Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the courage of Falun Gong practitioners, who for more than two decades have faced severe persecution in China because of their beliefs--beliefs centered on the principles of truthfulness, compassion, and forbearance, and on a desire to revive traditional Chinese culture and values.

According to documentation compiled by Minghui.org, at least 5,910 Falun Gong practitioners have died as a result of repression by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The CCP has also subjected Falun Gong practitioners to arbitrary detention, torture, and forced organ harvesting--an atrocity that shocks the conscience.

I also rise to recognize the Tuidang Movement--translated as the ``Quitting the CCP Movement''--and to commend the Global Service Center for Quitting the Chinese Communist Party, known as the Tuidang Center, for its work in support of freedom of conscience and human dignity.

In December 2004, The Epoch Times published a report titled Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party, an account of the Party's history. According to that report, the CCP has been responsible since 1949 for the unnatural deaths of 60 to 80 million Chinese people, and by now likely more. It also highlighted the hundreds of millions of abortions committed under China's coercive population control regimes, and in 2013, China's own health ministry corroborated this when it released data showing that more than 300 million abortions had been performed since 1971.

Over the following two decades, according to organizers, millions of copies of the Nine Commentaries were reproduced and distributed within China by Falun Gong practitioners, often at great personal risk. That effort helped give rise to the Tuidang Movement, through which individuals can renounce their affiliation with the CCP, the Communist Youth League, and the Young Pioneers, frequently using pseudonyms to protect their safety.

The Tuidang Center, based in New York, collects these withdrawal statements through volunteer networks and tracks the movement's growth. Its volunteers outside China also reach Chinese citizens by phone, message, and email to share information about withdrawing from the CCP and its affiliated organizations. In recent years, Chinese immigrants have publicly announced their withdrawals at Tuidang rallies in Flushing, New York, receiving certificates memorializing their decisions.

According to the Tuidang Center's records, as of July 2026, more than 464 million people have submitted statements dissociating themselves from the CCP or its affiliated organizations. This movement of nonviolent resistance to totalitarianism represents an awakening of conscience, grounded in a desire to reclaim China's cultural and moral heritage. Such resistance helps lay the moral foundation for a future of greater freedom and justice in China, while also standing against the spread of communist ideology worldwide. The witness of those who participate in this movement should also remind Americans of the continuing dangers posed by communist ideology.

The CCP has a well-documented history of transnational repression, and the Tuidang Center states that its own work has faced intimidation and disruption here in the United States. According to the Center, it received eight threatening letters between April 20 and 28, 2025, and its public booths in Flushing were vandalized on April 29, 2025. Transnational repression targeting advocates on American soil is a serious matter, and such conduct has no place in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the right to hold and peacefully express one's beliefs, and to associate or disassociate freely, is a fundamental human right. I honor the courage of Falun Gong practitioners and the volunteers of the Tuidang Movement, and I commend the Global Service Center for Quitting the Chinese Communist Party for its work on behalf of freedom of conscience. I urge my colleagues to join me in standing with all who peacefully advocate for human dignity and the freedom to believe.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a son of Tennessee whose courage still echoes across generations, a man who represents the very best of Middle Tennessee and the very best of this country, John Harlan Willis.

Born in Columbia, Tennessee, John Harlan Willis was one of those young men who didn't wait for history to call his name. At 19, before the United States had entered World War II, he stepped forward and enlisted in the United States Navy. He became a pharmacist's mate, a corpsman attached to the Marine infantry where his duty was clear and unforgiving. When others hit the ground, he got up, and he moved forward and went straight into the fire to keep his fellow Americans alive.

On the black sands of the Battle of Iwo Jima, one of the most brutal battles in American history, Willis stood shoulder to shoulder with Marines under relentless enemy fire. He moved forward when others were forced down, crossing open ground under artillery and mortar fire to reach the wounded. Even after he himself was struck by shrapnel, he refused evacuation. He did not step back. He went forward again.

Then came the moment that defines him. As enemy grenades began landing among his fellow Marines, Willis did something almost impossible to comprehend. He picked them up, one after another, and threw them back toward the enemy, not once, not twice, but eight times. He chose the lives of others over his own. Eight times he placed himself between death and his fellow Americans. On the ninth grenade, there was no time left. It detonated in his hand. He was 23 years old.

In that instant, John Harlan Willis gave everything he had so others might live, not because anyone ordered him to, not because anyone was watching, but because that is who he was.

He left behind a widow, Winfrey Willis, and a young son, John Harlan Willis, Jr., a family that carried forward his name and his legacy. Today, that legacy belongs not just to Columbia, not just to Tennessee, but the entire Nation.

We live in a time when words like ``courage'' and ``sacrifice'' are often used lightly. If we want to understand what those words truly mean, we should look to the men like John Harlan Willis. He reminds us that greatness is not found in titles or positions but in decisive moments when a person chooses others over themselves.

Naming the United States Post Office in Columbia in his honor is more than a symbolic act. It is a statement about who we choose to remember. It is a commitment that future generations walking into that building will see his name and ask who he was. When they learn, they will understand what the country expects of its sons and daughters.

John Harlan Willis is not just a hero of the past, he is a standard for the future.

Madam Speaker, before I close, I would ask this body for a brief moment of silence for Pharmacist's Mate First Class John Harlan Willis; for his widow, Winfrey Willis; and for his son, John Harlan Willis, Jr., a man who had to grow up without his father; and for all of those who gave everything so that we may stand here today free.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 2659, the Strengthening Cyber Resilience Against State-Sponsored Threats Act.

Earlier this year, I introduced this legislation because the United States is facing an increasingly coordinated and persistent effort by malicious cyber actors linked to the Government of the People's Republic of China, the PRC. These groups represent one of the most serious national security challenges confronting our Nation today.

Reports from Federal agencies and private-sector partners over the past several years have shown that Chinese state-sponsored cyber actors, including Volt Typhoon, Salt Typhoon, and other PRC-affiliated groups, have been targeting the systems and services that Americans rely on every single day.

In committee, there has been testimony that 98 percent of our municipalities operate under cybersecurity poverty, meaning they don't have the resources to defend themselves. These intrusions have affected communication providers, energy operators, water systems, transportation networks, and other sectors that are fundamental to public safety and economic stability.

What has become clear is that these actors are not simply trying to collect information. In many cases, they have attempted to position themselves inside sensitive systems for long periods of time, for years, in some cases, before being discovered.

Their activity indicates preparation for the possibility of major disruption during a time of crisis, including potentially over Taiwan. This is a serious strategic concern, and it demands a serious national response.

These groups often use advanced techniques that allow them to operate quietly within everyday system activity. They rely on legitimate tools and access privileges to conceal malicious behavior. This makes detection extremely difficult and allows intrusions to remain unnoticed until long after a compromise has taken place.

While Federal agencies have taken important steps to respond, the overall effort has revealed significant challenges in the way our government organizes its cybersecurity responsibilities. Multiple agencies share roles in protecting critical infrastructure, but they operate under different missions, structures, and authorities. Through fast-moving or complex incidents, these differences can slow the exchange of information and create uncertainty about responsibility and response actions.

H.R. 2659 addresses these gaps by directing the creation of a joint interagency task force led by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, CISA, in partnership with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This task force will bring together the agencies that serve as sector risk management agencies, along with the intelligence community and other Federal partners with responsibility for critical infrastructure security.

The goal is straightforward: Federal actions must be aligned, coordinated, and based on a shared understanding of the threat environment.

The legislation also requires the task force to provide Congress with a detailed initial assessment, followed by annual reports for 5 years. These reports will offer insight into the tactics used by PRC- affiliated cyber actors, vulnerabilities across sectors, the potential impacts of disruptions during a major crisis, and any additional tools or authorities Federal agencies may need.

Classified briefings will ensure that Congress receives timely and accurate information necessary to evaluate our nationwide posture.

This bill strengthens unity and effort. It improves coordination. It increases visibility and accountability. It ensures that the United States can respond to foreign cyber aggression with preparation rather than reaction.

H.R. 2659 reflects lessons learned from real-world incidents. It elevates our national approach to cybersecurity, and it helps protect American communities from adversaries who are actively working to compromise the systems that support our way of life.

We cannot let a bureaucracy stand in the way of defending our Nation's cybersecurity. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 5078, the Protecting Information by Local Leaders for Agency Resilience Act, known as the PILLAR Act.

This legislation is about strengthening the first line of defense in our Nation's cybersecurity. While we often focus on Federal networks and high-profile national systems, the reality is that many of the services Americans depend on every single day are run by State and local governments.

When a resident pays a utility bill online, when a police department dispatches an officer, or when a hospital connects to a county network, all of those activities rely on State and local systems that are now squarely in the sights of foreign adversaries and criminal groups.

As a former county executive in Tennessee, I saw firsthand how limited budgets, aging systems, and staffing constraints can leave local governments struggling to keep up with modern cyber threats.

Many smaller jurisdictions only operate with a handful of IT staff and, in some cases, with none at all. Yet, they are expected to defend against the same nation-state actors that target major corporations and Federal agencies. That is not a fair fight, and it is not a sustainable model for national security.

The State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program at the Department of Homeland Security was created to help close that gap by providing targeted assistance to those States, territories, and local governments so that they can assess the risk, modernize outdated systems, and build real cyber resilience.

The PILLAR Act reauthorizes and strengthens this program so that it reflects the threat environment we face today and the technological landscape that State and local partners are actually operating in.

This bill makes several important updates. It ensures that the program covers not only traditional information technology systems but also operational technology and systems that incorporate artificial intelligence. That means that we are recognizing the reality that cyber risk now extends to everything from industrial control systems at water treatment plants to connected devices at public safety networks to AI- enabled tools used by local agencies.

The bill encourages the adoption of basic but powerful best practices, such as multifactor authentication and stronger identity and access management tools across State and local networks.

It promotes continuous vulnerability assessment and monitoring so that jurisdictions can detect and mitigate threats before those threats turn into major incidents. It also emphasizes the importance of good cyber hygiene, modern configuration management, and alignment with frameworks developed by CISA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Importantly, the PILLAR Act recognizes that not all communities start from the same place. It directs outreach and support to rural areas and jurisdictions with small populations, which are often the least resourced but still operate critical services.

It encourages partnerships with academic and nonprofit organizations, including cybersecurity clinics and other technical assistance providers that can help these communities develop and implement their cyber plans. This bill also guards against the use of Federal grant dollars on technology that introduces additional risk.

It prohibits the use of funds to purchase software or hardware from foreign entities of concern when those products do not align with CISA guidance, and it directs grantees to follow secure-by-design recommendations so that public money is not spent on tools that undermine security.

We also provide more predictability around cost share requirements so that States and local governments can plan over the long term.

The legislation maintains a strong Federal commitment while encouraging jurisdictions to invest in sustaining the improvements they make.

For those that implement multifactor authentication and related protections by a certain date, the bill provides additional flexibility in the Federal cost share to reward that proactive work.

This is a bipartisan bill. I am proud to have worked closely with Chairman Garbarino and Representatives Swalwell and Evans on this critical legislation, and appreciate the support it has received from Members on both sides of the aisle.

We share the same goal, which is to help our communities defend themselves against increasingly sophisticated cyber threats and to ensure continuity of essential services for the American people.

Supporting the PILLAR Act is about more than technology. It is about public trust. When a local government falls victim to ransomware and emergency services are delayed, when a school district loses student records, or when basic services are interrupted, citizens lose confidence in those institutions.

This bill helps prevent those outcomes by equipping State and local leaders with the resources and tools they need to prepare.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5078 and to stand with the State, local, Tribal, and territorial partners who are on the front lines of our cyber defense every day.

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

Mr. Chair, America's enemies will stop at nothing to destroy us, and they don't care how they do it. These enemies would stoop so low as to target our young people. For years, countries like the People's Republic of China have used our own universities to advance agendas that hurt American security.

Aside from the state of Qatar, there is probably no other country in the world that finances U.S. colleges and universities more than the People's Republic of China. They use this all-access pass to steal our intellectual property, abuse our student visa programs, and prop up Communist-inspired Confucius Institutes.

This places the Chinese authorities in a real position of influence among our young people, all the more so because our own government doesn't try to hold our colleges and universities accountable to the basic disclosure standards.

A 2019 Senate report found that up to 70 percent of all institutions failed to comply with what are called section 117 disclosure requirements. Those that do not comply with section 117 substantially underreport their foreign donations and contracts.

Under current law, if gifts and contracts, either individual or combined, from an originating country meet or exceed $250,000, these donations must be reported to the Department of Education twice a year.

By failing to enforce our laws, we are signaling to our enemies, especially China, that we don't care if they use and abuse the American higher education system. As a result, we really don't have a clear idea of the extent of China's influence campaign against the youth of America.

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Chairman, when mom and dad send their kids to college, they expect them to get a good education and a return on investment, not to be indoctrinated by our enemies.

The DETERRENT Act does a very valuable service by requiring proper reporting and ensuring that four countries, Iran, Russia, North Korea, and China, who actively seek to undermine our sovereignty, are designated as ``foreign countries of concern.'' Think about that list. This designation means that, for these countries, the foreign gift reporting threshold is zero.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I urge that if we know we have an adversary, we should have access to all of their influence peddling in our country that is targeting our youth so we have the full scale and scope of what they are doing.

There is no country better than China at money laundering. If we ensure that their reporting threshold is zero for the People's Republic of China, that only solves one part of the equation. What happens when the leaders of the PRC attempt to continue their malign influence through Hong Kong or Macau? It could really marginalize the admirable intent of this legislation and could only temporarily, potentially, derail the PRC when we know they are going to try to get around it. We know they are going to launder money through other means.

We have to clear this up, shore this up, and further clarify.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I emphasize that we are talking about countries like Iran, Russia, North Korea, and China. Whether it is a bag of doughnuts or a bag of money, we know they are over here. We know they are doing it. It is not being fully reported. Mistakes are being made. They are trying to influence and brainwash our future leaders of this country.

We need to be proactive. We need to send a message that enough is enough. The reference to doughnuts, so be it. Whether it is a bag of doughnuts or a bag of money, if they are over here with malign intent, the American people have the right to know about it.

Those universities should be put on notice. If you are in bed with the enemy, you should be put on notice. If you are allowing subversion of our country on your campus, the American people should know it.

I don't see why anybody would have a problem with this. It is clear. We are talking about national security at a time when our adversaries are on the move.

I will note my sincere gratitude to both the chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee as well as the committee staff for working with my team on these amendments. This amendment ensures that special administrative regions of China, including Hong Kong and Macau, are covered under the definition of a ``foreign country of concern'' in this bill. Again, we know they are going to launder money through those areas.

It is a commonsense edit that secures American colleges and universities against the number one existential threat to our way of life: the Communist Party of China.

Mr. Chair, again, this is a no-nonsense amendment. This makes sure that we cover our flank, that we identify those areas where we know that other countries can launder money through to influence our campuses. We saw it in the spring. We saw it over this past year, the bad behavior on college campuses. We have to make sure that this money isn't getting through dark channels, back channels, and influencing our universities and our youth.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment ensures that Chinese military companies are included as foreign entities of concern for the purposes of this bill, which would subject such companies to a strict zero- dollar threshold for gifts and contracts.

The section 1260H list was established in the FY 2021 National Defense Authorization Act and has since been used as a blacklist for Chinese military companies that are directly or indirectly owned, controlled, or beneficially owned by the People's Liberation Army or the Central Military Commission of the Chinese Communist Party.

Needless to say, these companies aren't here to be our friends. They hate us, and they want to harm us. They are here to steal our technology and advance China's military modernization efforts. Even so, there are going to be colleges in this country that get so captivated by a dollar figure that they would salivate at the chance to work with our enemies.

Some of America's most sensitive property is housed or developed at our universities, and if there is a whiff of partnership between the institution of higher education and a Chinese military company, the American people deserve to know the details of every last gift and contract.

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

Mr. Chair, the definition of a ``foreign entity of concern'' in this bill would include any company subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a government like China's. While constructive, there is still nothing in the underlying text of this bill and nothing within the definition of a ``foreign entity of concern'' that would automatically refer to the section 1260H list of Chinese military companies.

Since the section 1260H list is something that the Secretary of Defense is instructed to update, it is possible that there is a natural delay as to when Chinese military companies are designated as foreign entities of concern for the purposes of this act.

This amendment provides clarity and ensures that any U.S. college or university entering into a contract with or receiving a donation from a section 1260H list company is required to first receive a section 117A waiver from the Department of Education.

Again, the reporting threshold for foreign entities of concern is zero, meaning that a gift or contract of any size or scope has to be reported.

Mr. Chair, this is about accountability. We know that they are here to steal our secrets. We know that they want to undermine us. As we go into the next phase of warfare that is not just on the battlefield but is cyber war and its capabilities therein, we know that China is aggressive in these spaces. They are in our universities. They are on our campuses. They want to steal this information. We have to have a mechanism of accountability and reporting so that we know who is doing what and where.

It is that simple. It will require universities to pick their partners carefully and make sure they are safeguarding the very technologies that they are being entrusted to house on behalf of the U.S. Government and the U.S. people.

We don't need to enable the Chinese military through modernization, weaponization, or their attack on us, our Constitution, or our way of life. All this does is require reporting. This isn't calling every Chinese individual a bad actor but is acknowledging the fact that they are our enemy and not our friend, and they want to supplant us as the sole world power.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, the Liberty in Laundry Act, which defends the American people against rogue and out- of-touch D.C. bureaucrats.

There might only be 41 days remaining in the current administration, but this administration is still doing its best to make household appliances unaffordable. If he wanted to limit consumer choice, undercut quality, and raise costs for Americans, then Joe Biden couldn't have done a better job.

First it was gas stoves, then it was water heaters and HVAC. Go down the list. Now the Biden-Harris administration is going after your washing machines.

When the government tries to micromanage something as basic as your laundry routine, including which washing machines you can buy and how much you will pay for them, my Republican colleagues and I will take a stand.

The Biden Energy Department doesn't even believe in the value of its

own rulemaking. As the chairman said, $9 over the lifespan of this device. The upfront cost of the machine is outweighed by this so-called savings.

They are imposing energy standards that often mean higher costs on the appliances themselves, longer wash cycles, and perhaps even using more water. The American people pay more for their appliances upfront because of these efficiency standards.

Worse, the Biden administration repealed better efficiency rules implemented by the Trump administration with the Fifth Circuit ruling earlier this year that DOE's repeal of President Trump's efficiency rules were arbitrary and capricious.

The court found that the Biden administration failed to consider--now keep in mind, this is the court--failed to consider things like appliance performance and the fact that the standards were causing Americans to use more water, not less.

Some Democrats may want to race down the world to serfdom, replacing the judgments of consumers with those of government commissars about what products best meet their needs. However, I will not allow them to drag millions of hardworking Americans, like in the rural parts of my district, who are going to go to their appliance store and pay more.

My bill prohibits the Department of Energy from imposing or enforcing standards that would increase net costs to consumers. My bill requires them to include costs related to purchase, installation, maintenance, and replacement cost, forcing them to be honest about the true cost of the rule or the regulation.

My bill safeguards the right of families to choose the appliance that best fits their needs and budget, again, without the burden of the Biden administration.

Of course, we won't stop with laundry. We will continue pursuing legislation to stop bureaucrats wherever they choose to make life harder for hardworking Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of my legislation.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding.

Mr. Chair, there were 14,700 pounds of fentanyl seized in fiscal year 2022; 27,000 pounds of fentanyl seized in 2023; and 19,700 pounds of fentanyl seized so far in fiscal year 2024.

Mr. Chair, 76,000 Americans died from fentanyl overdoses last year. Tens of thousands or more of Americans have died from fentanyl overdoses since this administration took office. Hundreds of thousands have died from drug overdoses in general.

Chinese state-owned enterprises are seeing an opportunity to profit off of the deaths of Americans, and this administration is letting it happen.

Americans are crying out for new leadership. Until they have their say on November 5, we should be sanctioning the daylights out of every single one of these Chinese Communist Party's genocidal thugs.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party is the highest organ of authority within the 2,000-member National Party Congress. The 205 full members of the Central Committee have critically important decisionmaking authorities and voting rights which include the selection of the general secretary, the politburo, and the politburo's standing committee.

Thankfully, the underlying legislation leaves the possibility of not only permitting the U.S. President to sanction these 205 members but also 171 so-called alternate members of the Central Committee who do not have voting rights but are nevertheless members of the committee.

This amendment provides both clarification that the legislative's punitive sanctions may also be used against these alternate members and also provides congressional support for blocking and prohibiting all transactions in property against these top Chinese Communist Party cadres.

It further lends support for making these alternate members ineligible to receive a visa to enter the United States.

There should be no confusion as to the nature of the threat posed by the PRC. The Chinese Communist Party seeks to destroy the United States. It is already actively involved in sending the fentanyl precursor chemicals necessary to kill our fellow Americans across our border.

For context, 76,000 Americans died from fentanyl overdoses alone in 2023.

This fiscal year alone, 35,400 Chinese nationals have taken advantage of our porous southern border and come into our country. The CCP has also co-opted every meaningful international institution to the point where our Nation is now funding organizations like the WHO and the wider U.N. to promote policies that are undermining our own national interests.

The CCP engages in gray zone warfare against Taiwan and other Indo- Pacific allies, risking the start of another global conflict.

Communist China steals hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of intellectual property from our Nation every single year, and it uses its diplomatic presence to engage in massive espionage operations.

Our government opens a new China-related counterintelligence case every 10 hours, and approximately 50 percent of all of our Nation's counterintelligence cases are related to China.

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

Mr. Chair, nothing? It gives the President of the United States, whether Republican or Democrat, the ability to defend our country, to create accountability when a bad actor engages in undermining our national interests.

My colleagues say we need better communication, and when we were communicating to them that Americans were dying because of precursor chemicals, they did nothing. When we communicated that we needed them to stop because our kids were dying, they did nothing. This idea of communicating and appeasement did not work, and hundreds of thousands of Americans paid the price.

I will not sit idly by and allow China to bully our country. Now, if others want to do that, then that is up to them, but this bill is permissive. It gives the President of the United States another tool, another opportunity to hold China accountable.

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

Mr. Chair, I think it is shortsighted to allow Americans to die on our streets because the Chinese Communist Party is flooding our country with fentanyl.

I think it is shortsighted that we allow the Chinese Communist Party to influence our foreign policy.

I think it is shortsighted that we don't stand up for Taiwan and let them take full control over their own destiny.

It is time that America stands up for its allies: Israel, Taiwan, and all of those beacons of democracy around the world.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, the underlying bill rightfully includes a robust set of preconditions prior to lifting any sanctions on members of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party.

However, when it comes to those who have been sanctioned for their role in the political oppression of minority groups in the PRC, the bar of accountability ought to be set even higher. The ones suffering in Communist China aren't just the people of East Turkestan.

Over the years, the United States has demonstrated its solidarity with the people of Tibet and with the plight of the Tibetan people. Seven decades after the CCP began its illegal occupation of the country of Tibet, the Chinese Communist Party continues its policy of wholesale persecution of the Tibetan people.

This amendment simply states that the sanctioned members of the PRC's Central Committee must also cease any and all oppression of the Tibetan people. The amendment references the State Department's 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, a report which details the numerous different ways the PRC authorities are oppressing the Tibetan people.

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

Mr. Chairman, just to be clear, the persecution is rather stark: enforced disappearance, torture or cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment or punishment; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrests or detentions; serious problem with the independence of the judiciary, particularly regarding political prisoners; transnational repression against individuals located in other countries; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; punishment of family members for alleged offenses by a relative; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including censorship; serious restrictions on internet freedom; and substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly.

This is the Chinese Government. This is whom some on the other side of the aisle seek to appease. It is important that we leverage every tool to stand firm as the dominant superpower in the world and that we continue to be the light of freedom and hope for our tired world.

It is time we take a stand. It is time that we say no to China. It is time that we pass my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, my amendment adds a sense of Congress that acts of violence committed on the campus of an institution of higher education are not protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

We cherish free speech in America. It is the foundation of our democracy, a beacon of liberty, and an essential right for every citizen.

We must remember that the First Amendment draws a clear line. It protects peaceful expression, not violent acts.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his comments.

What we have seen is an alarming rise in incidents where protests on college campuses turn violent against Jewish students.

This is not free speech. It is an assault on free speech, and it has no place in America, let alone in the institutions tasked with shaping the minds of the next generation.

Since the horrific October 7 terrorist attack on Israel, we have seen an explosion of anti-Semitism on college campuses. Across the country, Jewish students have been harassed, assaulted, intimidated, and subjected to the hostile and sometimes violent environments of their campuses.

Every Jewish student deserves the right to learn, to speak, and to participate in campus life without fear of being targeted.

In the wake of anti-Semitic incidents on college campuses across our country, violence against Jews has even gotten worse. Since October 7, fewer than half of Jewish students feel physically safe on campus.

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

Mr. Chair, again, I thank my colleague for his comments.

I think in light of the October 7 attack, in light of the violence we have seen on college campuses, and the very fact that Jewish students say they don't feel safe, it is important to restate what is law. It is important to restate that they have a right to be free, to be safe, and to learn.

Sometimes it is important that we state the obvious. Sometimes it is important that we stand and say what needs to be said, that anti- Semitism can't be tolerated. It can't be tolerated. It can't be tolerated.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment simply inserts or adds a clarifying clause.

While religious student groups are free to select people who aren't members of their religion to lead them, most people agree that it is reasonable for a Muslim student group to want its leaders to be, well, Muslim or a Catholic student group to want its leaders to be practicing Catholics.

Unfortunately, administrators of some of our universities keep showing that they disagree. Many believe that if a religious group requires that its leaders are of their religion that it is somehow unfair discrimination.

It is only common sense that a religious group should be able to require its leaders to agree with its religious message and mission. Because student leaders may lead the group's Scripture, prayer, or worship, they should have a familiarity and agree with the group's religious beliefs.

In 2018, the University of Iowa threatened to derecognize almost every religious group on campus: Christian, Jewish, and Muslim. It was a deliberate effort to force religious student groups to abandon their religious leadership requirements.

In 2021, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the university administrators were personally liable for violating the religious groups' First Amendment rights, but that required 3 years of litigation.

In 2022, at the State University of New York at Cortland, a student organization was told that its selection process in which it asked potential leaders about their religious beliefs, as well as its requirements that its leaders demonstrate knowledge of and uphold the organization's religious teachings, was unacceptable.

Whether you understand the beliefs of an organization could obviously be relevant to your ability to lead it. The university changed course only after legal counsel sent a letter explaining the law.

In 2006, the University of Wisconsin-Madison derecognized a Catholic student organization because of its religious leadership and member requirements. The university eventually lost its case before the Seventh Circuit Court but not until 2011, long enough for an entire class of students to enroll and graduate without access to a recognized Catholic campus ministry.

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

Mr. Chair, I will go back to the Eighth Circuit where it determined at the University of Iowa, that

the student groups, the religious groups, had the right to choose their leadership. You can go back to the University of Wisconsin-Madison where the same type of ruling came down.

That being said, in 2022, the law school at Madison decided to reject the initial application of a Christian Legal Society chapter because the group requires that its leader is Christian, which administrators claim was different than requiring believing Christian beliefs. They only relented after being challenged on the legality of their actions.

The underlying bill already establishes that public universities cannot discriminate against religious groups for their leadership standards, but we all know that sometimes, like my previous amendment, you need to state the obvious.

When we find an issue that public universities will persist in fighting, even after losing in court, it is important to spell things out clearly. My amendment does just that. It inserts the statement: `` . . . regarding religious identity, belief, or practice.'' It clarifies their right to choose their leadership based off of their beliefs.

I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, there are nearly 300 sanctuary jurisdictions in the United States. That is 300 places in our Nation that refuse to cooperate with Federal law enforcement to detain and remove illegal aliens. That is why this underlying bill is so important.

There is not a single so-called sanctuary jurisdiction locality that intentionally refuses to uphold the law who should be receiving Federal funds. Every city, county, or State that has laws, regulations, resolutions, or policies protecting illegal alien criminals from ICE should not receive a penny of Federal funding for the benefits of those illegal aliens.

Unfortunately, these jurisdictions received over $300 million from the Department of Justice in 2021 alone.

My concern with this legislation, and it is a fairly minor one, is the timeline. Right now, the bill says that there will be a complete funding prohibition on food, shelter, healthcare, and other services for illegal aliens in sanctuary jurisdictions, but the funding ineligibility kicks in at the beginning of the fiscal year after the date of an enactment.

Practically, that could raise a circumstance in which the funding prohibition described in this bill wouldn't kick in until nearly a year after this bill becomes law.

In my view, that is too long. It is too long of a timeframe for these sanctuary cities, these jurisdictions, to get away with violating our laws and taking tax dollars from hardworking Americans.

This amendment amends section 3 of the text to ensure that the funding ineligibility for these jurisdictions become effective no later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this act and potentially even sooner.

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

Mr. Chairman, these jurisdictions are aiding and abetting criminals. They are ignoring and violating Federal law. They created this problem, so if they have to call a special session to fix the problem they created, that is on them. It shouldn't be the taxpayers of Tennessee who have to fund it.

I have got veterans in my community that aren't getting services because of illegal immigrants. There are only so many dollars to go around. Tennessee spends roughly $850 million a year annually for illegal immigrants. That is textbooks, that is computers for our kids, that is psychological evaluations and treatment for our veterans. If I have to choose between a citizen and an illegal who is violating our laws, I choose an American every single time.

Mr. Chairman, if Soros-funded sanctuary jurisdictions want to violate the law and turn their backs on America, on our citizens, and on law enforcement personnel, they should not be financially rewarded for doing so. There is no good argument my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can make that involves asking my constituents, hardworking Americans in middle Tennessee, to subsidize the lives of lawbreakers as well as the decisions of sanctuary jurisdictions who want to protect those lawbreakers.

It is time to defund and to deport. This is our country. We get to decide who comes in, and we get to decide who has to leave.

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

Mr. Chairman, the crazy conjecture of the consequences is clearly confounding.

Let's be honest. We are talking about the food, the shelter, and the healthcare that is going directly to illegal immigrants, nothing to American citizens. Keep in mind, it is the jurisdictions who created this problem. It is the jurisdictions that are violating our laws and making a mockery of our system and turning their backs on law enforcement.

Mr. Chair, you have girls and women all across the country who have been sexually assaulted by illegals. These are crimes that would never have happened if they were back in their home country if they had never been allowed in this country, if they had not been given sanctuary, had they not been released.

So when the gentleman talks about consequences, why doesn't he ask those women and those children?

Why doesn't the gentleman ask those families?

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

Mr. Chairman, what this does is asks Homeland Security to produce a report. So-called sanctuary jurisdictions choose to undermine Federal law enforcement when it attempts to enforce our immigration laws. I am grateful we are considering the underlying bill to hold them accountable. I thank the chairman.

One policy that would make a city a sanctuary city is a prohibition or a restriction on government entities or officials from complying with lawful requests from the Department of Homeland Security under section 236 or 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

My modest amendment just asks that DHS provide an annual report to Congress detailing which jurisdictions have failed to honor such lawful requests. I believe having that information and having the report is important. Without it, it could be difficult to know which jurisdictions are complying with the law.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for supporting my amendment.

As we look at the jurisdictions across the country that may be ignoring current Federal law, whether by ordinance, whether by order of the mayor, by statute, or just an unwritten rule, this report would illuminate and bring to light those jurisdictions that, quite frankly, are putting America at risk.

A border crisis is a disaster for the country. It has turned every State into a border State. It spurred drug trafficking, human trafficking, and other crime. There was just a bodega that was shut down that was trafficking illegals today.

It has caused resource crises for cities and towns across the country who have found that they don't have the resources to deal with the influx, the mass influx, of people the Biden-Harris administration has released upon them.

Again, this information is critical as we move forward, as we look for solutions and put an end to this crisis that is plaguing our country.

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

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

Mr. Chair, in closing, again, it is a simple report. It is valuable information. It is time that all cities, all communities enforce the Federal law. It is time to deport the illegals who are draining our system, taking money away from American citizens.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we have heard time and time again in the Financial Services Committee and in our hearings across the Hill that there is a dire need for transparency and accountability among the banking agencies.

Yet, blatant partisanship has dictated the appointments of leftist bank regulatory officials during the Harris-Biden administration.

One of my bills was included in H.R. 4790, which passed the House earlier today. My bill, the Supervision Reform Act, amends the Federal Reserve Act to remove the confusing designation established by the Dodd-Frank Act for one of the members of the Board of Governors to be designated as vice chair of supervision.

The vice chair of supervision should not be afforded special treatment and be allowed to abuse the position to rewrite the narrative for the failures of the banking system and to cook up unjustified climate rules and force them on banks.

Americans are watching Kamalanomics eat away at their hard-earned savings, and the Fed's ESG-related partisan regulations are part of the problem.

It is time to end the confusion, which has been the result of Dodd- Frank's misguided creation of the vice chair for supervision position.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard time and again--at Financial Services Committee hearings and across the Hill--that there is a dire need for transparency and accountability among the banking agencies.

Blatant partisanship has dictated the appointments of leftist bank regulatory officials during Harris-Biden Administration, to include the Federal Reserve's Vice Chairman for Supervision Michael Barr.

Mr. Barr in particular appears to be far more interested in advancing his own partisan plans than in confronting the serious financial and regulatory costs on the American people by the Harris-Biden administration.

One of my bills was included in H.R. 4790, which passed the House earlier today. My bill, the Supervision Reform Act amends the Federal Reserve Act to remove this confusing designation, established by the Dodd-Frank Act, for one of the members of the Board of Governors to be designated as the ``Vice Chairman for Supervision''.

The Vice Chair for Supervision should not be afforded special treatment to write his own narrative on bank failures on behalf of the Federal Reserve System as a whole, but the current Vice Chair for Supervision did just that.

The Vice Chair for Supervision should not be afforded special treatment to undertake his own experiments on climate change with private banks, or to cook up unjustified climate rules at the Fed, but the current Vice Chair for Supervision did just that.

The current Vice Chair for Supervision's assertion of special powers has led to disastrous results regarding policy positions of Federal Regulators.

Americans are watching ``Kamala-nomics'' eat away at their hard- earned savings, and the Fed's ESG-related partisan regulations are part of the problem.

Fed-Supervised banks are supervised by their regional Fed. Banks in regions where supervisors have stayed focused on practical supervision to ensure safety and soundness face the confusion of worrying about how to balance the sound supervisory guidance of their own supervisor with that of the unnecessary ``Vice Chair for Supervision.''

It's time to end that confusion, which has been the only result of Dodd-Frank's misguided creation of the Vice Chair for Supervision position.

I am happy that my colleagues recognized this and passed H.R. 4790 to provide more clarity and transparency for the Federal regulators to ensure that they do not overstep their authority by forcing ESG initiatives.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment would make it the policy of our Nation to advocate for Taiwan's full participation in the World Health Organization.

For far too long, we have allowed Communist China to dictate the course of U.S. foreign policy as well as the agenda and membership of every major international organization, including the United Nations. This decades-long policy of global appeasement to the CCP came home to roost 4 years ago.

Decades upon decades of giving in to China has left Taiwan with fewer and fewer allies. In the late 1990s, over 30 countries recognized Taiwan. Now, the number is down to 12. Much of the world has placed Taiwan in the company of pariah states like North Korea and Iran.

Because the world allowed the PRC's pressure campaign against Taiwan to succeed, no one listened when Taiwan tried to warn the World Health Organization of possible human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus on December 31, 2019. No one listened to them when Taiwanese health experts visited Wuhan and found indications of human-to-human transmission in mid-January 2020. In fact, at the same time, the WHO released a statement declaring no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus.

Mr. Chair, we lost weeks. We lost weeks of preparation against the ravaging effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on our Nation all because Communist China told the world that under no circumstance could Taiwan be given a seat at the table at the World Health Organization.

We can only guess how many untold thousands of American lives were lost as a result. We do know, however, that decade after decade of U.S. foreign policymaking has prioritized appeasing the PRC over the security of the American people, and it needs to stop.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the comments of my colleague because

we should show our support and allegiance to Taiwan, nor should we placate the People's Republic of China regarding Taiwan. We are, in fact, making war more likely, not less, if we allow the Chinese Communist Party to have influence over our policy on such things as Taiwan's participation in the WHO.

We cannot and should not surrender our national sovereignty out of fear. This is the definition of weakness, and weakness invites aggression. If the Communists in Beijing don't think we have established a credible deterrence, they will attack Taiwan. They will consider attacking Taiwan.

I know my colleagues and I agree that Taiwan is an ally to the people and nations of good around the world. They want to work with the United States. They want to help, as they did in April 2020 when Taiwan provided free personal protective equipment to our Nation at a time when it was scarce.

Communist China, on the other hand, would rather cover up a deadly virus, wasting weeks and resulting in the deaths of untold hundreds of thousands if not millions. They are more worried about their reputation. That is an atrocity. It is appalling, and we need to recognize the fact that the existential threat to the United States of America is China. At every turn, they work to undermine us, and I, for one, have had enough.

Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman McCaul for his support, and I urge adoption of my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment pertains to the Inflation Reduction Act. In order to pay for what ended up being approximately $1.2 trillion in green subsidies, the Biden-Harris administration chose to raise the

royalty rate on onshore oil and gas leases from 12.5 to 16.66 percent through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

Progressive Democrats also voted in unison to quintuple the minimum bid amount from $2 an acre to $10 an acre. The minority voted to increase the rental rate by a factor of 9 from $1.50 to eventually $15 an acre. At the time of the bill passage, estimates indicated that the bill would impose a $6.5 billion hike on oil and gas development.

At a time when we need to get back to energy independence, when we need to fight inflation by lowering the price of fuel, we have to peel back these failed policies that hurt the economy and hurt the consumer.

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

Mr. Chairman, what I find to be one of the more remarkable things about the so-called Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 is nowhere in that bill do progressive Democrats identify any government program worth cutting, not $1 of the $80 billion appropriated to the IRS to audit middle-income Americans, not $1 of spending in Ukraine, and not $1 of the billions given to advance tree equity.

This is absurd. We are spending ourselves into oblivion. We have to give relief to the American consumer, and a $6.5 billion hike in the cost of oil and gas to the consumer is real. The cost of groceries is up 30 to 40 percent. Rents are up. It is impossible for some to buy a home.

We have to recognize that the Biden-Harris administration is a failure. People were better off under Donald Trump than they are under Biden-Harris.

This is obvious. This isn't about pandering to oil and gas. This is about working-class Americans seeing increased prices at the fuel pump. Everything at the grocery store, everything at the big-box store, and everything at the mall is touched by oil and gas. If the price of that underlying commodity is increased, the price of everything else goes up. This is simple math.

We have to get back to common sense. Quite frankly, our enemies laugh. America produces the cleanest energy in the world. If we were really serious about climate change, we would export our natural gas to Europe because ours is better and cleaner than Russia's.

That is not my colleagues' objective. The minority's objective is about control, wealth distribution, and hurting the middle class. I, for one, stand for the middle class. I, for one, want to give relief to the middle class and quit pandering.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this bill. We have the opportunity to get back to energy independence, and we have the opportunity to give relief to the middle-class consumer.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the Environmental Financial Advisory Board, or EFAB, was chartered under the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act.

The EFAB boasts of making recommendations that would supposedly lower the cost of environmental protection. Unfortunately, they are entirely beholden to the left's climate alarmism agenda.

In a 2022 meeting, the EFAB spent taxpayer resources gloating about the establishment of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund created from the so-called Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, a bill whose subsidies will cost the American taxpayer $1.2 trillion. The de facto slush fund provides $27 billion to the EPA through September 2024.

If the argument here is that we need the EFAB to expedite the rate at which we can give out green subsidies to his donor base, I admit to my colleagues that perhaps the EFAB has grown to be successful in that endeavor. Let's take a look at eligible recipients for this boondoggle: State-sponsored green

banks, nonprofit or quasi-government green banks, nonprofit energy conservation funds, and nonprofit social impact funds.

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

Mr. Chair, if we look at the EFAB's charter, you will find they provide recommendations on ways the EPA can implement funding from the infrastructure law and Inflation Reduction Act to support environmental justice and to tackle the climate crisis. The charter goes on to say that the EFAB is focused on decarbonizing our Nation's schoolbuses.

Let's put aside whether it is even the role and scope of the Federal Government to address environmental justice or to work to decarbonize schoolbuses.

The EFAB is singularly focused on weaponizing the power of the Federal Government to distort market incentives and transform the economy, all in the name of promoting what has been rightly characterized as climate alarmism.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, my amendment prohibits funds to be used by the Environmental Protection Agency for the U.S. Global Change Research Program. I know that is a mouthful, but this program coordinates with 13 different Federal departments and agencies. Its focus, as it relates to the areas within the EPA's jurisdiction, is to conduct research on climate change.

I think it is fair to say that the climate is changing, and perhaps we have a role to play in it. However, there is a degree of climate alarmism in this country that has compelled smooth-talking bureaucrats and their grant-seeking associates in the private sector to grovel for more and more and more funding, lest the world end in 8 years is kind of the mantra.

Mr. Chair, we have got to stop giving these handouts for alarmism. We have got to get back to simple metrics. We have got to have things that are truly measurable and not subjective. I do believe Al Gore predicted the end of the world by now. Guess what? We are humming along just fine.

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

Mr. Chair, the alarmism that is coming from the progressive Democrats ignores the fact that you have more and more individuals moving into coastal areas where hurricanes have an impact. You have more and more people and individuals moving into tornado alley or into Nashville where we have tornadic activity on a regular basis.

Some of this is common sense. It is not that the climate is somehow attacking us, maybe we are just moving in the way of the climate because you have denser populations in areas that are affected by weather.

Michael Shellenberger, a leading environmentalist, points out that economic development and technological advances are important factors that the left tends to exclude in its analysis on climate change.

Mr. Chairman, we have to get back to the metrics, get back to common sense, and recognize that if we get out of the way of industry, they want to advance. They want to be more efficient. They want to produce a profit margin, but also a savings for their consumer.

There is competition between industry to be more green, to be more environmentally friendly, and you see that playing out all over our Nation. You don't have to have the Federal Government putting industry in a choke hold and strangling innovation, and ultimately at a time when the middle class is struggling, strangling the middle class.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is, again, a commonsense policy at a time where the Biden-Harris administration has failed our country. Our southern border is wide open. We have little girls being raped by illegals. I have a family in critical condition because a drunk illegal hit them head-on. Fentanyl is killing 300,000 people. We have a crisis, and they want to talk about the climate.

Our inner cities are desperate. Mayors in Dallas, Chicago, and New York are crying for help, and the Biden-Harris administration is silent. They are too busy pushing their alarmist, progressive, woke agenda on the middle class.

The Biden-Harris policies have failed our country, they failed hardworking Americans, and this is a commonsense policy to inject common sense into the Federal Government.

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

Madam Chair, as the designee of Mr. Norman of South Carolina, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this amendment prohibits the use of funds to consider the social cost of greenhouse gases in the development and implementation of budgets, Federal procurement processes, and environmental reviews.

President Biden is directing agencies to consider the social cost of greenhouse gases in the development and implementation of budgets, the Federal procurement process, and environmental reviews.

Progressive Democrats use these social costs of greenhouse gas metrics to justify sweeping climate policies and stringent regulations that drive up costs. However, the social cost of greenhouse gases is an extremely inefficient policymaking tool. Estimates are based on very questionable, flawed, and uncertain assumptions, and the Biden administration refuses to share any details on how they come up with these numbers.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I certainly appreciate my colleagues' sentiments, but I think the key here is analysis and the metrics, or the lack thereof, on some of these policies and regulations.

As we assign metrics that can't be quantified to policies and regulations, driving up costs to industry, that is passed to the consumer. As you have more people moving into zones that are prone to tornadoes or hurricanes, you are going to see more incidents, you are going to see more destruction, and you are going to see more costs. Those folks move there knowing that that is the cost-benefit analysis of it.

What I would say is that the current metrics are insufficient. They drive up costs. It is at a time when we have ballooning budgets and at a time when our border is wide open. These are the things that we need to be discussing, not metrics for gases that can't be quantified.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, as the designee of Mr. Norman of South Carolina, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this amendment would prohibit funding for the American Climate Corps that the Biden administration established through an executive order last year.

When you understand that we have the power of the purse and that we are the body that is supposed to authorize and appropriate on that executive order alone, this should be dismantled.

The Biden administration describes the American Climate Corps as a workforce training and service initiative for careers in the clean energy and climate reliance economy. As part of the administration's Justice40 goal, the corps will focus on equity and environmental justice.

This cost is around $30 billion. Madam Chair, I just want to emphasize that we have a border that is overrun. We have deficits that are out of control. Inflation is at an all-time high.

People in our country are struggling, and when I see a line item for equity and environmental justice, I am appalled, just as my constituents are and should be.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I look forward to working with my colleague on how to get the next generation to engage in the workforce. As we see and as she mentioned, we have a shortage of workers in the oilfields. We need people to climb poles, drill for oil, and be captains of ships for the Coast Guard. Teaching them environmental justice isn't what she is talking about.

We need workers to roll up their sleeves and buy into the American Dream of building a life for the future in America. It is not solar panels. It is the oil and gas beneath our feet. We have got to stop pushing the progressive Democrat agenda, which is pulling us away from the very thing that is part of our national security, which is fossil fuels.

Madam Chair, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, as the designee of Mr. Norman of South Carolina, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this amendment would prohibit funds from being used by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases.

The Interagency Working Group was originally convened by the Obama administration before being disbanded by the Trump administration and reimposed through President Biden's radical climate Executive Order No. 13990.

Progressive Democrats use the social cost of greenhouse gases metrics to justify sweeping climate policies, strict regulations, and like I have said before, it does nothing but drive up costs for the American consumer.

As I have explained, President Biden began directing agencies to consider the social cost of greenhouse gases in the development and implementation of budgets, Federal procurements, and environmental reviews. At a time when we have to get down to the dollars and cents, where we have to be cutting budgets, where we have to be saving dollars, metrics that can't be quantified are not acceptable.

These costs are hard to explain. They are hard to measure. They are not reliable.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, as an Eagle Scout, I truly want to see our community become and be a better place. As someone who lives in a rural area, I am passionate about our rural communities and seeing a better and vibrant rural America.

However, the mistakes of the past don't justify passing regulations that destroy American energy, destroy American industry, and that make it cost prohibitive for R&D to take place so that we do produce cleaner energy and so we do produce chemicals or precious metals in a cleaner and more efficient way for the American consumer. Nonetheless, this working group is designed to undermine American industry.

Madam Chair, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise as the designee for the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), and I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this amendment would prohibit funding for policies that advance the Biden administration's radical DEI agenda.

Specifically, this amendment would prohibit the use of funds for the Department of Energy's Office of Scientific Workforce Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

This office's mission is to promote diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplaces.

Now even science must bow to equity and inclusion. Science should be rooted in fact and research, not wokeism.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, we have seen what happens when the Department of Energy prioritizes diversity and inclusion over all else. It results in hiring nonbinary nuclear officials like Sam Brinton who uses they/them pronouns and steals women's clothes.

From the military to corporations to Federal agencies, we have seen time and time again that the DEI mission fosters tribalism in the workplace. We have seen where corporations, Tractor Supply and John Deere, for examples, have pulled away from DEI policies because they are a failure.

One has to ask when you look at the attempted assassination of President

Trump when the Director put diversity above all else, was that complicit in the fact that a shooter almost killed the former President?

Diversity and inclusion as a priority when it should be based off of metrics, skill set, and who actually deserves the job, that should be the priority.

Madam Chair, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, the administration's war on appliances continues. First, it was gas stoves. Then it was water heaters. Now the Biden-Harris administration apparently wants to go after ice makers because, as everyone knows, ice makers are obviously a major source of greenhouse gas emissions.

The Department of Energy has proposed a rule to impose stringent regulations on commercial automatic ice makers in the name of energy efficiency.

For my fellow Americans watching this amendment debate, if someone knocks on the door of your local business and tells you they are from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, don't answer it. Close the door.

What this does is drive up costs to hardworking citizens, people who own restaurants, and it makes the products more expensive, and for what?

Where are the metrics?

This is baloney.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, to my colleague's point, we are getting new windows in a couple of weeks, but that is a cost that, as a household, my wife and I decided to expend, and it is a metric that I can quantify for myself over time.

We have seen this play before. In 2014, the Obama administration pushed out a rule to force different sectors of the American economy to comply with more restrictive energy conservation standards. They targeted hotels and hospitals, schools, office buildings, and supermarkets.

The projected cost at that time to manufacturers represented 25 percent of their profits. There is no savings for the American consumer. This is a Marxist-style wealth distribution scheme that forces increased costs on the manufacturer, which ultimately costs the consumer more money.

If someone wants to buy windows for their home and wants to improve the energy standards of their home, that is one thing. For the government to come in and meddle in an industry that is not truly contributing to carbon emissions or gas emissions is ridiculous.

This is absurd. That is why this amendment is offered.

Madam Chair, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, the administration's war on everyday appliances continues with no end in sight, and it has to be pointed out that the ultimate price of these regulations is and will be paid by the American consumer.

At a time when inflation is higher, when going to the grocery store costs more, when rents have increased, when the dream of buying a home has slipped away for many Americans, and the costs of purchasing and operating a car

have increased, the last thing we need is more government policies that are going to force something that I would consider necessary in every home, which is a water heater. To increase costs on a necessity for the American people at a time when they are already struggling just doesn't make sense.

It is time for government to get out of the way of industry. Let's get back to free market principles and stop forcing radical Marxist agenda items on industry. It didn't work. It doesn't work. This isn't going to work.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for her words.

This kind of climate alarmist rulemaking isn't about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is about control. It is absolutely ridiculous that some bureaucrats at the Department of Energy can impose energy efficiency standards that radically alter the marketplace.

The Biden-Harris climate crusade has gone too far. They have weaponized the Federal rulemaking process to officially place nonelectric technology off the market. My amendment sends a message that the climate cartel running the White House has no claim on our appliances. Enough is enough.

Madam Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, tonight the American people will tune in to watch a rigged debate with leftist hosts pretending to moderate.

Biden's sham of a judicial witch hunt is as obvious to the American people as the amount of stimulants that Biden takes before his public appearances.

Incoherent mutterings, lack of physical awareness, and wandering off demonstrate his cognitive decline. Ahead of tonight's debate, I have no doubt his puppet masters will once again be administering a concoction of drugs to keep him awake.

President Trump volunteered to take a drug test. White House handlers, however, won't let Biden take a cognitive test because they know he will fail.

I agree with President Trump. The American people deserve transparency, which is why I introduced the No Juicing Joe Act, which would require the White House to notify Congress and the American people when Biden takes anything for cognitive decline.

America is the leader of the free world. We need a Commander in Chief who is capable of articulating a coherent sentence, aware of his surroundings, and can lead with strength, a President like Donald Trump.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, under section 706-1 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003, the President is authorized to identify a list of countries that are major drug transit or major illicit drug production countries, also known as the majors list.

China was added to the majors list in September, citing the PRC's role in the production of precursor chemicals used to produce illicit drugs.

We have, sadly, seen the impact of Chinese fentanyl in real time. Overdose deaths in my beloved home State of Tennessee have increased by 200 percent over the last 5 years, driven in part by a near-doubling of fentanyl seizures at the southwest border from fiscal year 2022 to 2023, 14,700 pounds versus 27,000 pounds.

While Joe Biden did add China to the so-called majors list, that designation came with a caveat. The President effectively said that despite overdose deaths regularly topping 100,000 a year, he was only adding China to the list because of the statutory definition of major drug source countries. It was expanded to include source countries for precursor chemicals.

Biden also said that it is hard for large countries with significant chemical and pharmaceutical industries to prevent precursors from being diverted to the production of illicit drugs. The President even brought up an argument saying that it is hard for the U.S. to do it.

It may be hard, Madam Chair, but we do do it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I appreciate my colleague's comments, but the pressure being applied by this administration is clearly ineffective. Just ask the families of the kids in my State or your State or his State who have overdosed because of the moral equivocation that Joe Biden has displayed between China and the United States.

It is why we need to ensure that he is not tempted to remove China from the majors list. If he reluctantly put China on that list, Congress must make sure that he doesn't go back on his word.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, again, I appreciate my colleague, and I do agree on the urgency of the situation. Extreme times sometimes require extreme measures. It is important that we dot the i, cross the t, and underline and underscore that this is a crisis in our country.

Tonight, somewhere in my home State, someone will overdose because of fentanyl. Someone in your home State will overdose because of fentanyl. Meanwhile, Joe Biden has allowed the border to be wide open, overrun, and unmanned. That is unacceptable.

Madam Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, if you want to come up with the right policy position on any issue related to foreign affairs, talk to Antony Blinken first and then do the opposite.

We have all seen the Secretary's inability to be correct about our major foreign policy concerns in the last 20 years, whether it be Iraq, Libya, or Yemen, giving the Iranians access to tens of billions of dollars, or the botched withdrawal of Afghanistan.

He is undoubtedly one of the most professionally incompetent individuals to hold the title of Secretary of State. If incompetence by itself were a sufficient ground to remove a Senate-confirmed Cabinet official, the President would have very few advisers left.

In the case of Secretary Blinken, it is more than just about incompetence. It is about corruption.

We have long since learned from former Acting CIA Director Mike Morell that the infamous ``spies who lie'' letter, an event responsible for Donald Trump not being President today, was led by no one less than Antony Blinken. The letter, signed by 51 intelligence experts, was intended, according to Morell, to give Joe Biden a way to refute the Hunter Biden laptop story ahead of a Presidential debate in September 2020.

You would think this would be worthy of investigation if not outright impeachment.

We just found out that at least two signatories of the ``spies who lie'' letter, Michael Morell and David Buckley, were actively working for the CIA as contractors. Think about that. The CIA contractors colluding with the Biden campaign to discredit Hunter Biden's laptop story were getting paid with Federal tax dollars.

The Secretary has also, in perhaps the second highest profile instance during his tenure aside from our botched Afghanistan withdrawal, failed to sufficiently demonstrate America's resolve against terrorist thugs.

Prime Minister Netanyahu, set to address this Chamber next month, expressed concerns about the administrative bottlenecks preventing weapons from arriving in Israel. The White House initially withheld approved weapons sales to Israel, including F-15s, mortars, tank rounds, and Joint Direct Attack Munition smart bomb kits. Thankfully, and finally, 50 F-15s are now on their way in support of Israel.

Munitions delays do nothing but embolden the perception that the U.S.-Israel relationship is fraying. Nothing could be more dangerous for U.S. security interests than promoting this narrative.

For what it is worth, nothing could be more dangerous for international security than perpetuating the lie that the IDF is wantonly murdering Palestinians or that Israel is causing famine. Both claims are top-level absurdities, and honest people will rightfully call these claims for what they are, anti-Semitic garbage.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, in the House of Representatives, we have the power of the purse, and what I have proposed in this amendment is holding an individual accountable for his failure and incompetence in the role of his duties. That is our job. There has to be accountability.

The ``spies who lie'' letter, CIA contractors undermining an election, the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan--there has to be accountability, and we have the ability to do so with the purse strings. That is a reasonable expectation.

If Joe Biden isn't going to do his job, if Joe Biden isn't going to hold Blinken accountable, if Joe Biden isn't going to fire him, then we must do our job.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, again, I urge adoption of my amendment. This is straightforward and fair. This is sending a message to the Biden administration and to Secretary Blinken: Close our border, support our ally, and stand for America first.

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, National Security Memorandum 20 represents a betrayal of our closest ally in the Middle East.

Both President Biden and Secretary Blinken developed this memorandum to placate the terrorist sympathizers, quite frankly, within the Democratic Party. The memo is as despicable as it is unnecessary.

I encourage my colleagues on the other side to highlight a single new legal requirement mandated by the memo. If the memo does not mandate a new legal requirement on arms shipments, then why do we need it?

National Security Memorandum 20 requires that countries receiving U.S. security assistance provide ``'credible and reliable' written assurances from the recipient country that it will use any such defense articles in accordance with international humanitarian law and, as applicable, other international law.''

This thinly veiled attack against Israel, which has done far more than any other nation in its position to preserve the lives of noncombatants, was developed with indifference to the fact that there are already longstanding statutes that govern the delivery of U.S. security assistance and even make such delivery contingent upon compliance with international humanitarian law.

As the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and his Senate counterpart pointed out in a recent joint letter to President Biden, the Foreign Assistance Act already mandates that ``no assistance shall be furnished under this chapter or the Arms Export Control Act to any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of State has credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.''

Importantly, this memo also does not create any new legal requirement to obtain U.S. security assistance. On March 26, 2024, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said as much. To quote Mr. Miller: ``It has always been required that these countries that are receiving defense articles from the United States act in compliance with international humanitarian law. . . . That is not a requirement that was imposed by the NSM. It is something that was already required by U.S. law.''

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I pose the question: If the substance of the memo is already stated in law, then why do we need the memo? The answer is substantive and it is clear: It is political.

This functionally useless memo, replete with unnecessarily vague language throughout, seems to attempt to create two classes of countries that receive U.S. security assistance: Israel, then everyone else. This memo was designed to shine a light and segregate Israel.

As the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee pointed out in his letter, the NSM requires that written assurances from a country receiving U.S. weapons must be credible and reliable.

What exactly does credible and reliable mean? If I was Israel, I would be concerned that Joe Biden would be the one in charge of figuring that out.

When the recipient country says it will use defense articles in accordance with ``humanitarian law,'' which law or laws are President Biden and Secretary Blinken referring to?

Are recipient countries supposed to know or assume what laws they are supposed to follow?

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, the NSM contains language that says recipient countries can't arbitrarily deny, restrict, or otherwise impede U.S.- supported humanitarian assistance.

What exactly is U.S.-supported humanitarian assistance?

If a national security reason required a recipient country to temporarily restrict whatever U.S.-supported humanitarian assistance is, would that in

turn deny Israel weapons it needed to defend itself?

The language in this memo is imprecise and could be used against Israel and, quite frankly, other countries as well by a President who has made the conflict in Israel political.

Israel is fighting for their existence. They are under attack.

If there was a rogue state operator in Mexico that was launching missiles, bombs, or explosives into Texas, we would occupy Mexico City within 72 hours. We may or may not give it back.

Israel has a right to defend itself, and it should not be singled out and undermined by this President or Secretary Blinken.

I have had enough. Israel has had enough. The American people have had enough.

This amendment is important to send a message to Biden: No more politics. Defend our greatest ally in the Middle East.

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