Gary Palmer

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. 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. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. 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. PALMER

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

Mr. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. 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. PALMER

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

Mr. PALMER. 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. PALMER. 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. PALMER. 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. PALMER. 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. PALMER. 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. PALMER

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

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

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

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

Mr. PALMER. 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. PALMER. 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. PALMER. 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. PALMER. 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. PALMER. 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. PALMER

Mr. PALMER. 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. PALMER

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