Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, energy is the most important element of a prosperous society. Nothing else functions without it.

Reliable electricity allows us to work at night, keep our sick and injured on life support, heat our homes in freezing weather, manufacture the materials that we use to build our homes, and powers the systems that allow the public to watch these remarks right here on this House floor.

Energy is connected to everything. The price of energy affects the price of everything else, and the world devolves into the Dark Ages without it.

This might explain why Republicans think an energy bill should be labeled H.R. 1--because it is our number one priority, as it should be.

We have to introduce this bill because, bewilderingly, energy security has been under relentless attack by radical leftists and the Biden administration. They don't believe in energy security. They don't believe in reliable, affordable energy. They seem to think that the only energy worth pursuing is so-called renewables, solar and wind.

This is not sound policy or science. This has become a religion, and it has become an irrational pursuit of intermittent, weather-dependent energy sources that take up vast amounts of land, vast amounts of resources to make, and vast amounts of critical minerals to be mined. Still, it doesn't deliver the energy security the American people need.

I am not against these things. It would be fine to pursue these technologies if it didn't also come with a simultaneous attack on the sources of energy that actually work--namely, oil and gas.

Every good thing you have in this world, Mr. Chairman, is because of petroleum products--every single thing. Your shoes, your cars, your iPhones, your Netflix, your Patagonia jackets, medical devices that save your life, your heating, your cooling--literally everything comes from petroleum products.

The attack on oil and gas has been relentless, and it has been deeply foolish. It started with day one of the Biden administration and the Keystone pipeline, then executive orders banning new leases on Federal lands, and then refusal to permit pipelines. Then they turn around and attack the suppliers and producers for higher prices. It is pure gaslighting.

They have drained our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, all while prioritizing the same crazy climate policies that have caused Europe to enter an energy crisis and that are now causing developing nations to be priced out of gas markets and turn to coal production.

This gets me to quite the irony here. The administration's policies are more likely to increase global carbon emissions as a result, and for one simple reason. I really want everyone to understand this. By refusing to push for increased natural gas exports, we are shelving the best tool for displacing coal power around the world.

Coal burned in foreign countries accounts for about 50 percent of global power emissions. Natural gas is an easy substitute with half the emissions. American natural gas could easily be leveraged to increase prosperity for all and reduce emissions.

This is not rocket science. It is common sense. It is just math. Promoting American natural gas is better for energy security, better for our own affordability, and better for reducing global emissions. There is no logical counterargument to what I just said. There is not one.

Maybe--I believe this--the Biden administration actually knows this. That is why they prefer oil production in foreign countries and beg them to drill so that we can pretend we care about the climate while allowing other countries to do the dirty work for us.

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

Mr. Chair, I really hope this amendment can be bipartisan. I see no reason why it wouldn't be. It simply provides predictability for States applying for primacy of class 6 carbon capture wells. It is very straight forward. When a State submits a primacy application to the EPA, the EPA has 270 days to either approve or deny the application.

If the EPA is unable to do so within that generous time window, we give them another 30 days to explain why. If, for whatever reason, the EPA fails to make a determination after 300 days, then the State can move forward.

Importantly, we preserve EPA's ability to deny the application or revoke the approval using emergency measures under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Why is this needed?

Unfortunately, when States submit primacy applications for these wells, it can take years for the EPA to even bother to review the application. There is a lot more demand for carbon capture projects. They are ramping up around the country, especially in Houston. The need for expanded permitting capacity has greatly increased.

The EPA should not be the roadblock to projects that are designed to reduce carbon emissions. Let me say that again: Reduce carbon emissions.

The International Energy Agency said carbon capture is necessary to meet national, regional, and even corporate emissions reductions goals. Even EPA administrator Michael Regan called carbon capture a priority

for the Biden administration. It is a bipartisan issue.

States like Texas have already proven they can manage these wells and giving them primacy will be a game changer for speeding up carbon capture projects. Giving States regulatory certainty is critical to successful carbon capture projects moving forward in their States. That is all this amendment does.

Mr. Chair, there is no reason why this should not be bipartisan, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a brief response to the gentleman's remarks. This does not change at all the Safe Drinking Water Act that the EPA regulates. All it says is there is a timeline for that primacy application. It can always be denied within that timeline.

By the way, the entire point of this is to reduce carbon emissions. It should be bipartisan.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

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

Again, opposing this amendment would mean that you want more carbon emissions in the air, that you don't want carbon sequestration. I am pretty sure that is not what you all want. We all want the same thing here.

This is a commonsense amendment that simply expedites the permitting process, which is well established. Everyone knows it is safe. It doesn't change any regulations. It doesn't circumvent any EPA regulations or standards for drinking water at all.

This is a commonsense amendment. If we can't agree on things like this, it just tells me that we are looking for disagreement for the sake of disagreement. That makes me sad. It really does.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this important issue because the unelected career bureaucrats are at it again. They are launching attacks on our constitutional rights, the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners.

This seems to be the sole purpose of the agency lately, attacking the Second Amendment. Now they want to ban pistol braces.

Americans who don't know what a pistol brace is might have some obvious questions after hearing about this ban. What is a pistol brace? Obviously, it makes guns more deadly, right? It makes guns shoot faster. It makes them want to be used only by people who want to murder other people.

Why else would the ATF want to ban it?

But the Americans who actually use pistol braces know the reality: There is zero logical reason to ban pistol braces. It is a device used by a lot of disabled veterans, a lot of people I know, to provide more stability when shooting a gun.

Tens of millions of Americans own this brace, but they would immediately become felons when this goes into effect. That is not even practical from a law enforcement perspective.

Now, you could argue, actually, that the pistol brace makes the gun safer; it makes it less likely to shoot things they are not aiming at.

But no, the impulsive leaders at ATF have once again failed to apply simple logic and reason to their decisionmaking and, instead, chose to apply the mindset of the authoritarian, gun-grabbing bureaucrats we all know that they are.

Congress cannot sit idly by. I recently re-introduced a bipartisan piece of legislation that would create an appeals process for small business owners hurt by these haphazard rulings. Right now, the only recourse that exists is for these gun shop owners and manufacturers to sue the Federal Government in court.

Now, for the average American, that is not exactly doable. It takes time and a lot of money and a lot of resources.

My bill would put the ATF in line with every other Federal regulatory agency's appeal process and ensure Americans can petition their government for the redress of grievances and get decisions handed down in a timely manner.

These taxpayer-funded, anti-gun activists at the ATF cannot continue to trample on our Second Amendment rights without a response from Congress.

We must never cease fighting against these shameless power grabs, and Republican must use our House majority to protect law-abiding gun owners.

Madam Speaker, on Friday, July 1st this year, Sergeant Virgil Poe, age 96, passed away surrounded by family in Houston, Texas.

Virgil was born on June 28, 1926, near Mansfield, Arkansas. He lived the first ten years of his life in Hoberg, Missouri. At ten years old, Virgil's parents, Loyd and Elsie Poe, moved to Portsmouth, Iowa where his father worked as a banker. He graduated from high school in Harlan, Iowa in 1944.

Virgil was drafted in June 1944 and reported to the famed Fort Leavenworth in Kansas to serve his country in the United States Army. He would go on to take basic Infantry Training at Camp Wolters, Texas.

Virgil fought for the Allies with selflessness and nobility. He served in the 7th U.S. Army in France. Belgium, and Germany as a rifleman, truck driver and heavy artilleryman until Germany's surrender in 1945.

Following Germany's surrender, Virgil did not rest. Upon his return to America, he boarded a troop train to Seattle with other soldiers shipping to fight the Japanese in the Pacific Theater. While en route to the Pacific, Virgil and the other servicemen learned Japan had surrendered.

After the war, Virgil was sent back to Ft. Hood, where he would meet his wife, Dorrace, at an evening service at the Church of Christ in her nearby hometown of Temple, Texas. His battalion eventually moved to Camp Polk in Louisiana, where Virgil served as the Administrative NCO in the newly organized Rocket FA Battalion Headquarters. He also served as Supply Sergeant in the same battalion.

Virgil was honorably discharged from the service in August 1946. He and Dorrace married shortly thereafter in October of 1946.

Virgil went on to Abilene Christian College, where he graduated in 1952. Upon graduation, he worked faithfully for 42 years at Southwestern Bell Telephone Co./AT&T as an engineer across the Midwest, including in Dallas, Houston, and St. Louis.

In 2020, the President of the Republic of France authorized the National French Legion of Honour Medal, the highest military medal in France, to Virgil Poe. 75 years after the landing at Normandy the French consulate in Houston awarded the medal to Mr. Poe to honor him for his service in France during World War II. Indeed, Mr. Poe was an exemplary member of the Greatest Generation.

Virgil and Dorrace remained happily married for 72 years before her passing in April 2019. He is survived by his daughter, Jayne Poe Massey, of Jersey Village, Texas; son, former Congressman Ted Poe and wife, Carol; eight grandchildren and eighteen great-grandchildren. Please join us in honoring a true American hero and patriot.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of amendment No. 23 to create a grant program for psychedelic treatment for PTSD. That may come as a shock to many, and I say good, because to be frank, we need new ideas because it seems we are losing the battle with veteran suicide.

For our Active Duty servicemembers, the situation is even worse, as they are precluded from even trying treatments such as psychedelics that could save their lives and bring hope to their families. I aim to change that.

First of all, this form of treatment actually isn't new. It is proven, and it is tested. Many hear the word psychedelics, and they think acid trips from the sixties. They believe this amendment would legalize or deschedule psychedelics, but that is not what we are talking about here.

What we are talking about is the proven use of psychedelics to treat PTSD. Private-sector research shows that following MDMA treatments, 88 percent of veterans have a significant reduction in symptoms, and 67 percent no longer have PTSD.

This treatment also has a face. It is servicemembers like Jonathan Lubecky, a veteran who made multiple suicide attempts until psychedelic treatments saved his life. He credits his treatment as the reason that his son, Joey, has a father instead of a folded flag.

It is a man like Marcus Capone, a SEAL Team Six operator, who credits psychedelic therapy with treating his PTSD, saving his life, and bringing his family back together.

It is my own friends, people I served with on the SEAL Teams who have told me that this cost effective, often one-time treatment has completely transformed their life. All I am asking is that we give our servicemembers the ability to access this treatment instead of forcing them to travel abroad to psychedelic clinics to save their own life.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to get outside of their comfort zone and vote for this amendment. Our servicemembers deserve it.

Madam Speaker, this week, we celebrate and bring recognition to National Infertility Awareness week. April is also the month of the military child.

Parenthood is one of the most rewarding chapters in life, and our armed service members experiencing the challenges of infertility should have access to quality care, treatment, and resources. One organization working to make that happen is the Military Family Building Coalition (MFBC), a non-profit military support organization started by two SEAL wives, Ellen Gustafson and Katy Bell Hendrickson. One of MFBC's initiatives, ``The Tadpole Project'', allows the NSW community to cryogenically freeze their sperm so conception can occur whenever the service member and spouse is ready to build their family, even if the service member is deployed.

For our military families, the time to have a child should not be dictated by the enemy or deployment cycle. I commend Ellen and Katy on their critical work. They show the grit and determination of SEAL spouses, who just like

their husbands, always accomplish their mission.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in a committee hearing and missed the final vote in the series. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 117.

Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous question so we can immediately consider the American Energy Independence from Russia Act, led by my friend and the Republican leader of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

This week our President, our American President, asked Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, asked them to boost their output so that American consumers wouldn't see a spike in gas prices.

It seems like a noble cause at first glance, but I couldn't help to think to myself what a strange thing to ask because surely he knows that we can also boost domestic production right here at home. Surely he knows that domestic production supports American jobs, and surely he knows that domestic production is cleaner, by far, than foreign production; far better for the environment than Venezuelan oil unless that Socialist dictator suddenly became a devout green energy disciple without any of us knowing it.

Surely President Biden knows that energy demand doesn't just disappear because you tell middle-class Americans to go buy a Tesla. Surely he knows all of this, right? The answer is, of course, yes, he does know that, and the entire Democratic Party knows this. It is impossible not to know these things because these things are called hard facts. They are indisputable. Those facts are simple and worth repeating.

Number 1: The world will demand at least 50 percent more energy in the next 50 years. That is a fact.

Number 2: The energy demanded will be reliable energy; electricity that turns on when you want it, heat that keeps you alive in the winter, and air conditioning that keeps you cool in the summer.

Fact number 3: Solar and wind cannot and will not ever provide this reliable energy, no matter how often you worship and pray to the deities of wind turbines and solar panels; proudly made, of course, by the Communist genocidal country of China.

Fact number 4: American production of oil and gas is far cleaner than any other country, except maybe Canada.

These are indisputable facts. So where does that leave us? For anyone wise in the ways of common sense, it leads to one conclusion. It is in the American interest to pursue absolute American energy dominance. If you don't believe me, let's outline the alternative. Let's imagine we go the way of Germany and invest half a trillion dollars in building out unreliable wind and solar production, only to watch our energy prices rise faster than anywhere else and yet still be forced to turn on coal plants and import Russian gas because your green energy just doesn't work the way you wanted it to.

The rest of Europe wasn't all that different. They increased their reliance on Russian gas from 10 percent to over 40 percent now, and I cannot help but notice that the Democratic Party seems intent on pursuing this very path, canceling leases and pipelines, increasing regulations, chastising our industry. If no one else here noticed, someone in Russia certainly did.

Fast forward to 2022, and Putin, with his newfound leverage over European energy supply, realizes it may just be the right time to exercise his imperialistic ambitions and retake the old Soviet territory of Ukraine, leaving thousands of innocents dead and a Western world order completely upended.

We are all left thinking the same thought, wouldn't it be better if it was America supplying Europe its energy? Wouldn't it be better if Europe wasn't held hostage to the whims of a dictator? Wouldn't it be better if we didn't have to wonder where the extra oil would come from after we rightfully ban Russian imports?

Most of us are thinking that, of course. Unfortunately, those in the majority, those in power are not. I pray that you start.

We should defeat the previous question, pass the American Energy Independence from Russia Act and pursue true American energy dominance.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of Misty April Holley, who we lost on November 20, 2021, in Houston, Texas.

I will do my best to give the world a glimpse of who Misty was. And I would like to do that using the words of her father, Ron Holley.

Here is how Ron describes his beloved daughter:

Misty spread love and charity to everyone she knew. Misty was a person full of grace who fully owned her shortcomings and gave out forgiveness freely to all. She knew in her heart that we are all of one race, the human race. Humanity would do well to learn lessons of love and charity from her.

Misty was fueled by dreams and aspirations of what could and should be. She could make you laugh, make you sad, and sometimes frustrated. She evoked feelings you didn't know you had. In short, she would keep you real. She was above all pretenses.

We will miss her contagious laugh. Without Misty, the world feels lacking. But somehow, we will laugh again. Misty would have it no other way. We will see you on the other side.

Madam Speaker, and my colleagues, please join me in praying for the Holley family, Misty's friends, and everyone she touched. May the strength of the Lord be with them as they endure the tremendous loss of a wonderful life taken much too soon.

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of amendment 56, which I was proud to offer.

Madam Speaker, it is no secret what the Republican Party thinks of the Chinese Communist Party and their attack on our global leadership and the threat they pose to our exceptional Nation and the global order we established and maintained.

If you look at the COVID outbreak and coverup, the treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, or the repression in Hong Kong, the facts clearly establish that the CCP is unaccountable, unreliable, and untruthful.

While some in this Chamber want to think of them as a partner, I cannot bring myself down to that level of naivety.

Let's call them what they are: they are a competitor; they are a threat. That is why when I read this bill I was shocked to see that Democrats are almost being complimentary when they refer to China and their emission goals.

They say China ``is likely to achieve its carbon emissions'' pledge to the Paris Agreement, and that their emissions will peak ahead of schedule in 2030, a full 15 years after they agreed to Paris.

Some Democrats go on to highlight China's pledge to be carbon neutral by 2060 and to phase down their coal-fired power generation. It reads like a press release for the Chinese Communist Party published in the Global Times or something tweeted by the bombastic foreign ministry spokesmen, not policy from the United States Congress.

Worst of all, there is not even an attempt to fact check this information. Take it as blind fact, despite coming from an autocratic, Communist regime.

Trust but verify will not do here. With China it should be do not trust until we verify and continue to verify.

Madam Speaker, are we so naive that we take China's word at face value? I believe I speak for my fellow Republicans, and probably a few of my friends on the other side of the aisle, when I say: No, absolutely not.

We have no reason to believe the Communist leadership that has publicly stated that their goal is to best us in every technological field and establish global dominance.

In fact, we already have evidence that they falsified emissions data before joining the Paris Agreement. But some still want to trust them? It doesn't take a classified intel report to call China's bluff.

They have no intention of meeting these goals, but that won't stop them from telling us that they are on track. If I had to guess, they will say they are doing it even better than we are in reducing emissions, if for nothing more than their ongoing information warfare to make us appear weak and ineffectual on the world stage.

Madam Speaker, that is the purpose of my amendment. We need to have the State Department, in consultation with the Department of Energy, come in and give us the facts. This amendment requires an annual briefing regarding the progress and efforts of China to meet emissions goals.

We need to know: Is China telling the truth about how much they have reduced emissions? Are they building more coal-fired power plants? Have they successfully deployed carbon capture technologies the way we have? These are answers we need for the United States to compete with China.

Knowledge is power and the quickest path to victory is understanding your adversary. Despite all the other problems scattered throughout this bill, I believe this amendment is a chance to at least do one thing right.

This amendment is about accountability, this is about accuracy, and most importantly, this is about knowing the full capabilities of our largest and fiercest competitor.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support accountability, to support accuracy, to support truth, and to support knowledge by supporting this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, `tis the season of misplaced priorities. In the midst of rising inflation, labor shortages, open borders, and foreign policy blunders, my colleagues seem to think that Islamophobia is what Americans care about.

I would rather talk about something that Americans actually care about: gassing up their cars and keeping the heat on. In November, President Biden said: `` . . . the reason Americans are facing high gas prices is because oil-producing countries and large companies have not ramped up the supply of oil quickly enough to meet the demand, and the smaller supply means higher prices. . . .''

Well, that is true. But he is not making the point that he thinks he is. Yes, there is a lack of production, but the question is why. Why has the world's number one oil and gas producer, the United States, not been able to ramp up production? The answer is actually simple: because Joe Biden has made it a priority to kill the American energy industry.

President Biden cancelled the Keystone pipeline, outlawed new oil and gas leases on Federal lands and waters, and has threatened even more burdensome regulations that put a freezing effect on any kind of new production that even Biden himself recognizes is needed.

Of course, most recently, with the help of even my colleagues from Texas on the Democrat side, they managed to pass an unprecedented tax on natural gas through the House as part of their socialist spending package.

It gets more interesting. In a letter to Speaker Pelosi, seven Texas Democrats put the natural gas tax in stark terms saying: This tax will ``cost thousands of jobs, stifle economic recovery, increase energy costs for all Americans, strengthen our adversaries, and ultimately impede the transition to a lower carbon future.''

These are very strong and very true words from my Democratic colleagues, but guess what? They voted for it anyways. And now Democrats are scrambling because they know Americans are starting to feel the pain of their policies. It has gotten so bad that Democrats are celebrating a two-cent decline in gas prices. Oh, I thank Joe Biden for the two-cent decline.

It would be funny if it weren't so serious that the Energy Secretary doesn't even know that their plan to release from the strategic petroleum reserve was only about 2 days' worth of oil. There is nothing funny about this. And the administration responds by telling people to put on a sweater and buy an electric vehicle.

Madam Speaker, I rise today because our border is still in crisis. I rise today to bring attention to the dereliction of duty by this President occurring at our southern border. Most of all I rise to ask this: Can we all stop pretending?

Can we stop pretending that this administration deserves any benefit of the doubt, pretending it is a tough situation beyond their control, pretending that this administration, and frankly, the entire Democratic Party have any intention of solving the border crisis. Stop pretending as if this isn't purposeful, because it is.

When every single policy measure that you partake in results in more illegal immigration, well, then it stands to reason using the powers of deduction that maybe you want more illegal immigration. So let's stop pretending otherwise.

And while we are at it, let's also stop pretending that more than a tiny fraction of those illegally crossing our border have any valid claims to asylum whatsoever. We all know it. We all know that they are coming because it is easy and because America is a pretty great place. We all know they were trained by their drug cartel handlers to repeat certain phrases that make them eligible for the asylum process so that they will be given a bus ticket and maybe a court date which they will never show up for.

Let's stop pretending that this isn't just a giant scam, a giant abuse of our well-meaning and generous system.

And also, let's stop pretending mass migration is America's fault. Let's stop pretending to listen to outlandish claims of climate change causing migration or the tired old refrain of, well, it is American imperialistic foreign policy or whatever, and so let's just let everybody in.

And let's stop pretending that this isn't getting exceedingly dangerous for us. It is dangerous for our border agents. It is dangerous for our border communities. It is dangerous for the children being trafficked. It is dangerous for everyday Americans.

At our border communities, crime is rising. There is greater insecurity. There is a spike in COVID cases. And the migrants, who I thought my friends on the other side of the aisle claim to care about, well, they are paying thousands of dollars to smugglers to take them on an exceedingly dangerous journey that often ends in children dead, stranded in the desert, or in the Rio Grande.

The only people who benefit from all of this are the drug cartels. They make money off the human misery by using asylum-seeking migrants to tie down the border agents so they can move their drugs with little to no risk. These smugglers aren't just bringing your generic pot. They are bringing fentanyl, bringing enough fentanyl to kill every single American.

Finally, let's stop pretending that the Democrats' pro-open border position has anything to do with compassion or kindness. There is nothing compassionate about tent cities, nothing compassionate about children being trafficked. There is nothing compassionate about firing American workers for not getting a COVID shot, putting them out on the street while illegal immigrants flood into our country without even a COVID test and then get treated to a bus ride or a hotel at the expense of the American taxpayer. And then, they probably get hired.

And guess what? There is nothing compassionate about allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to cut in front of millions of

law-abiding potential immigrants around the world. People with actual asylum claims and real persecution are told, well, they are out of luck if they can't just walk across our border. Sorry about your civil war or your religious persecution. We are out of space. The system is just too clogged up now.

Let's stop pretending about all of it. Let's start telling the truth so we can actually solve this crisis.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to highlight a dangerous implication of this bill and urge my colleagues to vote against it.

There is no disagreement that the Federal Government has a role to play in cleaning up the most heavily contaminated sites and establishing standards so that our water is safe to drink. We are united in this, both Republicans and Democrats.

While this bill shares the spirit of that, frankly, it got hopelessly lost along the way. Instead, it creates a mess of lawsuits.

We could have fixed this. Republicans have pointed out the pitfalls. Democrats say those pitfalls don't exist. Experts say, yes, they do. We could fix this.

In committee we discussed how this impacts a full suite of products, from medical devices to computer chips.

But there is one element that is particularly concerning to me. Under this legislation, a police department that purchases one of the most popular bulletproof vests to protect its officers against rising crime would now be subject to environmental lawsuits.

And here's why: A bulletproof vest becomes increasingly ineffective if it is exposed to moisture. As a result, it is protected by a waterproofing PFAS chemical to keep it dry and effective against bullets.

By imposing a de facto ban--and it is a de facto ban--on all PFAS chemicals, even those that pose no risk to human health or the environment, this legislation will significantly reduce the availability of lifesaving equipment.

Manufacturers, or others in the supply chain, will seek to avoid the PFAS liabilities created by this bill under CERCLA. So police departments, rather than worrying about protecting our communities, will now have to worry about whether or not they will be subject to an environmental lawsuit.

Instead, police departments themselves will be forced to make impossible decisions; continuing to use PFAS-containing, lifesaving equipment or risk huge legal liability when the equipment is disposed of.

This bill will bring entities like police departments, and anyone and everyone who is even remotely involved with PFAS material, under the wide dragnet of litigation that they don't have the resources to fight.

As Democrats seek to defund police across the country, police departments are already strapped for cash. So under this bill, we are forcing police departments to decide whether to defend themselves against lawsuits or purchase the material they need to keep their officers safe.

That is why I introduced a simple amendment that would limit the liability of police departments, first responders, and our military from being endlessly sued if they require these materials to protect themselves.

My amendment didn't limit the EPA's ability to actually regulate these chemicals or even determine which ones are safe or unsafe. Nor did it allow police departments to dispose of these products in an unsafe way and be shielded from consequences.

It just said, if a police department or first responder follows the letter of the law in dealing with these materials, they shouldn't be threatened with endless lawsuits. But, sadly, my colleagues didn't make my amendment in order.

So while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are desperately trying to prove that they support our police officers after a year of demonizing them, the bill shows that really nothing has changed.

But there is one more chance to make this right. I will be offering my amendment as the motion to recommit for this legislation. Our police officers need to know that Congress has their back, especially now. This motion to recommit is a chance to do just that.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and vote for my amendment to protect our police and our military and our first responders.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support and encourage the brave men and women of Cuba.

Last week we saw unprecedented images and videos from across Cuba. Tens of thousands of Cubans took to the street. They took to the street not because of COVID or vaccines or the embargo but because they demand their

inalienable rights. They demand freedom. They chant: ``Libertad.'' They chant: ``Patria y vida.'' And they converged on the Communist Party headquarters responsible for 60 years of misery, abuse, and torture of the Cuban people.

Cubans have rejected the failed ideology forced upon three generations--the failed ideology of Marxism that has brought suffering to hundreds of millions around the world, the failed ideology that deserves to be sent to the ash heap of history once and for all.

As Communists often do, they concocted a conspiracy theory to explain the people's protests. The Communist dictator Miguel Diaz-Canel even claimed it was a U.S. plot. This is what Marxists do, of course. They lie. They will lie, they will commit violence against their own people, and they will try to suffocate the calls for freedom.

But this movement will not be silenced. It cannot. It mustn't. For too long this once flourishing island has suffered under Communist rule, and now the calls for freedom must be heeded: freedom from oppression, freedom from abuse, and freedom from tyranny. The downfall of this regime has been a long time coming. No more is it patria o muerte--country or death--but as the people across Cuba know, it is patria y vida--country and life.

As Americans--as a people who have inherited the greatest gifts of freedom the world has ever known--we must speak with one voice against the evils of Marxism. We must speak truth, a truth that not enough Americans are used to hearing. Instead, we have American politicians who openly advocate for the very same Marxist ideology that Cubans would die to escape from. This ignorant and foolish flirtation with Marxism must end, and we must make it clear that we will always support freedom-loving people around the world.

Our message will be one of empowerment: empower the brave Cuban people as they begin to throw off the chains of Communism and seek their inalienable, God-given rights of life, liberty, personal property, and the right to pursue their happiness.

So to the men and women of Cuba, I say this:

(English translation of the statement made in Spanish is as follows:)

We see you. We hear you. We are with you. Let us no longer shout homeland or death but homeland and life. And begin to build what we dream of. What they destroyed with their hands.

Te vemos. Te oimos. Estamos con ustedes. Ya no gritemos patria o muerte sino patria y vida. Y empezar a construir lo que sonamos. Lo que destruyeron con sus manos.

Madam Speaker, to the Communist regime in Cuba, I say this: Your lies are exposed, your foundations are shaken to the core, and your days are numbered.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to thank and honor a true public servant, the Executive Director of the Harris County Flood Control District, Russ Poppe.

Russ is stepping down on July 2, 2021. During his five-year tenure as Executive Director, Russ made a lasting and significant impact to reduce the threat of flooding in Harris County.

Russ's time at the Flood Control District was spent building solid relationships at the local, state, and federal levels. Russ's excellent network of contacts is partly responsible for the Flood Control District bringing in over one billion dollars in federal grants in the past few years. He has earned the trust of various agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Natural Resources Conservation Services, and Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Russ led the Flood Control District through the worst rainfall event in American history, Hurricane Harvey in 2017. In the aftermath of Harvey, Russ helped former County Judge Ed Emmett pass the historic $2.5 billion Harris County Flood Bond in August 2018. After voters approved the bond program, Russ became the head of a multi-billion- dollar enterprise, all with the purpose of helping his community in Harris County.

Since that time, under Russ's leadership, the Flood Control District has started over 200 flood damage reduction projects and has increased project delivery volume over ten times.

Russ's leadership and professionalism will be missed at the Flood Control District. Russ always practiced leadership by inspiration, not intimidation. Russ and his staff have spent countless hours working with my staff and me to ensure we understand the tremendous challenges the Harris County area faces when it comes to reducing flooding.

I wish to thank him for his service and wish him all the best. I am certain that he will continue his success at the next stop on his career journey.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of legislation called the HOPE and ALLIES Act to support our interpreters in Afghanistan.

I can't tell you how important this is on a personal level to me. In 2012, I was hit by an IED blast. That IED went off because one of our interpreters stepped on a pressure plate. His name was Raqman. He was responding to a call, responding to do his job, like they do day in and day out. They never get a break. And he stepped on that IED, about 10 to 15 pounds of explosives, and it ripped off all four of his limbs right away. I couldn't see him because I was blinded by the blast, but I could hear him.

When someone gets hit by an IED--you have probably seen in the movies--you think they scream. But they don't scream. They don't have the energy to scream. It is more like a groan. It is the deepest kind of pain that you can imagine. And I will never forget that sound.

Before he was hit, he expressed to us that one of his dreams would be to come back to San Diego, California, enlist in the military, and become a Navy SEAL. That was the kind of patriotism that he had. He wasn't even a citizen. Imagine if our own citizens loved their country the way that these guys did.

And that story is not unique. Raqman later died, but that legacy lived on. These interpreters showed such dedication to the cause; it is unimaginable, really. And as military units rotate in and out, we get to go home, we see our families. The interpreters stay out there. It is just another day for them. Meanwhile, their families are under threat. They are receiving anonymous phone calls constantly, threatening their lives, calling them infidels all because they supported the United States.

Now we are about to leave them. This administration is not doing enough to make sure that they don't get left to die. I am confident this body will do what it can, but it takes this administration to actually do something now before this hasty retreat occurs and before thousands and thousands and thousands of interpreters and contractors are killed; and they will be killed. They absolutely will be killed. Their families will be killed. The threats have already come, and it will happen if we don't do something about it.

Mr. Speaker, I call on this administration to do something about it. I call on the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to get this process going, to expedite this process as quickly as possible. These people are heroes and they need to come to their new home here in the United States.