Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Guthrie, for all of his help.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of my bill, H.R. 9617.

According to the United States Geological Survey, of the 33 important critical minerals--the majority of which that our country needs is being imported--the United States depends on China as a major source for 14 of them.

This should be a major source of concern to everyone because China has already demonstrated its willingness to leverage our supply chain vulnerabilities in recent years.

To address this alarming situation, my friend, Ranking Member Paul Tonko, and I, along with our colleagues on the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment, have explored opportunities to identify untapped, nontraditional sources of critical minerals right here in the United States.

The bipartisan CHARM Act is a product of these efforts throughout the 119th Congress. I thank my colleague, Ranking Member Tonko, again, for joining me in advancing this legislation.

This legislation directs the Environmental Protection Agency to work with other relevant agencies to develop a national critical mineral recovery strategy. In furthering this strategy, EPA will identify its own programs and authorities that could increase recovery of critical minerals from discarded materials, as well as those at other Federal agencies.

It will pinpoint opportunities to address legal and technological barriers to recovering critical minerals from discarded materials. EPA will also identify potential sources of critical minerals in discarded materials and evaluate the role of these recovered materials in strengthening domestic supply chains.

The committee advanced this legislation with across-the-board bipartisan support, and I encourage my colleagues in the full House to support its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the city of Homewood, Alabama, as it celebrates its 100th anniversary this year.

Homewood's history began long before its incorporation in 1926. The first settlers arrived in the area in the early 1800s. Union Hill Cemetery, established in the 1870s, serves as the final resting place for many of the early settlers of the area as well as veterans who fought in the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, and both world wars.

In 1926, communities, including Rosedale, Edgewood, and Grove Park developed and eventually came together to form the city of Homewood. The historic Hollywood community joined Homewood in 1929 and remains known today for its distinctive Mission Revival and Spanish Colonial Revival homes.

Over the decades, Homewood's population boomed and the city continued to forge its own identity, including establishing an independent school system in 1970.

Today, Homewood is known for its excellent schools, thriving businesses, beautiful neighborhoods, and strong sense of community.

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate this remarkable milestone, I congratulate the people of Homewood on a century of growth and success. I look forward to all that the next 100 years will bring.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 212.

Mr. Speaker, every year, hardworking Americans dutifully pay their taxes to support Federal public programs and other priorities. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has too often squandered their money through mismanagement.

For example, just last year, the Federal Government lost an estimated $186 billion in improper payments. Six years ago, the COVID-19 pandemic produced what is now often referred to as the greatest theft of taxpayer dollars in history.

This is not new. The Federal Government has been on this track for over 23 years, losing almost $3 trillion in taxpayer dollars since that time.

The definition of insanity is continuing to take the same actions and expecting a different result. It is time for us to make changes. Absent major systematic reforms, we will continue to violate the public trust at increasingly unsustainable levels.

That is why I am pleased to sponsor H.R. 8467, the Zeroing Out Monetary Benefits Improperly Expended Act, or the ZOMBIE Act.

The ZOMBIE Act reforms Federal law to prevent improper payments before money goes out the door. It codifies a longtime recommendation from the Government Accountability Office to conduct regular risk assessments of improper payments that result in actual financial loss to the Federal Government. Assessments will focus on a comprehensive review of risk, including implementing fraud prevention best practices.

The bill increases coordination among the inspectors general, the U.S. Treasury, and other partners via annual meetings. Heads of Federal agencies or designees of their choice will have the option to attend these meetings to help identify and prevent improper payments that result in financial loss for the government.

Additionally, the ZOMBIE Act incentivizes Federal agency reporting by permitting up to 75 percent of the amount recovered to be redirected back to the program. That is an increase from the current 25 percent threshold.

By implementing the ZOMBIE Act, agencies will be able to shift or focus toward preventing improper payments rather than on compliance activities.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Democratic colleagues for supporting this bill and urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1003) to require the Federal Communications Commission to issue an order providing that a shark attack is an event for which a wireless emergency alert may be transmitted, and for other purposes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1003, Lulu's Law. This legislation is named after a courageous young woman from Mountain Brook, Alabama, Lulu Gribbin, who suffered serious injuries in a shark attack nearly 2 years ago, losing her left hand and part of her right leg.

She was rushed to the hospital suffering from severe loss of blood, which raised grave concerns as to whether or not Lulu would survive.

When she finally woke up in the hospital and saw her family, the first words she spoke were, ``I made it.'' What makes this even more heartbreaking is that a shark attack, possibly the same shark, occurred just a mile or two away only 90 minutes prior. Had an alert gone out warning of a shark attack nearby, these attacks might have been avoided because the victim's friends and family would have received notice prompting them to pull their loved ones from the water. But no such warning was sent.

Lulu's Law provides a commonsense solution. State and local authorities can use wireless emergency alerts to notify the public when a shark attack has occurred or when dangerous conditions are present along the shoreline.

Lulu has inspired many in Alabama and across the entire Nation by her response to her attack. She has turned a tragic experience into an effort to help others by advocating for this bill and by founding the Lulu Strong Foundation to assist other amputees. I commend her for her resilience and determination to use her experience to help others overcome life-impacting injuries.

While we cannot undo what happened to Lulu, we can honor her strength and leadership by taking steps to better protect beachgoers and prevent another shark attack from happening in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to help keep American beachgoers safe, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that Lulu and her family are in the gallery observing the debate and will be here for the vote.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his support. This is another example of how in a bipartisan manner we can do good.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote favorably for S. 1003, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1174, I call up the bill (H.R. 6387) to amend the Clean Air Act to require revisions to regulations governing the review and handling of air quality monitoring data influenced by exceptional events or actions to mitigate wildfire risk, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 6387.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6387, the FIRE Act, a bipartisan bill introduced by Congressman Gabe Evans of Colorado and co-led by Congressman Adam Gray of California.

The FIRE Act ensures that States are not penalized for wildfire mitigation practices like prescribed or controlled burns and brush clearing. States currently limit these practices for fear of falling out of containment of national air quality standards.

Unlike wildfires, prescribed burns do not automatically qualify as exceptional events under the current provisions of the Clean Air Act. This is because prescribed burns are human caused, likely to recur, and preventable. As a result, prescribed burns are often counted against States for the purpose of national air quality standards.

In 2016, the EPA amended the exceptional events rule in an effort to include prescribed burns, but the attempt failed. Only one prescribed fire qualified for the exceptional events exception in the last decade.

Congress must amend the Clean Air Act to allow wildfire mitigation to be included as an exceptional events exception.

Time has taught us that agency action is not enough to address the current statutory obstacles. The FIRE Act directly amends the Clean Air Act so that prescribed burns are treated as exceptional events and States are not penalized for wildfire mitigation measures. It provides clarity and predictability for air quality planning and encourages proactive wildfire measures.

There is nearly unanimous agreement that increasing the use of prescribed fire and other wildfire mitigation practices is necessary to reduce the growing wildfire threats across the country.

With what is projected to be a severe wildfire season around the corner, Congress must modernize the Clean Air Act to ensure that wildfire mitigation practices are eligible for the exceptional events rule. The FIRE Act allows States to perform prescribed burns and wildfire mitigation activities without severe economic consequences, protecting their communities from the devastating impact of wildfires.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am constantly amazed at what my colleagues across the aisle say in response to these bills. They make this claim that prescribed burns will increase air pollution, when the fact is that we are trying to prevent wildfires.

When you compare the emissions from a prescribed burn to the emissions from a wildfire, it could be as little as 17 percent of what a wildfire produces. They both emit fine particulate matter and carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, but prescribed burns are managed to ensure more complete combustion and less overall polluted output per acre, whereas a wildfire consumes more fuel and produces denser and more toxic smoke.

What they are arguing for is more pollution and more dangerous fires. We have seen what has happened in California and other States, where wildfires have gotten out of control. Look at Paradise in California, the number of lives lost and the amount of destruction there. Those fires actually produced more pollutants, more toxins, and more tremendous damage.

I am, again, amazed. I guess they doubt the common sense of the average American about these issues, when the fact of the matter is that prescribed burns reduce the amount of pollutants that are emitted into the atmosphere.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is as though we are debating two different bills. I have no idea where industry comes into this. This is about protecting forests. It is about promoting wildlife. It is about reducing emissions by prescribed burns.

If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are interested in looking up this data, what they are saying is in direct contradiction to what the science

shows: A prescribed burn reduces the amount of emissions compared to a wildfire.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).

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

Mr. Speaker, I again am at a loss to understand where my Democratic colleagues are coming from with this argument about all of these problems

with our air quality. We have only had one exceptional event approved, and I am not sure that it was actually executed since the exceptions were put in, the exceptional event provision was adopted by the EPA.

If you are talking about pollution from fires, it is from wildfires, uncontrolled wildfires. As I have pointed out, if they are interested in looking it up, it is clear that we reduce air pollution by having these prescribed burns.

The other thing they keep talking about is public health. Most of these wildfires occur in rural areas. The Republicans in the Working Families Tax Cut Act put in $50 billion to transform rural healthcare, and every one of my Democratic colleagues voted against it. The State of Oregon got $197.3 million this year. Again, I am just at a loss to understand where they are coming from on some of this. It is in direct conflict with what the science shows.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at what my Democratic colleagues say about these issues as far as quoting data. The data shows, as I have already pointed out, that the emissions from controlled burns, from prescribed burns, could be as low as 17 percent of what would come from a wildfire.

As a matter of fact, controlled burns consume one-sixth of the fuel per acre as an intense wildfire. As I pointed out numerous times about my Democratic colleagues and their talking about what they want to do for healthcare and worried about people's health, we put $50 billion into the Working Families Tax Cut Act to help rural healthcare, to transform rural healthcare. Every one of my Democratic colleagues voted against it.

As a matter of fact, the State of New Mexico received $211.5 million, and they voted against it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Evans).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Evans).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crank).

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

Madam Speaker, once again, I want to point out some of the inconsistencies in the argument.

They have talked about healthcare, and I pointed out three or four times already that Congress put $50 billion into the Working Families Tax Cuts Act specifically to modernize and improve rural healthcare. They are largely the ones who suffer the most from uncontrolled wildfires. Every Member of the Democratic side of the aisle voted no.

I pointed out before that they talk about impact on senior citizens. This year, 51.4 million senior citizens paid no income tax on their Social Security. However, every one of my Democratic colleagues voted against that.

They talk about families. In the Working Families Tax Cuts Act, Congress eliminated taxes on tips. These are some of the hardest working people in the country living largely off of tips. I think, on average, they are going to get about $3,000 back. That could be used to buy needed school supplies for their children, to pay a bill, to maybe even make a repair on an automobile, or to improve their housing, which is one of the leading factors in asthma.

According to the CDC, there is no single definitive known cause for the development of asthma but indoor air quality is a significant factor that is related to housing. This is what troubles me about the opposition to this bill. The science, the data, shows that controlled burns mitigate the intensity of wildfires. It reduces the amount of emissions into the atmosphere. This is a way to improve air quality, not make it worse.

They cite climate change in the frequency and intensity of wildfires. That is exactly what we are trying to mitigate against by doing these prescribed burns.

I am amazed at how many of the policies that they propose stifle the formation of new businesses, providing more jobs and better opportunities for families when the data, particularly on this issue, is clear. This is good for the local communities. It is good for rural communities. It is good for air quality.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6387, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Thomas Elred Bradford, a man who truly embodied servant leadership.

A Birmingham native and graduate of Ramsay High School, Tom served in the United States Air Force after college before joining his family business.

After a successful career in business, instead of retiring, Tom founded the National Christian Foundation of Alabama.

Tom was deeply committed to his faith and community, serving as an elder at Briarwood Presbyterian Church and in leadership roles in numerous civic, charitable, and Christ-centered organizations across Birmingham.

Most importantly, he was a devoted husband to Mary Anne and a loving father.

Tom was always searching for ways to invest in those around him, and I was fortunate enough to benefit from his mentorship. Tom gave me my first job in Birmingham, and years later when I came to him with the idea to start a profamily think tank, he agreed to serve as the founding board chairman of the Alabama Family Alliance, which later became the Alabama Policy Institute.

Tom was always a tremendous source of advice and godly counsel and became like a second father to me. Tom was truly a force for good. He will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1174, I call up the bill (H.R. 6409) to amend the Clean Air Act to clarify standards for emissions emanating from outside of the United States, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to include extraneous material on H.R. 6409.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act, which addresses the need for commonsense reforms on how emissions impact our Nation's ability to support domestic manufacturing and unleash affordable and reliable energy.

For far too long, burdensome regulations have stood in the way, allowing investments to go overseas while Americans are forced to pay higher prices. Many of these costly regulations result from regulatory burdens associated with the Clean Air Act.

The legislation considered today makes targeted and effective reforms that will support American job creators while continuing to protect our environment and the air we breathe.

The legislation produced by my colleague Congressman August Pfluger of Texas ensures that States and local communities are not penalized for foreign air emissions emanating from outside our borders. Across the country, States are being unfairly penalized for pollution that originates from foreign nations, including air emissions from natural events, like the Canadian wildfires.

Currently, the Clean Air Act allows States to adjust their plans when foreign emissions prevent them from meeting Federal standards. However, the guidance from the EPA under the previous administration narrowed that relief, limiting it to only human-caused emissions from abroad.

This bill clarifies that all foreign emissions, whether natural or man-made, are excluded from consideration when determining whether a State meets national air quality standards.

Importantly, the bill allows States to account for foreign emissions earlier in the regulatory process, instead of forcing them to wait until the very end and risk costly delays or Federal sanctions.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting these bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to me to hear my Democratic colleagues talk about where Republicans are on healthcare when, in fact, it was Republicans who initiated the $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Fund that every Democrat voted against.

As a matter of fact, just this year, the State of New Jersey is going to get $147,250,806 from the Rural Health Transformation Fund. I think that is a pretty good investment in trying to improve healthcare for people all over the country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), a distinguished Member.

Mr. Speaker, again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to talk about Republican positions on healthcare. I will remind them again that, in particular, the State of Ohio received $202,030,262 from the Rural Health Transformation Fund that every Democrat voted against. I remind my colleagues that the Republicans have made a major investment in healthcare.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman bringing up the situation that people in rural America find themselves in. What we tried to do with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act with the Rural Health Transformation Fund was meet a lot of those needs. The State of Texas got more money than any other State, $281,319,361, to try to improve healthcare opportunities for people who live in disadvantaged areas. What we are also trying to do is improve those conditions, to give people an opportunity to have a better job, to have better options in food, and have better healthcare options, as well. That is a big part of what we are trying to do with the modernization of the Clean Air Act and these bills that we bring before the House today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Ciscomani).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Mr. Speaker, I don't think we want to follow the California model for America's economic future, with their high energy prices, the highest poverty rate in the country, and destructive economic policies driving businesses out of the State.

I think with Republicans' policies, it is very clear that we have the best interests of the people at heart.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that no one wants polluted air and polluted water. We have made tremendous advances in pollution control. As a matter of fact, I worked for two international engineering companies, one of which was in environmental systems. We built the pollution control equipment that has made our air demonstrably cleaner. We built flue gas scrubbers. We built electrostatic precipitators and baghouses.

The technology has improved dramatically since I left my work in the field of engineering. Since 1980, we have reduced pollution from the six criteria gases monitored by the EPA by 78 percent. That is despite the fact that the economy has grown over 240 percent. That is $2.9 trillion to an economy of $30.6 trillion adjusted for inflation.

Vehicles miles driven are up 113 percent, and the population is up over 50 percent, yet we have seen remarkable improvements in air quality.

What we are trying to do with this long overdue effort to modernize the Clean Air Act is to not only continue to keep our air clean and our water clean, but to improve economic opportunity to people, particularly people who are disadvantaged such as I was growing up.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues, Democratic and Republican, to support this commonsense legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1174, I call up the bill (H.R. 6398) to amend the Clean Air Act relating to review by the Environmental Protection Agency of proposed legislation, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to include extraneous material on H.R. 6398.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6398, the RED Tape Act, which would address burdensome regulations in the Clean Air Act and provide the permitting reform needed to support American innovation.

The legislation, which was introduced by my friend Congressman John Joyce of Pennsylvania eliminates the duplicative requirement in the Clean Air Act that requires the EPA to assess and provide feedback on environmental impact statements other agencies prepare under NEPA.

The primary agency preparing an environmental impact statement already possesses the expertise and resources necessary to evaluate the impacts of a project on our environment, and the EPA is often already involved in the NEPA review process as a cooperating agency. Requiring them to provide a secondary review under section 309 is unnecessary, duplicative, and inefficient, leading to more delays and higher costs for American job creators.

This legislation is an important step to streamline permitting, and it removes burdensome inefficiencies in the current NEPA process. This bill is an essential component in the committee's permitting reform efforts.

The Clean Air Act is long overdue for an update to eliminate outdated provisions that are holding back American manufacturing.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting the RED Tape Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Dr. Joyce), the sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I will point out is in 2025, the Supreme Court decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, ruled that upstream-downstream impacts of Federal action fall outside the scope of the environmental impact statement under NEPA. In light of this decision, the EPA's separate review and comment on broader environmental impacts of proposed Federal action are no longer appropriate.

It is really insulting to the American people to have my colleagues make outrageous statements in regard to what our intent is with this. We have the means to make sure that our air is clean. We are working on that. We do not want, in any form or fashion, to compromise the quality of life that we have here in this country.

It really is stunning to hear fellow Americans want to deny economic justice to whole communities throughout the country. I pointed out several times what each one of their States was receiving in funding from the Rural Health Transformation Fund, a historic effort to improve healthcare in rural areas where so many disadvantaged people live, that every one of my Democratic colleagues voted against.

We want to give people economic opportunity, not deny them. We want to dramatically improve the healthcare of people who have been denied the opportunity to have a good-paying job with good benefits. As one who grew up with few opportunities, I understand how important it is to have a job that allows people to live in better housing, to have access to better food, better healthcare, and to have something left over to save to meet future needs and eventually retirement.

My colleagues who oppose this bill literally oppose the economic opportunities that could lift millions of disadvantaged Americans into a much brighter future.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is high time that we recognize that we have a host of Federal regulations that need to be reviewed, to be modernized, not to compromise anyone's healthcare, not to compromise environmental quality, but to improve these to make them work better for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this excellent legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 7084, the Defending American Property Abroad Act of 2026.

This legislation codifies the commonsense principle that foreign nations should not profit from properties stolen from Americans. This bill is needed because for years the Mexican Government has engaged in a deliberate campaign against an American company, Vulcan Materials, headquartered in my district.

In 2022, Mexican authorities used military force to shut down Vulcan's lawful operations. Then, in 2024, they took the dramatic step of declaring Vulcan's private property a protected natural area. The move was not designed to conserve land but to justify taking it.

However, this is about more than one company. Mexico's actions sent a dangerous signal to every American business operating abroad that their investments, their assets, their rights could be stripped away at any moment by the corrupt Mexican Government.

When I and other members of the Alabama delegation, in a bipartisan manner, met with the Ambassador from Mexico, he described his government's actions as a civil dispute. I pointed out to the Ambassador that in America we don't send in our military to resolve civil disputes.

The port at the center of the dispute is not just any asset. As has been pointed out by other speakers, it is the only deepwater port on the Yucatan Peninsula, built by American investments and critical to supplying construction materials for infrastructure across the United States.

Mexico's actions undermine not only property rights but also our supply chains. The illegal action is more like an action by a cartel than it is a trustworthy government, and it raises serious questions about entering into any agreements with Mexico.

The Defending American Property Abroad Act ensures that foreign governments cannot seize American-owned infrastructure and then benefit from the infrastructure. It authorizes the United States to deny entry to vessels operating out of or that have visited ports unlawfully expropriated from American companies.

Mr. Speaker, this is about protecting American businesses and, fundamentally, the rule of law. If we fail to act here, then we invite more of this behavior not just from Mexico, but from any nation watching to see how the United States responds.

I thank Representative Pfluger for his work on this important issue, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 7084.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the SAVE America Act. This essential legislation would require, as we have said previously, proof of citizenship when registering to vote and the presentation of a valid ID when at the ballot box. Currently, only 13 States do not require any form of voter ID. Having this requirement should be the standard and not the exception.

My Democratic colleagues claim that requiring a photo ID to vote is too burdensome. Some say it is too difficult for rural Americans and will lead to voter suppression. I grew up in rural America.

The reality is that Americans use photo IDs every day to carry out basic tasks like opening a bank account, boarding a flight, checking into a hotel, renting a car, or applying for a business license.

Americans use photo IDs to buy alcohol, tobacco, or nicotine products. They use it to sign a lease or rental agreement. It is also used to get a marriage license, purchase firearms or ammunition, check in for jury duty, or enroll in a college or university. Purchasing insurance or donating blood requires a photo ID.

I hope that people who don't have a photo ID don't get sick because they need a photo ID to purchase things like Sudafed, NyQuil, and Mucinex D. I hope they don't have to pick up a package at the post office because we have to have a photo ID to pick up a package at the post office.

If we require a photo ID to prevent fraud in these areas I just mentioned, why are my colleagues so opposed to preventing fraud in elections? It is hard to argue that a photo ID is too much to ask for in voting when Americans already use it routinely for far less important activities.

Mr. Speaker, protecting election integrity should be a priority. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying SAVE America Act to secure our elections.

Mr. Speaker, I point out that in 2005, 18 of the 21 members of a bipartisan Federal commission headed by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker came out in support of photo ID requirements more stringent than what Indiana had at that time. ``Voters in nearly 100 democracies use a photo identification card without fear of infringement on their rights,'' the commission stated.

In regard to voter registration fraud, just last year, six people were indicted for fraudulent voter registration forms submitted ahead of last year's Presidential election.

The allegations of fraud appeared to be motivated by the defendants' desire to make money and to keep their jobs and was not an effort to influence the election, so said the Pennsylvania Attorney General Dave Sunday. It really doesn't matter what the motivation is. What matters is the result--fraudulent voter registrations.

Back in 2008, there was an organization called ACORN. There was an ACORN whistleblower who worked for both it and its Project Vote registration affiliate from 2005 until 2006. She said: It is ludicrous to say that fake registrations can't become fraudulent voters. She said: I assure you if you can get them on the rolls, you can get them to vote, especially using absentee ballots.

There were documents that were provided by the whistleblower that indicated that the goal of ACORN's New Mexico affiliate was that only 40 percent of its submitted registrations had to be valid.

I think fraudulent voter registration is a problem. I think requiring a valid photo ID, as President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State Jim Baker said, is totally a way to ensure integrity in our elections and is not a burden on the people.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address some of the things my Democratic colleagues have said. They are really high on China. They look at China as a model for America. Apparently, they like how they do their economy. They like their energy production.

I would just like to point out, Statistical Review of World Energy reports that coal accounted for 58 percent of China's energy. Oil was at 20 percent, and natural gas was at 10 percent. Some of my colleagues struggle with math. I will just add that up for them. That is 88 percent of their energy production comes from hydrocarbon sources. That means that the remaining 12 percent came from hydroelectric, solar, or wind.

What is interesting about this is they make it seem as though China is just dominating the world in renewable energy production. That is approximately the same amount of renewable energy production as the United States. It doesn't sound like the model.

I also wanted to point out--because they keep talking about higher energy costs--the increase in energy costs has occurred in the States with the most stringent requirements for renewable energy: California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut. That is where energy costs have gone up the most. That is where people are struggling the most to pay their energy bills.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in support of H.R. 3617, introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. James), my friend and colleague. If the United States hasn't learned anything else from the war in Ukraine, it should be this, this is a fundamental principle: No nation, let alone America, should be reliant on adversarial nations for energy and refined materials, critical minerals, rare earth elements that would threaten our economy and threaten our national security, but that is where we find ourselves and where we put ourselves in terms of access to critical minerals, processed and refined critical minerals.

H.R. 3617 addresses this. It is a crucial challenge facing the United States today, how to decouple and derisk ourselves from China and other foreign adversaries and build resilient, secure, domestic energy and critical mineral supply chains?

Our country is blessed with an abundance of energy and critical mineral resources that are a linchpin to our economy. They are a linchpin to our national security and a linchpin to the new and emerging energy technologies that we are trying to develop here.

Yet we are stuck under the thumb of Communist China, who exerts their dominance over energy supply chains, critical mineral supply chains to undermine U.S. interests. This is not a new issue, but one that has grown over the last several decades.

The United States used to be a leading producer and refiner of many critical minerals and rare earth elements. We developed the technology to refine rare earth elements, to produce magnets that are critical in our economy and to our national security.

By the late 1990s, most of that industry, especially refining, went overseas. This trend has led us to where we are today. The United States is now almost 100 percent import reliant on a dozen critical minerals and heavily reliant on imports for more than half of all critical minerals.

The challenge we face today is exacerbated by burdensome permitting processes and regulations, uncertainty in commodity pricing, and market manipulation by Communist China.

A few years ago, I launched the Western Hemisphere Prosperity and Security Alliance as a soft power alternative to China. The Western Hemisphere Prosperity and Security Alliance could help us shed our dependence on Communist China when it comes to these critical resources.

H.R. 3617 directs the Secretary of Energy to coordinate with industry and relevant stakeholders to identify ways to diversify domestic critical energy resources and supply chains.

As part of that assessment, the DOE Secretary will assess how Federal regulations may be affecting domestic production of critical energy resources and minerals and how adversarial nations seek to exploit those markets to undermine investment in the United States.

Solving this issue is paramount, and we must address it before we are too late. Critical minerals and their supply chains are vital. We cannot allow the prosperity of future generations to be dictated by adversarial nations.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to keep America at the forefront of the next generation's economy and support H.R. 3617.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise this evening with my colleagues to honor Doug LaMalfa in the joint remembrance of his life. He was one of this body's best Members.

Doug was a dear friend whom I will miss. He was a talented and trusted colleague who was serious about his work, representing his constituents as he was constantly seeking to move policy that helped them and our Nation.

Doug was a rice farmer, an occupation that he loved and that in many respects was foundational to his work ethic, his love of the land, and his love of the people and rural communities.

More than anything else, he was a faithful follower of Jesus Christ. I will miss Doug and our weekly Thursday morning Bible studies.

I will miss his humbleness, his even temper, his humor, and his presence in this body. I will miss hearing him call me Francis Gary Powers after the U.S. spy plane pilot who was shot down over Russia and captured in the 1960s.

My wife, Ann, and I are praying for God to comfort Doug's wife, Jill; his children; his family; his staff; and all who, like those who have gathered in this Chamber this evening, knew and loved Doug LaMalfa.

Mr. Speaker, I am certain I cast my vote but it did not record. I voted ``Yea'' on final passage.

Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 349.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3632, the Power Plant Reliability Act, sponsored by my colleague Mr. Griffith from Virginia's Ninth Congressional District.

H.R. 3632 enhances existing authority under the Federal Power Act to protect the bulk-power system from premature retirements of baseload power and ensures more effective long-term planning for our generating resources.

It is no secret that we find ourselves in a reliability and affordability crisis driven by irresponsible decisions to shutter reliable and affordable baseload power plants.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim their positions are based on science, but the problem is their science is political science that will lead to higher energy costs and less reliability.

Even the head of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, who is charged with protecting the reliability of our Nation's bulk- power system, recently called the reliability crisis a five-alarm fire.

This is the path that was laid out by the Biden administration and Congressional Democrats, pushing their misguided and dangerous political science.

Making a bad situation worse, we need significant energy resources to compete in the artificial intelligence arms race. With adversarial nations like China, whoever wins the AI arms race will not be a superpower. They will be the superpower.

Manufacturing, industrial processing, and AI data centers all require affordable and abundant electricity that only comes from baseload and dispatchable resources. If these energy-intensive industries could run on wind and solar, they would already be doing so.

The Power Plant Reliability Act is another tool in the reliability toolbox for States and grid operators to keep the lights on for households and to fuel the next-generation economy.

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