lot of money, okay? And we are only taking about $45 million out of that. We are leaving a lot behind. We are leaving--I don't feel, at this time, with such a big debt, we should be setting the all-time high that we have ever put in the endowment for the humanities and higher than any other amount we have put in the arts for the last 8 years.

And when I run for this job, I don't find anybody running around saying that they have got a big crisis in this country. I have a lot of rural area. And we have got to spend a lot more money in Washington, we have got this big debt, on the arts and humanities.

My local and municipal government are pleased to fund this. Philanthropists are pleased to fund this, and even people without a lot of money like me are happy to fund it on our own.

I request that the amendment pass and we make a little dent in this huge level of spending, and take a small amount out of here; not as much as President Trump, who cares so much about our children and grandchildren, wanted to take out, but at least a small 15 percent out due to our huge debt.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 261.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5891) to establish an interagency task force to improve the Federal response to families impacted by substance abuse disorders.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5891.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we have all heard about the opioid epidemic, and I always feel, despite the fact that it has been very publicized, it has still been underpublicized. Over 40,000 people every year die of this epidemic.

I am old enough to remember the Vietnam war, and it was relatively late in that war before we got to 41,000 deaths, and we all remember how that divided the country. There are more people that die in this year, every year, than the number of people who are both murdered and die in car accidents combined.

I am on a variety of committees, and if you sit on almost any committee, I think, in this institution, eventually the topic of opioid abuse comes up. One of the things that hits me when it comes up is the degree to which there are varying opinions on what to do with this, and it varies from agency to agency.

Therefore, what I am proposing in this bill is a task force that gets together two representatives from the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Labor to look for solutions and look for best practices. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is also supposed to appoint four other members to this task force.

I don't want this to be one of the task forces that is hanging out there for too long. They have got to come back with recommendations within 9 months, and, hopefully, we will use these recommendations by this time next year on this floor.

It is very frustrating, like I said, to attend these hearings and hear, among the experts, such divergent opinions as to how to save some lives here. We really cannot be spending more time on programs that don't work or having the agencies not work with each other.

I look forward to strong leadership in this committee. I expect that they will be taking advice from strong local leaders who have done what they can to address this epidemic around the country. We must put our full weight behind a coordinated strategy to bring stability and health to our communities.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my final comment on this issue, first of all, for the folks back home, is that when politicians talk about resources, they really mean money. Back in Wisconsin, when I think of resources, I think of timber, iron ore, oil, gas, and that sort of thing. But up here, I guess when we talk about resources, we mean money.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Democratic colleagues for making this a fine piece of bipartisan legislation. I hope when the recommendations come back in 9 months, we can have another nice big bipartisan vote and move the recommendations out.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota for introducing this bill. As he said, the North Country Trail is really a gem that goes across seven States.

But I take particular interest in it because the 173 miles that we are adding today are so close to the State of Wisconsin. I know there are many outdoor enthusiasts in my district for whom it is very important to do what they can to complete the North Country Trail.

As was mentioned right now, to go through the trail you would wind up in an area that would be very difficult to get through. So I am sure there is an economic benefit to this to Minnesota, but to me far more than the economic benefit is the huge benefit so many of our American citizens take and experience in the outdoors, particularly in the area that is relatively undeveloped.

I encourage passage of the bill. Add the new 173 miles. I am sure there are plenty of constituents in Wisconsin's Sixth Congressional District who look forward to walking across each one of those miles.

Madam Chair, I would like to speak on this amendment and make a few points.

Madam Chair, it is true the public health establishment is opposed to this amendment. It is also true, if you look at the amount of allergies out there, the amount of some other diseases that are affecting young kids, to some degree, the public health establishment is dropping the ball, and I don't think we can trust them entirely.

In my district, there is a substantial number of people who drink raw milk, and I would say it is tilted strongly towards people with a scientific background; chiropractors, nurses, veterinarians are the ones who feel strongest about drinking raw milk.

My final comment is I like to talk to people from foreign countries about the differences between their country and this country. Last year, I talked to a diplomat from Northern Europe and I asked him what the best and worst things about America were. To my surprise, he said the worst thing about America is the difficulty in getting unpasteurized cheese and unpasteurized milk.

Madam Chair, I thought it was a shame that America, the land of the free--when people come here from Europe, we are supposed to be freer in the United States. A complaint from people in Europe where you can drink unpasteurized milk, raw milk is that we don't have those freedoms in America.

Madam Chair, I think it is a great amendment for people who believe in freedom. And like I said, the people in my district who drink raw milk are the most informed on health issues.

Mr. Chairman, I thank again the gentleman from California for bringing forth this amendment and the gentleman from Texas for all of the work that he did on the bill.

I think sometimes, rather than have hearings, you find out a lot more about these Federal programs and particularly the SNAP program if you talk to the local clerks at the convenience stores and the grocery stores and the income maintenance workers in the counties or the people who manage the low-income housing to find out what really is going on here.

I will bring to light one in particular of the four provisions in the amendment: the idea that participants in training programs have to go through E-Verify.

It has been said that you have to be a citizen to get SNAP anyway. I would suggest talking to some of the income maintenance workers or some of the people who talk to some of the people who use the SNAP program, and I think they will tell you that, whatever the official Federal law is, SNAP is routinely used by people who are not here legally.

I think by requiring E-Verify for the training programs, we begin to go through the process of making sure that people who are in this country illegally are not taking advantage of taxpayer-funded programs.

I really wish we had more information on this topic, but, again, it is my belief that the average clerk in an average convenience store knows a lot more about the SNAP program than most Ph.D.s in sociology.

Mr. Speaker, as Ms. Foxx has said, we, right now, have the lowest unemployment in years. I think we are doing all we can to improve America's climate. Our taxes are lower. Our regulatory agencies, I think, are the most pro-freedom, pro-business we have had in years.

But the biggest problem that I find again and again, as I go around my district--and I should point out that Wisconsin's Sixth Congressional District has more manufacturing jobs in it than any other district in the country--is that we can't find enough people to work. A little bit of that problem is due to the government competing with the private sector and providing people compensation for not working at all. But a lot of the problem is that our educational system has let America down in that they have turned their back on skills-based training.

I think the number one thing holding back America's industry manufacturing sector right now is a lack of people with skills to do the job, not only manufacturing, but construction, as well. Again and again, we have a shortage of welders, we have a shortage of CNC operators, in construction, shortages all across the board.

If you look at the people who are still working frequently into their fifties and sixties, what is the reason? The reason is this myth out there, perpetrated in part by the mainstream media, but, in part, by the educational establishment, that you should get a vague 4-year degree--a degree in communication arts, a degree in psychology, something like that--which, too often, is leading to a low-paid job and a high-paid college debt.

If, instead, you would go to, let's say, a trade school--as I do in my district--you can have people who become apprentices and make money as they are earning. They can wind up making $70,000, or $80,000, or $90,000 before they are 25 years old, when some of their classmates are still ringing up the debt in the traditional college.

The Higher Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee, as we work through our bills, again and again is looking to fill this gap. We can no longer do this disservice to so many young people, encouraging them down an expensive path that does not lead to a well-paid job.

The future of America depends on its construction and its manufacturing.

We cannot continue to be a great country if our factories do not get some of the best minds and hardest working people to do the work.

So I encourage anyone out there listening--particularly, anyone advising young people, be they professional guidance counselors who have so often let people down, or parents, or grandparents, or other mentors--look into skills-based education. Carefully compare how much people who take this route are making compared to people who go to a 4- year college. Look at how much debt they are ringing up compared to how much debt other people are ringing up.

Mr. Speaker, together, we can work as hard as we can to solve America's skills gap, which is absolutely necessary if the United States continues to become the manufacturing center of the world.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to speak about the Workplace Choice and Flexibility for Individuals with Disabilities Act.

This legislation is a solution that will go a long way towards increasing opportunities for people with different abilities and will allow the promise of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, which was passed in 2014, to be fulfilled.

Unfortunately, since the time that that act was passed, unnecessary roadblocks have been thrown up in the way of people who want to work in work centers for people with disabilities.

These work centers, first of all, frequently provide a great opportunity for people to work; and secondly, provide job training that can be used by people as they get out in the community, which is the goal of so many people.

Let us not put these people in a straitjacket and say that between ages 19 and 25 you cannot or should not be able to work in work centers.

I know many of the employees at these work centers. They do a tremendous job, and it is time to expand options for people with different abilities.

This bill is not threatening WIOA. It is embracing the goals of WIOA.