Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Mr. Bilirakis' bill, the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act.

It is the responsibility of Congress to make sure every vehicle purchased has the minimum amount of standard equipment expected. Can you imagine spending $60,000 on a new car and not getting AM radio? Why don't you just take the transmission too.

In my media market, no AM radio means no sixties music, no Dave Ramsey, and no Brewers game, not to mention we recently had a big tornado, and I think one of the reasons nobody died is everybody got in their basement because they heard of the danger on AM radio. They expect me to sit at home and wait for the Brewers game to end before I get in the car? That is ridiculous.

I had a staffer buy a fancy European model and was shocked to find out it had no AM radio.

Quick, pass this bill, rush it to the Senate and President Trump. I want to hear The Dave Clark Five, The Beach Boys, and The Supremes if I buy a new car.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Steube for drafting this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 9498, the Taxpayer Advocate Participation Act.

Taxpayers deserve a government that respects their rights, treats them fairly, and listens when legitimate concerns arise. When dealing with the IRS, families and small businesses should have confidence that their interests are being heard.

It is not uncommon, unfortunately, that when you are dealing with the IRS, Mr. Speaker, and you think you have a problem, if you go to a lawyer, that lawyer right off the top is going to maybe even charge you more money than the amount that is being disputed.

For a family or small business in Wisconsin, dealing with the IRS can be intimidating. The tax code is too complicated, professional assistance can be expensive, and resolving a dispute can take considerable time. These are people who have their own businesses to run and employees to pay.

That is why it matters who has a voice when the courts consider questions affecting taxpayer rights.

A Federal tax case may begin with a dispute involving one taxpayer, but we have to remember, the court's decision could establish a precedent affecting people across the country. The attorneys involved have a duty to represent their clients. Broader questions about how a ruling will affect other taxpayers may not receive the appropriate attention. The Taxpayer Advocate Participation Act would address the problem.

This legislation would allow the National Taxpayer Advocate, with the court's permission, to submit a friend of the court brief in Federal tax cases involving issues that broadly affect taxpayer rights. That would give the court an additional perspective on the practical consequences of its decision. As I mentioned, to pay a private attorney to do that may be prohibitive for the taxpayer.

The advocate would not become the personal attorney. This is a focused authority to address questions with consequences beyond an individual case. Congress should welcome that perspective. Understanding how a legal interpretation will affect ordinary Americans can help courts make better informed decisions and help prevent problems from spreading throughout the tax system.

Taxpayer protections must have practical value when a person is dealing with the Federal Government. Giving the National Taxpayer Advocate this limited role is a sensible step towards making those protections more meaningful.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to, one more time, thank Congressman Steube and Chairman Smith for their leadership on this bipartisan legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, that was a good speech by Mr. Suozzi.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 9500, the Tax Relief for Fraud Victims Act. For many Americans, financial security means decades of hard work, setting aside money paycheck after paycheck, saving for retirement and making sacrifices so their family will always have something to fall back on. A criminal can take away that security in a matter of days.

Financial scammers can involve someone posing as a trusted adviser, a fraudulent investment, or online relationship built around deception. By the time a victim discovers what happened, the money is gone and the person responsible may be difficult to find.

These people are experts at gaining people's trust. For an older American living on a fixed income, there may be little opportunity to replace those savings. The consequences can affect everything from paying the mortgage to affording everyday expenses.

Our tax laws should provide a fair opportunity for these victims to claim relief and begin rebuilding. Unfortunately, restrictions on personal theft

loss deductions can prevent victims from deducting qualifying losses. Refund deadlines can create another obstacle when someone discovers the fraud years after it occurred.

The Tax Relief for Fraud Victims Act would address these problems by expanding access to personal casualty and theft loss deductions and giving qualifying victims additional flexibility and time to seek refunds.

The bill recognizes the damage these crimes can do to retirement savings. It would provide relief from the early withdrawal penalty for qualifying retirement distributions connected to theft losses and allow eligible amounts to be repaid into retirement accounts.

In addition to losing money, you can be penalized right now with early withdrawal penalties.

These provisions would help people who are trying to put their finances back together after being deceived. I have dealt with some of these people. They are so crafty. Even surprisingly intelligent people can be taken advantage of.

A tax deduction cannot restore everything, but Congress can make sure that unnecessary tax burdens do not make an already difficult recovery even harder. We should continue pursuing the criminals responsible while ensuring that their victims receive fair treatment under the tax code.

Mr. Speaker, one more time, I thank Chairman Smith and Congressman Miller for their work on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, there are all sorts of things going on behind the scenes in this building, and I want to highlight one difference between the parties right now.

One of the benefits of the big, beautiful bill or the Working Families Tax

Cut Act is we told people that if you have the ability to work, you have to work at least 20 hours a week or volunteer for 20 hours a week.

We also said that there is an exception if you have kids at home, but those kids must be under 15 years of age.

Right now, one of the reasons the farm bill has not passed is that the Democrats don't like that change. They feel that you should be allowed to stay at home if you have a 16-year-old or 17-year-old child.

The Republicans have an exemption in there for children who are disabled, handicapped, and that sort of thing. The stark difference between the parties is that the Democratic Party right now, as they negotiate, are saying that we cannot expect someone to work 20 hours a week if they have a 17-year-old child at home, and the Republicans are saying that you only get that exemption if your children are under the age of 14.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the Press Corps does a good job of covering that debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Abigail Roth, the winner of the sixth through eighth grade division of my 2026 Student Essay Contest, and to commend this outstanding young person from Wisconsin's 6th Congressional District for her thoughtful reflections on our country and system of government.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sarah Majeskie, the winner of the ninth through twelfth grade division of my 2026 Student Essay Contest, and to commend this outstanding young person from Wisconsin's 6th Congressional District for her thoughtful reflections on our country and system of government.

Sarah, a tenth-grade student at Berlin High School, was selected as the winner for her essay reflecting on the importance of America's constitutional republic, representative government, individual rights, and the freedoms protected by our Constitution.

I am proud to recognize Sarah for the time, effort, and thought she put into her essay. Her work demonstrates an appreciation for the responsibilities of citizenship and the principles that have helped make our nation strong. I congratulate her on this achievement and am pleased to include in the Record her winning essay:

Sarah Majeskie--Berlin High School, 10th Grade

If you ask Americans what type of government we have, many

will say we live in a democracy. While it is true our

government uses democratic principles such as voting for our

leaders, we do not operate under a democracy. Instead, the

United States government is a Constitutional Republic, a form

of government that I along with many other Anrericans value

and believe is the best way to provide our nation with a

strong future.

Before we as American citizens can value our Constitutional

Republic and give it the respect it deserves, we must first

understand it. Although people may appreciate something

without fully comprehending it, to hold it to a high value

they must understand what it is and what it means to them.

A Constitutional Republic is a form of government where

citizens elect representatives to make decisions on their

behalf, governed by a constitution that sets forth

fundamental principles and laws of the state and limits

government power. Unlike a monarchy, where leaders inherit

power, a dictatorship where citizens live in fear because

power is in the hands of a select few, or authoritarianism

where freedoms are stripped from people, our constitution

protects our individual rights which sets us apart.

For any governing leader to be elected, the Constitutional

Republic directs that any eligible citizen has the ability to

vote, regardless of race, gender, or financial background.

This ensures that the government must follow the Constitution

while allowing citizens to choose those who represent them.

Our Constitutional Republic differs from pure democratic

systems that operate solely on majority rule. Our government

gives those in smaller rural communities as strong a voice as

those in bigger urban communities.

In our Constitutional Republic nobody agrees 100% with each

other. However because of the way our country is run, we can

all vote for who we believe will uphold what is right. We can

choose who will represent everyone's individual voice. We do

not use pure democracy which follows majority rule, rather we

follow the constitution which protects our individual rights

as voters.

I value the opportunities being a citizen of the United

States provides. We have the chance for new beginnings, new

opportunities, and a new way of living. As Americans, we can

express our opinions, choose who we want to support, and vote

for our future. Whether it is voting for the new alderperson

in a tiny town of 2,000, or casting a ballot for the

Commander in Chief itself, we are given the opportunity to

choose who we think best represents the American people in

regions across the nation instead of the first born child of

a king, or whoever possesses the most brute force.

Another thing I value is that as a woman, I will be able to

vote when I am of voting age. There are no hoops for women to

jump through and I value that every person no matter what has

the right to vote, and our vote really matters. As I vote for

one candidate, someone else votes for another, but no matter

who is elected, our constitution ensures the power is divided

across the country differently so that power remains in the

hands of the people.

One thing I value the most under our constitution is our

religious liberties. The ability to practice my religion

including choosing my way to worship, pray, and share my

beliefs is a right I value because I know many others do not

have this privilege. It is my hope for our future that no

matter who runs our country, our schools, or even our

hospitals, that everyone may be free to practice any religion

they choose, supported by the constitution.

As America continues to be a melting pot of cultures and

backgrounds, I hope that our Constitutional Republic can

continue to provide fair representation and equal protection

under law to all citizens. Having a diverse country where

everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of

happiness is my ultimate wish for our future.

Mr. Speaker, I have several topics that I don't think have been addressed enough recently, and I would like to talk about them at this time.

I was not going to talk about DEI, but given the past speech, I think I ought to say something. Required reading for all Americans ought to be a book entitled: ``America's Cultural Revolution'' by a guy by the name of Christopher Rufo.

In the book he cites a guy by the name of Herbert Marcuse, who is a genuine communist who wanted to destroy America. He became politically active in the 1960s. Of course, in the 1960s there were a lot of people who were hoping to take down America, and there were a lot of protests and a lot of bombings. His analysis, though he was more of an academic, was that in the 1960s they tried to destroy America by setting America against the rich and creating a war or such a disagreement between the wealthy and the rest of the country that America would fail.

The hardcore left failed in their goal. They failed, in part, because I don't think Americans are naturally that covetous to be jealous over the wealthy people. And secondly, they failed because the American middle class was so well off that they didn't feel anything approaching a revolution was necessary.

So Herbert Marcuse came back with a second plan. His second plan was to try to divide America by race. It was the beginning of what they called the DEI movement. Today--prior to President Trump trying to dismantle it, but it is still out there in a lot of its forms--these people want Americans to not view themselves as primarily Americans but as a subgroup. So we would have African Americans. We would have Hispanic Americans. We would have Pacific Islander Americans. We would have Native Americans. We would have Americans from every different background. We would have Asian Americans. And they would all be told that America was a horrible, racist country, and they would need the government to help them out.

Today, we live in a country--it is hard to believe that anybody would think this is necessary. We live in a country in which most ethnic groups are from places other than Europe, and they are actually doing quite well. Indian Americans may well be the wealthiest subgroup out there right now. Chinese Americans, Filipino Americans, Japanese Americans, Persian Americans are all doing wildly better than the native born. I don't think it is a matter of color. Cuban Americans have long done better than the average American does. People coming here--African Americans coming here from Nigeria do very well. And the fact they all come here shows that either prejudice has entirely disappeared or that it is truly a minor thing. But it doesn't prevent a DEI bureaucracy from trudging ahead and trying to educate people how racist America is and trying to educate people that they ought to walk around with a chip on their shoulder.

This is a very dangerous movement. President Trump has slowed it down for now, but I think Republicans and freedom-loving people have to be a little bit more aggressive in pointing out the absurdity that you cannot succeed in this country unless you are of European descent because so many people are succeeding. They also should point out the motive of the founder of DEI, Herbert Marcuse, wanted to destroy America.

I hope when President Trump leaves the scene that his successor Presidents do what I think is the only constitutional thing to do, and that is to continue to dismantle the DEI bureaucracy, the goal of which is to make Americans bitter and angry.

In the past week, we talked about socialism. This is another topic that I think we have not done a good job of explaining how bad it is and even what socialism is.

Socialism can be used to describe a great deal of governments, but in its purest form, under socialism the government runs everything. Every store is owned by the government and every employer is the government. The idea behind socialism is if all the decisions that are currently made by the millions of businesses in America are made by government, that somehow more people will become wealthier, and there will be no income gap.

I want people to stop and think why socialism fails and how miserable life would be under a pure socialist state. Even Europe is not purely socialist, though they are much more socialist than America. I recently ran into some Pakistani immigrants who were happy to be in America, and above all they were happy to be in America as opposed to Europe because they felt Europe was a socialist state.

In any event, in a socialist state, because the government runs everything, again and again you have to bow before the government to get anything done. My office is in a city called Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. I don't know how many landlords there are, but I would say 250 landlords.

In a socialist state, you have one landlord. If the government doesn't like you or has something against you, you may not be the favored one to get an apartment or you may find you have to be on a waiting list. Since the government runs the grocery stores, some government bureaucrat determines how many grocery stores are in your town and what they are going to sell at the grocery stores. I want you to think, would things get better or worse if you had the government decide what we are going to put on the shelves of the grocery store?

Since all the businesses are owned by the government, they would determine whether you get a job, what sort of raise you are going to get, what your career path is. Obviously, because the government is in control of everything, they will penalize you or may penalize you for what you say or what your thoughts are.

You will begin to get promoted. As happens in socialist nations, you will get promoted based on how the government feels about you because the goal

of socialism, the stated goal, which is never achieved, is that we want everybody making the same amount of money or in the same place materially.

You create a situation which is a problem for them if, say, one Uber driver worked 60 hours a week and the other Uber driver works 40 hours a week. Pretty soon, the Uber driver who works 60 hours a week will have money for things that the guy who drives 40 hours a week will not have. This presents a problem for socialism, but as is apparent from the dislike of people who are working harder from people on the other side of the aisle, what will happen is that they will necessarily feel they have to do something to penalize the person who works 60 hours a week rather than 40 hours a week.

Another situation is if two different people work 40 hours a week and one is more frugal than the other person and saves more money, that is also considered a problem in socialism because all of a sudden we have a wealth gap, and the government has to step in and make sure that the person who was more frugal does not have more assets than the person who spends a lot of money.

Since the government runs everything in socialism--I have to point this out again--the government determines whether you get a job, whether you are promoted in your job, whether you get to work in a favorable location or not a favorable location.

Even today, in a government that is much more limited than under a socialist paradise, I can think of examples in which people were afraid to speak honestly because they worked for the government, and that is something that we should all be considering, do we want to work in a world in which if you are critical of--well, for example, there is a woman I know who wanted to be a substitute teacher, but she was afraid to put a yard sign out for me for fear that since the local school district had a leftward tilt, she was afraid to say she supported me or would give me any money for fear that she wouldn't be called to be a substitute teacher. That is what happens in a socialist state, where the government runs everything.

When we dealt with what was referred to as Act 10 when I was a State legislator in Wisconsin, there were people who were supportive of Governor Walker but afraid to say it because they worked for the government, and there was a government bias against him. Therefore, people had to pay a price if they took a different tack than the majority of people in the government wanted to.

You can see this is, in a way, the ending of freedom if you have a genuine socialism. To my shock, way, way, way too many of my wonderful colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted yesterday for a resolution that could only be taken--or voted against a resolution that was contrary to socialism.

Socialism is the end of freedom. Our whole Constitution is built on the idea of limited government, and of course socialism is all built on the idea of more government.

We recently had a bill coming out of the Budget Committee. There were, I think, 16 or 17 amendments. Every one of the amendments was a Democratic amendment to add more money to some area of the government. In other words, to strengthen the role government has in life and to decrease the free-market segment of the society in which people are free to form their own business or work for whomever they want.

It is, quite frankly, a scary thing that any young people are enthralled with socialism in any sense. I don't think they should even call it socialism. I think they should call it a government economy where the government runs everything and makes all the economic decisions or if not the government economy, they should call it a free economy, in which I am free to work for whomever I want, I am free to open up my own business, I am free to work 50 hours a week if I want and make more money, I am free to take a chance on a different type of product, manufacture a different sort of product, and if it does well, it does well, and if it doesn't, it doesn't.

Another problem with government, of course, is the government decides when any business or any store closes. We all know in our hometowns businesses that close, stores close, but do you know what never closes? A government program.

That is another problem with socialism. If there is something inefficient, if there is something that is producing something most people don't want, because it is owned by the government, it continues to sit there. People who are for socialism, if they are nailed down on it, probably would never let any business fail.

In any event, I do think young people ought to be educated that socialism means a government-controlled economy and a free--I don't like the word capitalism. We will say a free market economy means you are able to work wherever you want, you are able to open up your own business, you are able to invest in apartments if you want, and in general you have a free life when it comes to economic decisions.

That is why America is great. We have to hope that we never fall victim to the idea that socialism is a good thing, and we don't elect people who think having the government own more of the means of production is in any way going to make us more materially better off-- which it won't--but even more, we always have to realize that the larger the government gets, the less freedom you have.

The final thing I am going to deal with tonight is the topic I have dealt with before, and that is the huge marriage penalty associated with our welfare programs.

Almost all the income transfer programs, be it food share, be it low- income housing, be it Pell grants, be it Medicaid, or be it earned income tax credit, they all, in order to get them, rely on somebody being below some poverty line.

That is because with a married couple you have both a man and a woman who may be working. It is rare that a married couple is eligible for these programs. Very quickly, young people in this country figure out that if they want to have children, then they might be materially better off by not being married. We wind up changing the culture. Ever since the horrible LBJ was President, we wind up changing the culture from one in which a very high percentage of people are getting married before they have children.

The number of children born out of wedlock used to be under 5 percent. We have shifted families, because of our overwhelming bias, to a situation in which about 45 percent of the babies born in this country wind up being born out of wedlock. This is unfortunate for the babies. It is also unfortunate for the men.

Usually, Mr. Speaker, when you have beneficiaries in these programs, it is the single woman who is the beneficiary, and therefore the men have a much less productive life because they are not connected with a married family. They are not connected with raising children, and it results in them adopting antisocial behavior. We see this in particular parts of America in which the nuclear family has almost entirely disappeared. There is more crime and more drug abuse, and I attribute that all to the massive expansion of the welfare state beginning in the 1960s.

In any event, I know President Trump's goal is to make America as great as it was at its peak. I would encourage President Trump to put together a committee, or a commission, to see what we can do to get rid of these programs that can penalize people $30,000 to $35,000 a year for getting married.

In America, we should treat everybody equally, and right now we are not doing that. Like I said, I think the result is a more difficult background for young children, a more difficult background for the women, and particularly a more difficult background for the men who cannot assume their role as provider in the family.

I encourage President Trump, as he prepares for the seventh and eighth years of his Presidency, to put forth an agenda in which we stop penalizing people who decide to get married before they have children.

In any event, those are some of the issues that I think are important for the press to pay attention to.

I look at my wonderful Democratic colleagues over there. I remember there was once a Congresswoman, I can't remember her first name, but her last name was Tsongas. You should

look her up. She was from Massachusetts. She did understand that this huge marriage penalty we had was a harm to significant segments of the American population. Hopefully, some Democrats can follow Congresswoman Tsongas on board and try to help us do something about this.

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment requires the Department of War to examine options for reducing its civilian workforce by 200,000 positions. For point of reference, at the time that President Trump took office, the number of non-uniformed personnel in the Department of War was about 770,000. There was a buyout situation in which they reduced that number by about 80,000, and since that time, they have felt there were certain positions that they had to refill that they probably shouldn't have let go of, so right now they are sitting around 705,000.

We know that DOGE felt that throughout government they had unnecessary personnel. We have all heard anecdotal evidence of people working in a variety of agencies, but particularly the Department of War, who may not be necessary.

I will point out, since I have kind of looked into this, that I have found shocking anecdotes of people working in the private sector in big companies who manage to get by doing very little work because the companies are just plain too big and people fall between the cracks.

If that is going on in private-sector big companies, Mr. Chair, think how much more likely that is happening in a big organization like the Department of War.

In any event, right now, we are dealing with a situation in which the Department of War is asking for a considerable increase in money, in particular with regard to its authorization bill and also with regard to the other bill that we are going to be trying to pass this week.

Given that, we have to make sure that they are not wasting any money. I think it would be a good exercise for the Department of War to say: We have got at least 705,000 people. What would happen if we had to get rid of 200,000?

Maybe we will find they are all necessary, but I don't think so.

In any event, I think it is good from time to time for big organizations to look and see whether everybody is necessary and what they are doing. For too long, Washington has allowed Federal bureaucracies to grow without regularly asking whether every position is necessary and asking what people are doing.

We can protect national security while also demanding efficiency and accountability. As we know from the proposals that we are going to have to vote on this week, the military certainly needs to find new money and we are broke, so it would be better if they find out whether in their workforce they are wasting money.

In any event, we are going to ask the Department of War to see what would happen if they had to reduce their number of nonuniformed positions by 200,000.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, just one final comment. We didn't say we were going to reduce the workforce by 200,000. We were going to say what happens if we try to do it. I do believe if you get around here and ask people, they will give you anecdotal evidence of people working for a very short period of time.

As far as already dealing with this, there was a buyout. As I mentioned, they bought out several employees who they shouldn't have bought out. Right now, we have reduced the workforce by about 65,000. Again, I think if you ask people in this town, it will not be hard to find people who feel people working in the Federal agencies are not doing a lot. I know that is true in the private sector. It is certainly more likely to be true here.

Mr. Chair, I am a little bit shocked that we won't even allow the Department to do a study. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, just a final comment. I know somebody who bought a company, and he informs me that he found out that probably half of his white-collar employees were unnecessary.

I think if you get around this town and talk to people, you will certainly find a lot of anecdotal evidence. I think it is kind of amazing that the Democratic Party is afraid of a study. Maybe the study will come back and show it is tight as a drum. I don't think so. I am just kind of shocked that at a time when we are asking for tens of billions--hundreds of billions of dollars more for our Department of War, we are not going to do a study on our civilian employees.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Chair, I am just kind of shocked that we have a lot of people who don't want auditors poking around the Department of War and seeing what they will find out. I will point out the Department of War has not passed an audit for, I believe, almost 30 years. They are somewhat alone in that compared to other agencies. I guess one of the reasons, obviously, that you don't want to do an audit is that you are afraid what you might find out.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I was in a vital meeting with Torres of California. Had I been present, I would have voted NO on Roll Call No. 256.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Boebert

Madam Chair, I missed the vote due to a meeting. Had I been present, I would have voted NO on Roll Call No. 264.

Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Crank

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to congratulate WOMT Radio in Manitowoc, Wisconsin, on an extraordinary milestone: 100 years of serving northeastern Wisconsin.

Since first going on the air in 1926, WOMT has become the trusted source for local news, sports, conversation, and community programming. At a time when much of the media has become nationalized, to its detriment, WOMT remains proudly local.

Each week the station produces more than 40 original programs focused on the people and issues that matter to Manitowoc. Its broadcasters celebrate local achievements, provide a platform for community voices, and ensure that local stories are heard.

Since the 1960s, the Seehafer family has carried on this tradition of local service. Today, under the leadership of President Mark Seehafer and Vice President Terry Stevenson, WOMT remains a third-generation, family-run company with deep roots in the community.

WOMT's excellence in truly local focus have been recognized by the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association which has named it the Medium Market Station of the Year for 7 consecutive years, a well-deserved recognition.

For a century, WOMT has done more than broadcast. It has informed its listeners, connected its community, and proven that local radio is not only alive and well but is thriving in Manitowoc, Wisconsin.

I congratulate them.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose what I should lead off with is asking for half a minute or so of silence as we consider what I think is the most damaging Supreme Court decision of my time. Instead of going that way, I will address those few people in my district who have come up to me and have been surprisingly anti-Israel.

One thing I point out is the similarity between Israel and the United States that is not talked about enough is that we have people from all around the globe trying to get in both countries. I point out one way Israel is similar is that they are taking people from the Philippines, India, Sri Lanka, Malawi, Ecuador, Kenya, and China into their country to work because it is such a wonderful place.

Just like Israel is a wonderful place, so is the United States. Both of us have to put up with leftwing crazy people attacking us for being racist.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Israel for taking people from all around the world who know they would be better off there than in their home countries.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4662) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6444 San Fernando Road in Glendale, California, as the ``Paul Ignatius Post Office''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, which would rename a post office in Glendale, California, for Paul Ignatius. A city of Glendale native, Paul Ignatius commissioned as a naval officer in World War II following his graduation from the University of Southern California. He continued his education after his military service at Harvard University, receiving an MBA.

Paul served in two Presidential administrations as Assistant Secretary of the Army, Under Secretary of the Army, Assistant Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of the Navy.

He is the recipient of the Army Distinguished Civilian Service Award, the Navy Distinguished Public Service Award, and the Department of Defense Distinguished Public Service Award.

In addition to his numerous accolades, an Arleigh Burke-class guided- missile destroyer ship was named after him, which is currently homeported in Rota, Spain.

After spending his career dedicated to public service and the country, Paul was an active member in his community, involved in various nonprofit organizations and served on several boards.

Mr. Speaker, I call on my House colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill naming a post office for Paul Ignatius, a dedicated soldier and public servant, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3350) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 340 East 1st Street in Tustin, California, as the ``Ursula Ellen Kennedy Post Office Building''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to rename a post office in Tustin, California, for Ursula Ellen Kennedy.

Ursula and her husband raised three children in Tustin, California. She was an accomplished author, publishing more than 500 articles and a book on essays.

In 1978, Ursula became the first woman ever elected to the Tustin City Council. Twelve years later, Ursula became the first woman elected to mayor where she served for two terms.

Through her dedicated leadership to the city of Tustin, Ursula contributed to the creation of senior services, community planning, and environmental protections, leaving a lasting civic legacy.

She will be remembered for her humor, persistence, and relentless work ethic.

Mr. Speaker, I call on my House colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim).

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill naming a post office for Ursula Ellen Kennedy, an author, mother, and dedicated leader in public service.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for fighting this onerous bill. I will add in addition to all the other things he pointed out, the candidates that the unions back usually are in favor of big welfare. I think part of that is because people, I am sure, on welfare are more likely to vote Democratic, so they like a lot of people taking advantage of that system.

When I look at this bill, I wonder which planet the drafters were from. I love to get around my district and talk to my employers, the factories, and the warehouses. Again and again, I find happy and well- paid people.

This bill was drafted by somebody who wants as many businesses, I think, to be in a confrontational mode of using the government to negotiate an arbitration on this contract or that contract or how we are going to be able to run the factory, which is a primary way that you can make American business less competitive.

You also see, as other speakers have pointed out, that we have a situation here in which government officials are going to impose a contract. In other words, government officials are going to determine how a factory is run. I can't think of a way to make American business less competitive.

I encourage my colleagues to tour a nonunion factory sometime over the weekend.

Mr. Speaker, in our Committee on Education and Workforce, as in so many other committees, we have discovered rampant fraud, in this case, in Federal financial aid programs as ghost students have been submitting applications for aid, getting the aid, and then the money just disappears because there is no real student.

Imagine that, Mr. Speaker.

The first lesson we can take out of this is the programs here now are not going to get rid of it. Anybody who thinks we are going to institute a Federal program and there is not going to be fraud in it is nuts. This is one more example of out-of-control things. We believe we found $350 million of ghost student fraud uncovered since 2019.

In any event, Burgess Owens has the answer here. In part, we are going to work to identify these fraudsters before the money goes out the door. If we identify them before the money goes out the door, we will dramatically decrease the amount of money that disappears.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Burgess Owens for doing this, and I hope the rest of the body will remember what was done with these Federal aid programs. Again and again, it doesn't go for the purposes designed. It goes to fraudsters who take advantage of the situation.