Glenn Grothman

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. 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. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. 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. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. 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.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. 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. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. 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. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. 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. GROTHMAN. 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.

Mr. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. 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. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. 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. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. 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. GROTHMAN. 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. GROTHMAN. 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. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. 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. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. 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. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. 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. GROTHMAN

Mr. GROTHMAN. 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. GROTHMAN

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

Mr. GROTHMAN. 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.

Mr. GROTHMAN. Yes.

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

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

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

Mr. GROTHMAN. 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.