[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H249-H251]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1545
                           ISSUES OF THE DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2021, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Grothman) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, there are several issues of importance 
that I don't feel this body has spent enough time discussing, and 
unless

[[Page H250]]

they are addressed could result in a great deal of discomfort for a lot 
of Americans.
  The first is the issue concerning sheltered workshops, also known as 
work centers or community rehabilitation programs.
  Perhaps you folks are familiar with them. They are places where 
people of different abilities frequently work, frequently doing 
packaging, maybe light manufacturing.
  Because of the different abilities that some people have, they have 
to get what are called 14(c) certificates and may work for less than 
minimum wage. Disabilities they may have would include things like 
perhaps spina bifida or similar things that make it a little bit more 
difficult for them to work.
  Nevertheless, throughout my political career I have always enjoyed 
touring the sheltered workshops in part because the employees that work 
there are so proud of the work they are doing and so proud of the fact 
that they are able to earn a paycheck and purchase some of their own 
clothes, perhaps purchase gifts for their relatives.
  Right now these sheltered workshops are under attack in the Build 
Back Better bill, and that bill may easily pass some time in the next 
year. I am afraid even the majority of Democrats who voted for the bill 
are unaware that these sheltered workshops are under attack.
  There are two reasons why people want to get rid of sheltered 
workshops. There are people who feel under no circumstances should 
somebody make less than minimum wage. This is ignoring the economic 
reality and ignoring the reality of the type of jobs that are available 
for these folks.
  The second concern they have is they feel that these people are 
segregated from the rest of society working in a sheltered workshop. 
That is, of course, not true. There are people of all sorts of 
abilities in these workshops; and in my opinion, people who work in 
these workshops frequently work there for 25 or 30 years. And people in 
management also work there for an extended period of time.
  Nevertheless, there is an extreme group which feels that we are 
taking advantage of people by having them work in the workshop.
  I will point out that in addition to the ability to have some of your 
own economic independence, you develop lifelong friends in these 
workshops that you wouldn't develop if you were looking for other jobs 
out in the community.
  One of the concerns for people with different abilities is that it is 
important that they develop friendships other than just their parents 
or immediate family. It is something that is always of great concern 
for parents of people in situations like this, and insofar as the 
sheltered workshops were shut down, you wouldn't have this natural 
grouping of friends or lifelong coworkers that you are going to be able 
to interact with.
  It is time for the sheltered workshop community to wake up and 
realize in this bill of thousands of pages the radical group that wants 
to shut down the sheltered workshops may finally get their dream. And 
if they get their dream, they will find that some of these folks are 
going to find jobs in the community, but they are not going to find 35 
or 40 hour a week jobs in the community. They may find 3 or 4 hour a 
week jobs in the community. They will lose the pride that comes with 
having a full-time job. They will no longer feel they are like their 
siblings or friends who go to work every day and earn a paycheck. It 
will be devastating for these folks. Some folks have been working in 
these sheltered workshops for 25 or 30 years and have years left to go. 
It is tragic that some people want to take this freedom away from them.
  I should also point out that nobody forces anybody to work in these 
sheltered workshops. If there were other jobs in the community they or 
their guardians could take them out and have them work fast food or 
have them work light retail or have them work in some light 
manufacturing. But what these people who are trying to get rid of these 
sheltered workshops are doing is they are taking away the choice that 
these folks have made for themselves, the choice that makes them feel 
so happy, makes them feel so good.
  So I strongly encourage people who know someone in these workshops to 
get politically involved before these folks' lives are devastated.
  And insofar as we have any of the Democrats paying attention to what 
I am saying right now, I beg you to go in your district and tour one of 
the sheltered workshops yourself because they will make you feel so 
good.
  There are very few things in this job that make me feel as good as 
touring these workshops because you see how happy and productive people 
can be that on the face of it seem to be dealt a tough hand in life. 
But they have made what they can of themselves. They are very happy. 
And I beg the majority party not to take away this right.
  The second issue that I would like to talk about a little bit today 
is with regard to COVID.
  One of the frustrating things about the establishment--and I think 
this goes back even before the Biden administration--is there has not 
been enough discussion of the correlation of inadequate amounts of 
Vitamin D and getting severe cases of COVID.
  Right now in this country, all Americans should be aiming at having 
30 nanograms per milliliter of Vitamin D. People who fail to get that 
30 nanograms disproportionately wind up getting COVID and getting COVID 
severely.
  There are other things that make you more likely to get COVID. If you 
have diabetes, if you are overweight, these are other things that 
correlate with getting COVID. And we know that if you lose a little 
weight, your situation would improve.

  Vitamin D or a lack of having 30 nanograms per milliliter of Vitamin 
D does correlate with problems. Right now in our society, sadly, 96 
percent of Black Americans are insufficient to that level, 88 percent 
of Hispanics, 65 percent of Whites. It is not something that has been 
talked about anywhere near enough, and it is a question as to why the 
public health establishment has not done a better job of explaining the 
correlation between bad Vitamin D outcomes and bad COVID outcomes.
  Some people feel it is not something that is talked about enough 
because there is no money to be made. And, of course, a lot of people 
are making a lot of money on COVID; but if you solve your Vitamin D 
levels by just going to the local drugstore and buying 20 or $40 worth 
of Vitamin D pills, there is not the possibility of people to make 
billions of dollars.
  Nevertheless, if you are out there, I strongly encourage all 
Americans to get a hold of Vitamin D. Vitamin C and zinc are good, as 
well, but today I try one more time to beg my friends back home to go 
get some Vitamin D, and I beg the medical community who right now does 
not test for Vitamin D like they should; I am told it is because there 
is not enough reimbursement in Medicare, and we don't want to lose 
money on what we are doing, but the medical community ought to be 
testing everybody for Vitamin D if they come in for their annual 
checkup. All Americans should be looking to get that level above 30 
nanograms per milliliter.
  There are other things, as well, that could be done to reduce the 
high number of deaths from COVID. Fenofibrate is a drug which some 
Israeli researchers had success with. It is a generic drug, and as a 
result, it is very reasonable to get a hold of. The same thing is true 
with hydroxychloroquine. And there are doctors I know who have had 
success with that. I don't think it is quite as successful with the 
omicron variant, but it was very successful with the alpha variant. And 
there is ivermectin, and I have known doctors who have used that, and 
they have had success curing people there. But for whatever reason, on 
some of these cheaper alternatives that I think could have saved 
hundreds of thousands of people, the public health establishment and 
the medical establishment has not been as outspoken as they should.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline.)
  Mr. CLINE. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Wisconsin for 
yielding on this very important subject. I was unfortunate to catch 
COVID a couple weeks ago, and I think that the Vitamin D supplements I 
was taking in addition to Vitamin C, in addition to zinc definitely 
helped to minimize the length and the severity of the illness.
  Madam Speaker, today marks 1 year since Joe Biden was sworn in as 
President, meaning it has been a year since

[[Page H251]]

Democrats took unified control of the Federal Government.
  And at this point there is no denying that Americans are worse off 
today than they were 12 months ago.
  Consumer prices have risen 7 percent since Democrats won 
congressional majorities and the White House, marking a 40-year high 
rate of inflation.
  Gas prices reached $3.28 a gallon last month, a 49.6 percent increase 
from a year ago.
  1.7 illegal immigrants were encountered unlawfully crossing the 
border in FY21, the highest number ever recorded.
  Sixteen major U.S. cities set new homicide records this past year.
  And just last week, COVID hospitalizations hit a record high.
  Thirteen American servicemembers tragically lost their lives, and the 
Taliban captured Afghanistan as a result of this administration's 
disastrous withdrawal plan.
  Madam Speaker, Democrats are certainly setting records, just not the 
records that they want to be breaking. Their party has utterly failed 
the American people.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I would like to address another, perhaps 
inadvertent, perhaps not so inadvertent, group of provisions in the 
Build Back Better bill.
  As we look across the country, when one compares to where America is 
today compared to where America was 50 years ago, certainly one area 
that I think most Americans would think is a step in the wrong 
direction is the breakdown of the traditional family. However, not all 
people consider the breakdown in the so-called western prescribed 
nuclear family structure as a bad thing.
  Black Lives Matter, which played such a big role in the elections 
last November, on their website came out saying we want to disrupt the 
western prescribed nuclear family structure.
  They are not the only ones who don't like the western family. We know 
Karl Marx felt that as he wanted to work his way towards paradise, we 
had to get rid of the traditional family.
  I don't know whether it is a coincidence or not, but our current 
welfare system with all of the programs that are part of it, be it the 
education grants, be it the medical grants, be it the food stamps, be 
it the low-income housing, are all set not to benefit families in which 
there are two parents at home to raise the children.
  In other words, the United States for years and years has been trying 
to get rid of the nuclear family. It is like Karl Marx himself were 
writing the welfare policies.
  In the Build Back Better bill, we are going further on down this 
line. I don't know that this is exactly supposed to be a pay back to 
Black Lives Matter, but the reconciliation bill will more than double 
the earned income tax credit marriage penalty. It has provisions for 
greatly increasing the number of low-income housing units. And I feel 
that the way those units are doled out, again, very difficult to get 
those units if you have a mom and dad at home. But there are people who 
want to get rid of that sort of family.
  I would strongly encourage the majority party, before they push this 
bill any further, to have a study done on who benefits from these new 
provisions and who doesn't, and is it one more time a situation which 
we are bribing people not to have old-fashioned nuclear families.

                              {time}  1600

  I am afraid, like I said, right now, this looks like another victory 
for the hard leftwing of the Democratic Party that embraces the idea 
that we ought to get rid of the nuclear family. It is not a 
coincidence. It is in the bill.
  In any event, these are things I will leave our audience with as we 
break for the following week. If you know somebody who works in a 
sheltered workshop or work center, or know a Congressman, invite them 
to the sheltered workshops to see what they are in danger of shutting 
down.
  If you know people who do not yet have COVID, remind them to get more 
vitamin D. If there are any doctors out there--I know sometimes you 
can't be reimbursed for everything, but you guys make enough money--
make sure you begin to do some testing of vitamin D levels so that if 
people are below 30 nanograms per milliliter, they know it and they 
know that they should go to the drugstore and begin to get more vitamin 
D, together with zinc and vitamin C.
  Finally, I encourage the majority party, before they do any more with 
Build Back Better, to have some work done and see whether you really 
want to go ahead and further steepen the penalty for married couples 
who have children, which already, like I said, is like the policy of 
the United States: We don't want to have old-fashioned nuclear 
families.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________