Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Federal Fraud Prevention Workforce Training Act. It is a bipartisan bill that strengthens fraud prevention efforts across the Federal Government.

Americans work hard for their money. They pay their taxes, follow the rules, and expect the Federal Government to treat every dollar with care.

Unfortunately, fraud in Federal programs remains far too common, and too often it could have been prevented. The problem is not only the bad actors who try to steal from the taxpayer. Too many Federal employees and program administrators are left without training, guidance, or tools they need to identify risks before taxpayer dollars go out the door.

The bill takes a commonsense step to fix that. The Federal Fraud Prevention Workforce Training Act directs the Department of the Treasury, in coordination with OMB and OPM, to establish a standardized, government-wide fraud prevention training program. That training would help Federal employees identify fraud risks, implement proven antifraud practices, and make better use of existing tools, including the Do Not Pay System.

It would also make these resources available to State and local governments that administer Federal funds.

That last point is important. Many Federal programs are not administered

only in Washington. They depend on State and local partners who are often on the front lines and don't have any skin in game. If we want to protect taxpayer dollars, those partners need access to the same knowledge and best practices the Federal Government has.

Every dollar lost to fraud is a dollar that cannot help a veteran, a senior, a small business, a family in need, a community that depends on Federal assistance, or pay down our ridiculous Federal debt. It is also a dollar added to the debt and a dollar taken from hardworking Americans who expect better from their government.

We should not wait until fraud has already occurred to ask what went wrong. We should train the Federal workforce to identify warning signs early, use the tools already available, and stop fraud before taxpayer dollars are wasted.

I thank Congressman Krishnamoorthi for leading the bipartisan effort with me. I also thank Chairman Comer for his leadership on the Oversight Committee and his work to hold the Federal Government accountable.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think a point has to be made on the vote that is going to take place in the next hour. I am a little bit afraid that people are going to look at that vote and view it as a statement of fact as to where this body stands on Ukraine.

I think something has to be pointed out that I think, unlike other votes--and the gentleman from Maryland has told us there is an average of over 300 people who voted similar to what he was trying to do in the past.

This vote comes before us on a discharge petition. There are flaws that have been pointed out in it. I think the flaws are going to receive greater attention from me because, for certain reasons, bills brought forth on discharge petitions are frowned upon in this institution.

I want everybody to understand that when this bill passes, probably passes with like 250, 260 votes, it doesn't mean that the commitment to Ukraine has dropped that much from the past votes last year to now. It is, I believe, because the bill came to the floor in a discharge petition.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7726, the Stop Child Care Scams Act.

One of the provisions in this bill is the Combating Regulatory Abuse, Closing Known Deficiencies, and Overseeing Waste Nationwide Act, or the CRACKDOWN Act, of which I am the author.

The bill is about a simple principle: Taxpayer dollars that help working families afford childcare should not be lost to waste, fraud, or abuse.

It is not surprising, by the way, the Child Care and Development Block Grant was subject to abuse. It is one of these programs that the Federal Government pays for and the State governments administer--an invitation to abuse.

In any event, the Child Care and Development Block Grant helps low- income families access childcare so parents can work, pursue training, and provide for their children. When the improper payment rates rise too high, it is a warning sign that stronger oversight is needed.

Under current law, States generally do not face corrective action requirements until improper payments exceed 10 percent. That is way too high.

The CRACKDOWN Act would lower the threshold from 10 percent to 5 percent. If the State exceeds that level, we must take corrective action to improve program integrity.

The national improper payment rate is already about 4.9 percent, and 38 States already meet the 5 percent threshold established in the bill.

Wisconsin is a State that learned this lesson the hard way. In 2010, our State faced widespread fraud in its childcare program. Wisconsin responded by strengthening background checks, creating a dedicated fraud unit, and expanding audits. Today, Wisconsin's improper payment rate is below 1 percent. So it can be done. There is no excuse for being over 1 percent, but because we are easygoing, we are going to require that it is under 5 percent.

Waiting until a State reaches 10 percent before requiring corrective action allows problems to grow before they are addressed.

Mr. Speaker, waiting until a State reaches 10 percent before requiring corrective action allows problems to grow before they are addressed.

Every dollar lost to improper payments is a dollar that cannot help a working parent. It also is a dollar taken from taxpayers.

H.R. 7726 protects families, protects taxpayers, and strengthens confidence in the program. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 8872, the Preventing Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in TANF Act.

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program provides $16 billion of taxpayer money each year to help low-income families get back on their feet. That is an important mission, but when taxpayer dollars are lost to fraud, improper payments, or poor oversight, that money is not helping a family in need.

For too long, TANF has lacked basic accountability measures that apply to many other Federal programs. In fact, TANF is one of the few Federal programs not required to report an annual improper payment rate. Madam Speaker, you can imagine that is an encouragement of fraud. It should concern every Member of this body.

This bill brings needed accountability to TANF by requiring improper payments be measured and reported. You can see how many improper payments we found in other programs.

With the national debt now exceeding $39 trillion, Congress has a responsibility to make sure every Federal dollar is spent effectively.

Reducing waste and fraud is not about weakening assistance to families in need. It is about protecting those programs so they reach the parents and children who truly depend upon them.

If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really want to help struggling families, they should join us in making sure that TANF dollars are not lost to waste and fraud but instead go to the people the program was created to serve.

It is not surprising when you have a program funded by the Federal Government and administered by the State government there is fraud.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I encourage my Democratic colleagues especially to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend and congratulate Giles- Luce American Legion Post 364 in Winneconne on its upcoming 100th Anniversary, which will be celebrated on June 14th. This milestone reflects a century of unwavering commitment to the community, and is a testament to the enduring spirit of service demonstrated by its members.

As we reflect on the past 100 years, it is clear that the Giles-Luce American Legion Post 364 has been a cornerstone of the Winneconne community. Through countless local charitable events, outreach programs, and ongoing dedication, the members have enriched the lives of veterans and their families, fostering a sense of unity and belonging. Their efforts have preserved important traditions and instilled a spirit of service that continues to inspire new generations.

The legacy of Giles-Luce American Legion is not measured solely by its accomplishments, but also by the deep respect and gratitude it has earned from those it has helped. Their dedication sets a high standard for what it means to serve with honor, compassion, and integrity. I am proud to recognize their outstanding contributions and wish them continued success in the years to come. May their commitment to service and community continue to inspire future generations, and may their impact be felt for many years to come.

Once again, I congratulate the Giles-Luce American Legion Post 364 on its 100th Anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, as we head out for a recess for Memorial Day, I think it is important to address a few issues that have to be countered because the normal mainstream press will not address them.

Today, attending a hearing in the Committee on Education and Workforce, we one more time had it brought up that America was racist. We hear this again and again and again. I think sometimes people are stuck for what to say about that charge. As a result, they think it is just going to go away because, for some reason, the type of people who angrily scream about racism all the time would just give up.

Of course, one of the chief people who likes to run down America and call it racist is former President Joe Biden, who talked about white supremacy as being a big threat. Of course, most of us just roll our eyes when we hear that and move on to the next topic. But, in fact, I think he does damage to the fabric of America, and it is obvious these people who are claiming that racism is a big problem in America are doing it to divide America and hurt America.

I suggest Americans read Christopher Rufo's book, ``America's Cultural Revolution,'' in which he points out that the hard left, the borderline communist left in America, one of their ways to try to destroy America is by convincing people to divide themselves and be angry over racial identity.

The person who thought this up was a guy by the name of Herbert Marcuse in the 1970s.

The hard left had tried to destroy America in the 1960s by trying to set people up against the wealthy. Americans are not naturally a jealous people. They failed to destroy America by trying to create a revolution based on income level, so they moved on to race.

Now, I am going to point out a couple of things about this. First of all, I would like to point out all the people coming to this country, which is relevant in both discussing immigration and the so-called racial problem. I have to always call to get these statistics, which should be routinely published in the paper. They are not.

Every year in this country, around 800,000 people are naturalized. Let's look at the countries where people come here because they would rather live in America: 1, Mexico; 2, India; 3, Philippines; 4, Dominican Republic; 5, Cuba; 6, Vietnam; 7, China; 8, El Salvador; 9, Jamaica; and 10, Colombia.

Does anybody notice anything about all the people who are trying to come here from around the world? The first thing that I notice is that, of these 10 countries, there is no country here which at least the Democratic Party would consider a European country. That is something I think all Americans should be familiar with. These statistics are published every year, and Americans should be made aware of the statistics.

Obviously, the fact that the 10 nationalities most likely to try to become American are not so-called people of color is hardcore evidence that America does not have a serious racial problem.

There is one other thing I would like to point out here. In the list of countries, there are five that we would refer to as Latin American countries: Mexico, Cuba, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, and Colombia.

Many of these people from these countries, of course, are primarily of European descent because their ancestors were from Spain, then they came to Colombia, and then they came here. You could say they are of European descent, but the DEI establishment does not like people to point that out.

I have never been able to figure out why, if my ancestors came from Spain and came here, they are considered European. If they spent two generations in Cuba and came here, they are not.

In any event, the thing that we have to take out of this is: People from all around the globe are trying to get here. That is a strong piece of evidence that America is not a racist nation.

The next thing I would like to point out is with regard to the immigration issue. We are, again and again, told we must ignore our immigration laws because we have to be kind to people around the world and allow other people to come to America.

I want to point out some statistics here, as well. Right now in America, every year, if you look at a rolling average, about 800,000 people are sworn in as new American citizens. We let in about half a million people on work visas and half a million people on student visas. We do not have to apologize to anybody for not being nice and not letting other people in this country.

Right now, in America, about one-sixth of the people are foreign- born. Think about that: In America, one-sixth of the people that you see walking down the street--my guess is that in Washington, D.C., it is greater--were not born in America. That is the greatest it has been, at least back into the 1880s. Even during the big immigration waves of the 1870s, 1880s, and 1890s, we never had a time in which one-sixth of the country was foreign-born. That is something else that ought to be talked about a little bit when we discuss the immigration issue.

Another issue that is sadly rearing its head and may come up when we are dealing with our constituents back in our districts during the Memorial Day recess: For the first time in my life, over the last year, I have had people talk to me negatively about Israel--not many of them, thankfully. Just like when they run down America for being racist, there is this idea out here that somehow Israel is treating some of its citizens unfairly, and talking about Israel negatively when they look at this.

There is something that hasn't been talked about near enough, which kind of cuts through the ridiculous anti-Israel rhetoric, just as we cut through the anti-USA rhetoric a second ago. It is not known enough that the huge number of people who are in Israel today who are not Jewish and come from around the rest of the world to work in Israel, a country that supposedly is treating people who are not Jewish poorly.

Let us look at the primary nationalities of people who come to Israel to work, rather than stay in their own country, sometimes coming halfway around the world for the enjoyment of working in Israel. The single biggest group is people from India. You work your way down: Sri Lanka, Thailand, the Philippines, China, Moldova, Uzbekistan, Malawi, Kenya, and Ecuador. Again, people from Southeast Asia, the Indian area, Africa, and Latin America are all lining up to work in Israel.

Nevertheless, there are Americans who have sympathy for the Arab populations in a land controlled by Israel because they feel they are mistreated. Look at the statistics. If people were being mistreated in Israel because they weren't Jewish, why do we have people from around the whole world trying to get into Israel for an opportunity to work there?

They work in a variety of economic sectors: active in construction, agriculture, home care, retail, food services, and car repair. Wherever you look in the Israeli economy, there are people from around the globe.

Not long ago, I read an article--I don't know how many they got--a significant number of people from Ecuador, hoping that an agreement could be reached so they would have the pleasures of working in Israel.

Of course, more people over time are working in Israel because of what is referred to sometimes as the Palestinian population kind of rose up against Israel and killed people. As a result, understandably, Israel was going to look elsewhere for people who would enjoy the pleasures of becoming part of the Israeli economy.

I encourage all of my colleagues, as they are back in the districts over the Memorial Day weekend, if they ever have anybody come up to them and complain about Israel, which, for the first time in my life, I am getting a little bit of, you can talk about all the people from all around the globe who would happily work in Israel, people who don't speak the native language, like I said, coming from the other hemisphere. Still, they realize how fortunate they are to work in Israel.

Hopefully, they will have a little bit less sympathy for these Palestinians who have had a tough time, admittedly, in the area. They have a hard time voting for people who are not crooked, on the take, and that sort of thing. In any event, it is something we ought to remember.

Income Transfer Programs

Mr. Speaker, the next issue which I would like to deal with is one I have dealt with many times before. It is one that I personally consider to be the biggest issue which America has to deal with today and which we are not dealing with. Hopefully, we will address it when we return from the recess.

Right now, America has over 70 income transfer programs which are designed to help the so-called poor in America. I believe every one of these programs, be it food stamps, be it Pell grants, be it low-income housing, be it TANF payments--I believe every one of these programs has a strong marriage penalty associated with them.

In other words, the way that the qualifications work, if you have a family income below a certain amount--maybe $30,000, maybe $20,000, maybe $15,000--you are eligible for government benefits. If a single person with children marries--usually marries a man with an average income, all of a sudden, you are no longer considered in poverty, and they take these benefits away from you.

So what happens is--and Americans have figured this out--you may, by getting married, lose $20,000, $25,000, or $30,000 in tax-free benefits.

What is the result of this? Well, just like everything else in the tax code, it has an effect on people's behavior.

Since the government really began declaring war on married couples-- particularly married couples with children--in the 1960s under Lyndon Johnson, we have gone from, in the 1950s, about 4 percent of the children born with a mother and father at home, to over 40 percent born without a mother and father at home.

Now, I am the first one to say that I certainly know many single parents who have done a fantastic job. There is no question about it. But the statistics would indicate it is also a much more difficult thing to raise children in that environment. Statistics would also show that men, in particular, seem to thrive more when they are responsible for the breadwinning in a family with children than when they are not.

So we have a situation in which both the children and, in particular, the fathers, are paying a price--and the mothers, as well--all paying a price for the current policy of the American Government of trying to discourage married couples from having children.

I have asked the President and the Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate to put together some sort of committee or commission to deal with this problem. I can't think of any Americans, or they are few and far between, who think it is good public policy to penalize people $25,000 for getting married when they have children.

It will be a difficult problem to address, but it is a problem that has to be addressed, and whether we talk about crime, whether we talk about drug abuse, whether we talk about depression, I think all of these problems would, to a certain extent, be lessened if we had a situation of more married couples.

George Gilder wrote about this problem about 40 years ago and did a very good job of pointing out that when it came to men, almost all or way disproportionately, when you are dealing with drug abuse, when you are dealing with crime, the men who are involved in these antisocial activities are very rarely married in a family with children. This is something that almost exclusively is a problem of the current American policy of trying to discourage having men in a household with children.

I should point out that we have had many conservative groups--and I want to rattle them off right now--I would even call them President Trump's base--who are saying, let us address this problem: The American Principles Project, Heritage Action for America, Center for Urban Renewal and Education, Advancing American Freedom, AdvanceUSA, Capability Consulting, Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Coalition for Jewish Values, Faith & Liberty in the Nation's Capital, the Family Policy Alliance, Faith and Freedom Coalition, Family Watch International, the Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schlafly's old group--man, Phyllis Schlafly was great--and the Independent Women's Forum.

All of these groups are begging this institution and the executive branch to take action so we no longer penalize people for getting married, particularly penalize them for getting married when they have children.

Hopefully, next week or the week after that, when we return, we will

hear a little bit more from our President and my Speaker when they have to consider what the people who elected, particularly elected Republicans have to deal with. That is to stop the breakdown of the family, which is, by the way, an agenda item. Sometimes people think this just happened or that people are less religious or something.

You have to remember Karl Marx, who I think to this day has an influence on the hard leftwing of the Democratic Party. He certainly was antifamily.

Kate Millett, who I think some people would describe as the founder of the powerful women's studies departments on college campuses in the 1960s, made it clear that she was opposed to old-fashioned, nuclear families.

So, like I said, I hope that this issue will be tackled to a degree between now and the election. There are certainly groups that see the perverse effects of the policies put in place in the 1960s and would like to see changes.

Overprescribing Mood Disorder Drugs

Mr. Speaker, the final topic that I hope we take up deals with the, perhaps, over-obsession with the mental health establishment in this country.

There recently was a book put out with regard to what I will describe as the overprescribing of antidepressant drugs or other drugs related to so-called mental illnesses among the very young.

The number of these medications has gone up dramatically in the last 20 years. I know the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Bobby Kennedy is working on this, but I think it is important, collectively, that action be taken by Congress and by the President that we do what we can do to reduce the dramatic increase in depression in very young people.

I was not aware until I got involved in this issue that these antidepressants are addictive. So right now, our mental health establishment is putting millions and millions--we have a statistic here of 27 million U.S. adults receiving mental health treatment. Millions of Americans are on addictive medicines because of so-called depression.

I recently read a book on this topic called ``Unshrunk: A Story of Psychiatric Treatment Resistance,'' in which the author described being on these medications for about 15 years, from the time she was 14 years old on, unaware that the problems which she was suffering, the behavioral problems, were not cured by the drugs. They were caused by the drugs.

Right now, the combination of the mental health establishment and the pharmaceutical industry have combined to, I think, damage a lot of people's health. Particularly because they are addicting, I think a lot of these people are going to be hurt by these drugs for the rest of their life.

Those are five issues that I hope I have clarified in how to respond regarding them. At least the last two issues, issues that should be taken up by this Congress when we return from Memorial Day break.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, hearing the comments from a lot of my colleagues here, I will repeat a quote that has been put over and over again on the news the last couple of days. It is a Ronald Reagan quote: ``I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'' That is never going to happen.

Okay. Now I am here to support the Taxpayer Due Process Enhancement Act. It is a bipartisan bill that strengthens taxpayer protections and restores fairness to disputes with the IRS.

Prior to my time in elected office, I dealt with a law firm that did hundreds of tax returns every year. I dealt with everyday Americans as they brought their records, receipts, W-2s, 1099s, and whatever paperwork they had received from the IRS. Many were not experts, and I am talking about the people who work for the IRS, because they are frequently wrong.

Our clients were workers, retirees, small business owners, and families trying to do the right thing. I saw how easy it is for honest taxpayers to become overwhelmed with our overcomplicated tax law and, therefore, wind up confused with all of their notices and rules that seemed to change from year to year, and they sometimes did.

Those are the people I came to Congress to help, and those are the people this bill is meant to protect. They should not be at the mercy of a Federal agency that can use procedural loopholes to avoid review or pressure them into giving up a legitimate challenge.

Most taxpayers are not trying to cheat the system. They are just trying to file correctly, correct honest mistakes, and make sure they are treated

fairly. When a dispute arises, the IRS often has the advantage. It has more resources, more lawyers, and a much better understanding of the system than the average American. As I pointed out, frequently the IRS agents themselves don't know the law.

This is why due process matters. Every American deserves the right to challenge the IRS without worrying that the government will change the rules.

Unfortunately, current law allows that to happen. The IRS can effectively sidestep Tax Court review by applying refunds or disputed tax liabilities or withdrawing collection actions before the court can fully rule on the merits of the case. That is not how due process should work in this country.

This legislation protects taxpayers by preserving refund rights during disputes, preventing the IRS from taking refunds without consent, and ensuring that taxpayers receive a full review before the Tax Court. These are straightforward reforms rooted in fairness and accountability. The IRS should not be allowed to use procedural loopholes to pressure taxpayers or avoid review.

This bill is especially important for small businesses, working families, and individuals, who don't have a team of lawyers or accountants at their disposal. Americans should be able to challenge the IRS on equal footing and trust that the system will treat them fairly.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Representatives Moran and Sewell for advancing this bipartisan legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call for a vote at some time in this Chamber shortly on H.R. 979, a bill put together by Gus Bilirakis of Florida.

Recently, I had a friend who purchased a high--I could even argue overpriced European automobile. After driving around in the car for a few days, all of a sudden, she realized that automobile didn't have AM radio.

I can't imagine what I would have felt like if I spent 50 grand for a car and had no AM radio. Couldn't I take it back and say: Take out the windshield and put in the AM radio.

I mean, there are certain things you expect out of a car. I know the automobile industry is highly regulated to a certain extent because we don't want anybody shocked at the things they don't have in a car when they buy it.

This bill is mandatory. I bet I have AM radio on 80 percent of the time I am in the car. Whether you want news, traffic, weather, sports, AM is the radio where you find it.

I will tell you: To prevent anybody from having a heart attack when they buy a car, let's pass H.R. 979.

Mr. Speaker, National Police Week serves as an important reminder of the brave law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line every day to protect our communities.

During this week, we honor the officers who answer the call knowing that they may face dangerous and unpredictable situations in service to our community. Their courage, sacrifice, and dedication deserve not only our gratitude, but our continued support.

This week, two Wisconsin officers are being honored during National Police Week and will have their names added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial.

The first is Racine County Deputy Joshua LaForge. Deputy LaForge knew from an early age that he wanted to serve others through law enforcement. That commitment guided his life and career.

He served both with the Racine Police Department for 18 years and then joined the Racine County Sheriff's Department. Throughout his career, he took on many responsibilities within

the department, participated in charitable efforts throughout the community, and dedicated himself to helping those around him.

Tragically, Deputy LaForge passed away on July 4, 2023.

The second is Milwaukee Police Officer Kendall Corder. Officer Corder served with the Milwaukee Police Department for more than 6 years. On June 26, 2025, Officer Corder and his partner responded to a domestic violence call involving an armed suspect. While en route, the call was upgraded to shots fired. When they arrived on the scene, Officer Corder and his partner were ambushed by a suspect hiding in nearby bushes. Officer Corder later succumbed to his injuries on June 29, 2025.

Their service and sacrifice serve as a powerful reminder of the risks law enforcement officers face every day and of the countless families and communities forever changed by their loss.

As we remember those who make the ultimate sacrifice, I would also like to make specific mention from Wisconsin's Sixth District, State Trooper Trevor Casper. Back home, he is remembered as a shining example of service, courage, and selflessness.

Trevor's dream was to become a Wisconsin State trooper, and in December of 2014, he graduated from the State Patrol Academy and was stationed in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin.

Tragically, just months later, on March 24, 2015, during his first solo assignment, Trevor Casper was shot while apprehending a bank robbery and murder suspect.

Though mortally wounded, Trevor returned fire and stopped the suspect, protecting innocent lives and preventing further harm to the community.

Just think about that. You have been shot and are in the process of dying, but still you return fire, stop the suspect, and save members of the community.

He was just 21 years old--so tragic. Trooper Casper's bravery in the face of danger and his commitment to protecting others will never be forgotten.

Trevor is also a reminder that there are countless law enforcement officers across this country who quietly make extraordinary sacrifices in service of their communities. Many have given their lives in the line of duty, and each one deserves our respect, gratitude, and remembrance.

During National Police Week and throughout the year, we must continue standing with law enforcement officers and honor the memory of those who gave their lives in service.

I would suggest to those in the Chamber who are hearing our remarks, I think one of the things that you can really do that will drive home to any individual here what a great job our law enforcement officers are doing is to do a drive-along with them. I try to do one of these at least once every 2 years. It really brings home the situations that our law enforcement officers face, the possibility of harm. Nevertheless, again and again and again, they go out, go into unknown circumstances, risking huge physical harm to themselves, to apprehend dangerous members of our community.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Utah for organizing this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank Josh Brecheen for arranging this Special Order. We are speaking now on the 250th anniversary of the United States, the anniversary of this blessed Nation. We should thank God for all He has given to this country.

On this anniversary, we can't help but take stock of the condition of this country. While people back home are concerned about material concerns, that is true, but if I asked them what the real problems are in the country, they almost uniformly are concerned about a moral breakdown. This is not surprising.

John Adams warned that our country was made for a moral and religious nation and totally unfit for any other kind.

This is our problem. No one can doubt that in the last 50, 60, or 80 years in this country, our country has become less moral and less religious. This has become a particularly greater trend over the last couple of decades.

Our forefathers routinely prayed to a Christian God. All the way up through Abraham Lincoln, our Presidents called upon our Nation to fast as they prayed to God.

Today, by the way, you can't even get the clergy themselves to ask for a day of fasting.

Our forefathers, the most popular book they read in the Bible was the book of Deuteronomy, the book that has the Ten Commandments in it and a book that dealt a lot with the laws that Israel was founded in.

In any event, I should also point out that behind me here, we have the reliefs here in the U.S. Congress. The most prominent position is given to a relief of Moses, which is an indication that our forefathers wanted a very religious Nation.

Mr. Speaker, let us one more time pray to God to rededicate this country to Him. We must pray for faith to bring this country back to its God-fearing roots, and one more time not only call on prayer and fasting as we try to work our way back to what this country once was and what we must be again if we are going to continue to survive, because no matter what laws we pass in this body, if we are not a moral and religious nation, we are through.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment will help to continue to strengthen the recent SNAP reforms by requiring a report on the SNAP- eligible food pilot programs and directing the Department of Agriculture to provide Congress with recommendations on potential updates to the definition of ``eligible foods'' under the program.

SNAP is one of the largest nutrition programs in the country. It is intended to help low-income Americans put food on the table, and it plays an essential role in supporting families in need. At the same time, it is funded by taxpayers, and we have a responsibility to ensure that it is working as intended.

As part of the broader nutrition programs in this bill, Congress has taken steps to strengthen the connection between Federal nutrition programs and improved health outcomes. This is part of the MAHA movement.

This amendment supports that effort by ensuring that we evaluate the results of SNAP pilot programs and make informed, data-driven decisions about the program's future.

We know there is a growing concern about how taxpayer dollars are being used within SNAP, particularly regarding which types of foods are eligible for purchase. It is something I hear about every time I go to the grocery store. Through recent reforms, Congress authorized pilot programs allowing States to test ways to better align SNAP purchases with healthier food options.

This amendment ensures that work continues by requiring USDA to report back to Congress on the feasibility, implementation, and effectiveness of these pilot programs, along with recommendations for any necessary statutory changes. It takes a measured approach: gathering the facts first and allowing Congress to make thoughtful decisions based on real-world results.

Ultimately, this is about improving outcomes for families, providing better nutrition, and ensuring responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to it leading to a thinner, healthier America. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, just one follow-up there on that. We talk about making life easier. Life is easier if you don't become diabetic. Life is easier if you are thinner. As a result, the overall effect of this amendment will make life easier for people. You have to remember that a lot of this food that is bought on food stamps is going to wind up on the table of young

children, so we particularly want to look out for them.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

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

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Ms. Hageman, I rise to speak in support of the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer amendment No. 21 to the farm bill, which would put ranchers with permits to graze on national grasslands in parity with those grazing on other Federal lands.

Section 402 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, or FLPMA, authorizes grazing permits for 10 years on national forests and Bureau of Land Management lands with renewal eligibility subject to continued compliance.

Grazing on national grasslands is designated by the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act and authorized for 10 years but is not protected and recognized as an official use similar to FLPMA.

Ranchers with permits to graze on national grasslands are not guaranteed permit renewals and have experienced unnecessary hurdles with the USDA in obtaining these renewals.

When this topic received a legislative hearing, Ty Checketts, the president of the National Association of National Grasslands, spoke to the challenges these ranchers face. He stated that the exclusion of national grasslands under FLPMA creates two classes of permits with the grasslands having fewer rights. He testified that the lack of assurance leads to real world harms, pointing to the loss of AUMs on multiple grasslands across several States.

U.S. Forest Service testimony also recognized the disparity of policy for livestock grazing permits and leases between national forests and national grasslands.

This amendment is a permanent fix to this issue providing much-needed certainty and security for ranchers, including the right to 10-year permits, first priority for receipt of new permits, and more.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support amendment No. 21 to support grazers on our national grasslands. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, as the designee of Ms. Hageman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer amendment 22 to the farm bill, which repeals and prohibits future implementation of the electronic identification, or EID, ear tag rule.

In 2013, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, issued the Animal Disease Traceability Rule, which allowed the use of ear tags, brands, and tattoos for livestock identification in interstate commerce.

In November 2024, APHIS amended the ADT rule to mandate EID ear tags for cattle and bison moving interstate, despite overwhelming opposition to such efforts.

Ranchers and producers are opposed for a multitude of reasons. The rule is the product of a flawed rulemaking. APHIS did not conduct a federalism analysis, even though States have identification regulations and laws. It did not conduct an adequate small business analysis, even though APHIS admitted the rule would burden small operators. APHIS intentionally undercounted the cost of the rule, basing it just on the cost of the EID tags and not an entire EID system.

EID is a government mandate on farmers and ranchers, and one which the Animal Health Protection Act does not authorize APHIS to create or enforce.

Because APHIS incorrectly calculated the cost of the rule, it is also an underfunded mandate. Since the demand for EID tags is driven not by actual market demand but by government mandate, ranchers are facing tag shortages, harming their ability to comply with the rule.

If the government cannot provide tags to the regulated community, then this mandate is cost prohibitive for producers, which jeopardizes their future operations and risks additional vertical integration in the increasingly consolidated food supply chain.

This government mandate also raises privacy concerns for ranchers and their herds based on information collected through the EID system, concerns which APHIS never adequately addressed in the rule.

The rule's application to bison also disadvantages Tribal bison ranchers who manage bison as wildlife, not as livestock.

Because of all of these issues, it is nearly 2 years later and ranchers are still facing EID tag shortages. The cost of EID tags on the private market increased because of its fallout--all this harm for a regulation that is not needed as the U.S. already had a well- functioning animal disease traceability system. APHIS even conceded in the rulemaking that foreign animal disease had largely been excluded from the country.

Ranchers and farmers should be allowed to adopt the best practices for their business and herds voluntarily when it makes sense for them, not at the behest of a Federal agency.

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

Mr. Chair, I urge all my colleagues to support amendment No. 22 and finally end the EID ear tag mandate on America's ranchers.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, we could talk at length the degree to which our welfare system allows people to buy things or use services that the average person in our society, at least if they are appropriately frugal, do not use. The easiest one that we should put an end to is this idea of unhealthy, sugary drinks.

The gentlewoman talks about making life easier. If you want to make life tougher, you give people a lot of Mountain Dew and increase the amount of obesity and increase the amount of diabetes. That is not a good thing.

That is particularly not a good thing when you consider some of the money you are getting on your food stamps goes to your kids. I mean, I feel horrible if I am in a grocery store and I see somebody use food stamps for these soft drinks, and they have got little kids with them. We should just not do that.

Like I said, I think the average person in our society does not spend money on this stuff, and we shouldn't be giving it to people in the welfare program.

Mr. Speaker, I had a late flight. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 138 and YEA on Roll Call No. 139.

Mr. Speaker, lies, lies, lies. Sometimes you have just got to deal with common sense.

Who gets overtime? When we cut the tax on overtime, the CEO of the pharmaceutical company who makes $12 million a year, does he get overtime? As a matter of fact, most white-collar people don't get overtime. Overtime is for the workingman. When we cut taxes on overtime, it is obviously designed to benefit the workingman.

Who gets tips? The workingman and the workingwoman, that is who is getting tips. When we cut taxes on tips, of course, we are aiming at the average guy.

We have a special cut for seniors. Our seniors--wealthy people, not normally--if you look at the special tax cut for seniors, we didn't include the super-wealthy seniors. We were aiming at the average guy.

Wherever you look on your tax return, I beg America to look at how much they paid in taxes a year ago and

how much they paid in taxes this year. Again and again, the workingman is going to find out that we have delivered a workingman's and workingwoman's tax cut.

I was dealing with subcommittee work and preparation. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 104.

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, on today, the day when Members fly out, I want to leave the body with some thoughts regarding some issues that I don't think enough attention has been paid to.

The first issue I want to talk about is the issue regarding sheltered workshops or community rehabilitation providers. Maybe some of my colleagues have taken tours of these wonderful facilities. They are largely places in which people who have different abilities work, perhaps they have Down syndrome, perhaps they have spina bifida, perhaps they are even quadriplegic.

These facilities, however, offer opportunities of employment for people. These are people who years ago had no employment and were stuck, sitting at home, perhaps with their parents, perhaps in a group home, without the opportunity to share in the satisfaction of work and without the ability to supplement their other income. Frequently, that other income amounts to some sort of Social Security disability payment.

In any event, I have a bill introduced, which I hope becomes part of the WIOA package in the Education Committee. Under that bill, we are going to try to stop the current trend of closing down these facilities.

People who want to close down these facilities do it, in part, by saying people have to try and fail and work three times and get fired three times in the community before they are allowed to work at these facilities. That is really just a horrible thing. As a practical matter, it makes it very difficult for people to work in these sorts of facilities.

Secondly, right now, it creates a situation in which these folks do not have the ability to get outside of what I will refer to as day services. Right now--and I encourage all my colleagues to tour facilities like this--right now, if a person works in a facility like this, they have the joy and satisfaction of getting a paycheck just like perhaps the siblings of these people do.

There is a great deal of satisfaction in buying your own clothes and in buying gifts for your relatives, which is why it is so important we keep the facilities open and stop the attack of the people who are trying to shut down these facilities.

We might ask: Why would anybody shut down these facilities? First of all, people don't like the fact that in these facilities people are frequently making minimum wage, which is true.

However, people with some abilities, if we look at the light work they are doing, it is hard to imagine that a profit-making business or any sort of business could operate paying some folks like this over $7.50 an hour. Upon touring them, we immediately see why some of these folks make $6 an hour, $4 an hour, or $3 an hour.

The other criticism of them is they feel it is segregating people to put them in a facility with other people who have handicaps. That, of course, is ridiculous. First of all, sitting in facilities like this, we have what I will refer to as management or sometimes people working part time so that they can ramp up the amount of production in these facilities.

In any event, they may get to know these folks for 10 or 20 or 30 years. They get to know not only the people with disabilities themselves but, again, people in management. That is much less turnover than if these folks got a job in the community for 5 or 6 hours a week at a fast-food enterprise where there is a great deal of turnover.

Like I said, it would be very difficult to find anybody in the community that frequently can provide a 30-hour-a-week or 35-hour-a- week job that you really need if you are going to feel like a working member of the community.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage this body, when we pass the WIOA Act out of the Education Committee, we pass a bill with it strengthening these facilities and stopping the foolish regulations that right now are causing, sadly, many of these facilities to close.

One more time I ask my colleagues, even if they are doing it to get reelected, why don't they take a tour of these community rehabilitation providers and watch the enjoyment that these employees get in working just like everybody else in society and the huge social benefits they get by establishing lifelong friends in these facilities, who they enjoy spending time with.

After all, for these folks, it is even more important than other people to socialize with people they work with. All of us to a degree socialize with our fellow employees. Again, people who have Down syndrome or spina bifida, I think their parents frequently worry what type of friends they will have when they are gone. These facilities provide those lifelong friendships that are so important.

Budget Requests and Excessive Employees

Mr. Speaker, the next thing I would like to address is soon we are going to take up a budget and begin to take up appropriation bills for the year beginning September 1. We also may be taking up some sort of bill dealing with the hostilities in Iran.

Given that, I want to remind people we recently hit $39 trillion in debt in this country. We are borrowing about 25 or 26 percent of our budget. I think all of the folks back home ought to stop and think. Can you imagine what it is like borrowing 26 percent of your budget? It is utterly reckless for anyone to do that in their life or their business, but that is what we are doing right now.

Right now, about 14 percent of our tax dollars sent to Washington already go to interest. Obviously, that is the beginning of the downward spiral toward bankruptcy when 14 percent of our budget is on interest.

What I will ask--I am sure we will be asked to spend money on a supplemental for the war in Iran, and I am prepared to do that. I do ask leadership to step up to the plate and pass a reconciliation bill or appropriation bills that are a little more responsible than the irresponsible ones in the past.

After all, if it is worthwhile to spend billions of dollars, tens of billions, maybe hundreds of billions of dollars in Iran, it is certainly worthwhile that maybe we don't reduce spending to cover all of that but reduce spending to a degree.

DOGE, which people begin to forget about, pointed out the huge number of excessive employees in all government agencies. In the Department of Defense right now, we still have just under 700,000 people who are nonuniformed personnel. In other words, people are sitting in front of a computer for the Department of Defense.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think anybody can argue that that number is high. We reduced the number mildly by providing buyouts for people. We reduced the number by putting in hiring freezes so if that people retire, they don't get replaced. That only reduced the employment by 60,000 or 70,000 people.

Mr. Speaker, I think if you ask around, you will find people who know through their relatives or people in their apartment building or people in their church that there are still probably hundreds of thousands of people who are working there unnecessarily.

Before the Department of Defense comes back with or at the same time they come back with requests for a supplemental to spend more money, I think it is important for the Department of Defense to come back and explain to us what they have done to reduce the number of employees there and for the administration overall to look at the number of employees in all other agencies, as well as programs in other agencies, and say this is what we have to cut if we are going to begin to fund the Iran war.

I am not even asking for $1 for $1 or $1 cut for every $2 spent. Maybe $1 reduction for every $3 spent would be appropriate, but I hope they don't insult the next generation by just asking for additional spending.

No Funding for Early Transgender Surgeries

Mr. Speaker, the next issue I would like to address is one that Dr. Oz got in the paper for, and that is the transgender situation in this country.

I frequently hear conservative commentators, FOX News in particular, who talk about boys in girls' sports. We shouldn't have boys in girls' sports. However, I think that kind of implies that if we solve that problem, we solve the transgender problem.

That is not true. Recent studies have shown a dramatic reduction in the number of people who claim to be

transgender. I think for people like me, that is not a surprise at all because I think a lot of people who are being transgender are being transgender because they are egged on by psychiatrists or egged on by school counselors, or even more, egged on by popular culture as a way to find a peer group and as way to kind of be, you know, the cool rebel.

Yet, Dr. Oz has taken on the medical groups, including the American Psychiatric Association, who have been in favor of identifying people as transgender and even giving them puberty blockers and, worse, giving them surgeries before age 18.

Now, I don't know how anybody, any medical professional, anybody with a wit of common sense, would give anybody surgery before 25 years old because you know that people change their minds about things, and obviously if you have one of these dramatic surgeries and realize later that you made a mistake, it is going to result in huge psychiatric problems.

So I strongly encourage Dr. Oz to get more involved in this. I strongly encourage this body to lower their opinion of the American Psychiatric Association because these people who have spent a long period of time in school apparently have a complete and utter lack of common sense, and one wonders why we are listening to them or why we are required to give them money for their ridiculous efforts on behalf of early surgeries on transgender people.

In any event, I hope that all conservative commentators, when they talk about the transgender thing, in addition to talking about the relatively tiny number of men who participate in women's sports, go after the psychiatrists and psychologists who are giving puberty blockers and, even more, giving outright surgeries on our young people that I would bet in very, very many cases, they will regret and they will regret listening to the professionals who went to school at length for such a preposterous endeavor.

Finding Waste in Income Transfer Programs

Mr. Speaker, the next thing I would like to point out is I thank Congressman Owens for introducing a bill that we recently dealt with in the Education Committee.

Over time, certainly in Minnesota but across the country, we are finding shocking amounts of money being wasted on income transfer programs. We found another one here. We are right now giving aid to students who may not even exist, and maybe some of that money winds up with colleges and universities toward tuition, but a lot of the money winds up with what we will call ghost students, students who don't exist except for on paper, and somebody winds up stealing money that the government is printing.

First of all, one more time, it gives a lesson as to why things ought to be handled on a State and local level because I think State and local governments are going to be much quicker to pick up on the fact that they are being taken advantage of than the unwieldy Federal Government.

Secondly, it is continuing a trend that we have in this country of encouraging the crooks in society to take advantage of the Federal Government and get wildly rich.

We are, in this bill, going to make it a much more difficult thing and require the government to look into this matter and into the students who are getting these aid payments so that things in one more program don't wind up completely out of control.

I strongly encourage this body to pare back on any of these programs that are wrought with fraud. I think a conclusion that ought to be dealt with once you get done looking at fraud for food stamps or fraud for Medicaid or fraud for earned income tax credit is that if you let the Federal Government do anything, there will be tons of fraud in it and the less of these programs, the better.

It doesn't mean that people can't be helped, but the people should be helped by either private charity, or they should be helped by State and local governments.

Families Without Men

Mr. Speaker, my final thing I am going to point out, and I recently had a meeting on this with the Vice President, but what I think is the biggest problem with the government right today, which is further related to all of these income transfer payments, is the fact that right now in this government and really for the last 60 years, we have been penalizing couples who have children in wedlock.

This has been a longtime dream of getting rid of the nuclear family. It was Karl Marx's dream. It was Kate Millett, the mother of the women's studies department, dream, families without men. All sorts of families can succeed. I assume you know many single parents who have done a fantastic job of raising their children.

Nevertheless, as they work toward their goal of keeping men out of the family, it statistically overall does hurt the children to a degree. It is not something that we should be encouraging.

I sit here and listen to hearings about educational achievement. I listen to hearings about crime problems, hearings about depression, hearings about drug use, and to a degree, I think the answer is never brought up in these hearings.

The answer is: Stronger families. Yet, if this government is going to give a bonus of $25,000 per year or penalize somebody $25,000 per year for getting married before they have children, it is obviously, first of all, unfair on its face, or grotesquely favoring one lifestyle over another lifestyle. Secondly, we are reducing the number of children who do have a mother and father at home.

I strongly encourage Vice President Vance and President Trump to step forward and appoint some sort of committee or commission to recommend what we should do instead of dramatically penalizing couples who decide to get married.

I will point out that you are hurting the children, which is true. I think you are hurting the mothers, which is true. Yet, according to expert sociologists like George Gilder, you are hurting the prospective husbands or fathers because the way society is built up, the primary purpose of most men in the country is supposed to be to take care of their wives and children.

As an Indian immigrant friend of mine said: When you have the government marrying the woman, it kind of leaves the man out of the picture, and he loses what is supposed to be his natural purpose in life.

I strongly encourage Speaker Johnson, Majority Leader Thune, and President Trump to establish some sort of committee in which we can look at all of these programs. There are about 70 programs out there in which we penalize people for getting married.

Pell grants, it is much easier to get a college scholarship if you are a single parent than a married parent. Food stamps, low-income housing, earned income tax credit, daycare subsidies, like I said, about 70 programs, and it looks, to a certain extent, the way they were put together, their design was to cause the breakdown of the American family.

I hope that is something that can be done over the next couple of months. I thought it would be done today, but I think the war in Iran is taking everybody's focus. Yet, I would like to see us by the time June rolls around to have these committees or commissions at work preparing recommendations so that we no longer exhibit this hatred that we apparently have in this country of people who decide to get married before they have children.

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