Issues of the Day

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, there are several issues of importance that I don't feel this body has spent enough time discussing, and unless 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.)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source