[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 58 (Friday, March 27, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H2782-H2788]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEFENDING AMERICAN PROPERTY ABROAD ACT OF 2026
Mr. EZELL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1131, I call up
the bill (H.R. 7084) to amend title 46, United States Code, with
respect to the types of vessels that may enter or operate in navigable
waters of the United States or transfer cargo in any port or place
under the jurisdiction of the
[[Page H2783]]
United States, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stutzman). Pursuant to House Resolution
1131, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure printed in the bill is
adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 7084
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Defending American Property
Abroad Act of 2026''.
SEC. 2. CONDITION FOR ENTRY INTO PORTS IN THE UNITED STATES.
Section 70022 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)(A)--
(A) in clause (i)--
(i) by striking ``subsection (b)(1)'' and inserting
``subsection (b)(1)(A)''; and
(ii) in subclause (II) by striking ``; or'' and inserting a
semicolon;
(B) in clause (ii)--
(i) by striking ``subsection (b)(2)'' and inserting
``subsection (b)(1)(B)''; and
(ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) vessel described in subsection (b)(1) in the case
of--
``(I) an emergency being experienced by a vessel or an
individual on the vessel; or
``(II) a vessel authorized by the owner, as described in
subsection (b)(1)(C)(ii), to transit the facilities described
in subsection (b)(1)(C).''; and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (2) by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; or'';
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B) (and by moving the margins of such
subparagraphs accordingly);
(C) by striking ``A vessel referred'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--A vessel referred''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) a vessel that has transited a port, harbor, or marine
terminal, that at the time of such transit--
``(i) was located within the territory of a Western
Hemisphere country that has in effect a free trade agreement
with the United States;
``(ii) was accessible only through land that is owned,
held, or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a United
States person; and
``(iii) was designated by the President under paragraph
(2), and has not had such designation removed under paragraph
(3).
``(2) Designation.--The President may designate a port,
harbor, or marine terminal under this subsection if an agency
or official of the government of the Western Hemisphere
foreign trade partner has--
``(A) nationalized, or expropriated the port, harbor, or
marine terminal, owned, held, or controlled, directly or
indirectly, by a United States person; or
``(B) taken any other action that has the effect of
expropriating or nationalizing that port, harbor, or marine
terminal, or land providing the exclusive access to that
port, harbor, or marine terminal, as described in paragraph
(1)(C)(ii), as long as the matter is not the subject of a
currently pending arbitration under a free trade agreement
described in paragraph (1)(C)(i).
``(3) Removal of designation.--The President shall remove
the designation of a port, harbor, or marine terminal made
under paragraph (2) if the President determines that--
``(A) the conditions set forth in paragraph (2) are no
longer met;
``(B) the Western Hemisphere country has restored ownership
of the property of the United States person and terminated
any measures that had the effect of seizing ownership or
possession of that property;
``(C) the Western Hemisphere country has provided adequate
and effective compensation for such property in convertible
foreign exchange or other mutually acceptable compensation
equivalent to the full value thereof, as required by
international law; or
``(D) the dispute has otherwise been resolved to the
satisfaction of the President.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or their
respective designees.
The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Ezell) and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Larsen) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Ezell).
General Leave
Mr. EZELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous materials on H.R. 7084.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Mississippi?
There was no objection.
Mr. EZELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7084, the Defending American
Property Abroad Act of 2026.
This bill provides the President with the authority to effectively
address an unlawful taking of a United States citizen-owned port,
harbor, or marine terminal by another government in the Western
Hemisphere.
United States companies operate maritime facilities throughout North
and South America. Their investments must be protected.
It is essential that the United States President be able to act
quickly and decisively in response to another government expropriating
or nationalizing a United States citizen-owned port, harbor, or marine
terminal.
This bill establishes a new, narrowly constructed authority for a
President to impose a consequence on a foreign government that
illegally takes a maritime facility.
Sanctions are an accepted tool used in diplomacy and economic
statecraft. The authorities that H.R. 7084 establishes are completely
complementary to similar authorities that Congress has already granted
the President.
Nothing in this bill precludes or preempts any other option for
dispute resolution. It simply gives the President another meaningful,
targeted tool that can encourage negotiations and resolution.
The Defending American Property Abroad Act builds on sanctions,
legislation previously passed over the past six decades, and provides
the President with one or more options in a continuum for protecting
overseas American investments.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this legislation and reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 7084, the Defending
American Property Abroad Act of 2026.
As we have seen with recent vessel boardings and border operations,
the Coast Guard has broad authority to enforce American laws on the
water.
The Coast Guard routinely interdicts drugs and migrants, enforces
fisheries laws, and ensures the safety of property and life at sea.
In fiscal year 2025, the Coast Guard set record breaking numbers. The
service seized over 510,000 pounds of cocaine in the maritime domain,
over triple its yearly average.
Even more impressively, the Coast Guard saved over 2,200 lives and
over $40 million of property by running over 6,700 search and rescue
cases. They do all this while protecting global fish stocks and by
enforcing domestic and international fisheries laws.
H.R. 7084 does not help the Coast Guard address violations of the law
at sea. Instead, the bill inserts the Coast Guard into what is a
property dispute between a U.S. company and the Mexican Government
that, if anything, will only add to the Coast Guard's burden.
The Coast Guard is already strained in its ability to effectively
conduct its missions.
Just last week, the Vice Commandant testified before the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure that the Coast Guard is a $20 billion
organization operating on a $13 billion budget.
H.R. 7084 prohibits vessels, commercial shipping or cruise vessels,
from entering or operating in U.S. waters if that vessel made a port of
call at a port that was nationalized or expropriated by another company
from a U.S. citizen or company.
Now, requiring the service to identify and prohibit vessels from
entering U.S. waters due to an international property dispute further
strains the service's resources.
This legislation is meant to only apply to one port in Mexico, but it
is written so broadly it could encompass disputes in other countries
and with other companies both today and in the future.
Now, Congress has many pressing issues that we should be considering
today. The President himself has promised less war and lower prices.
Instead, the American public is getting more war and higher prices.
I wish we were taking time today to discuss those lower costs for my
constituents.
[[Page H2784]]
{time} 0920
I wish we were taking time today to discuss those lower costs for my
constituents. Instead, we are interjecting Congress into an
international land dispute.
Now, I want to be really clear. I am sympathetic to the plight of
this particular U.S. company involved in this dispute. This legislation
doesn't solve their problem. That solution can be found, and
opportunities are available through diplomacy and even trade agreements
but not really legislation.
For those reasons I will be voting ``no'' on this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EZELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Pfluger), the bill's sponsor.
Mr. PFLUGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
7084, the Defending American Property Abroad Act. I thank Chairman
Graves for his support.
Let's be clear, American companies operating abroad should not have
to fear arbitrary government actions that undermine their property
rights, but right now, that is exactly what is happening. When
countries violate trade agreements and illegally seize assets from U.S.
companies, it puts American job security, economic security, and, quite
frankly, our national security at risk.
H.R. 7084 ensures there are enforceable consequences for those
actions. Specifically, it strengthens U.S. maritime security law to
address these unlawful seizures. Through existing Coast Guard
authorities, it also authorizes the President to deny entry into U.S.
ports for vessels that operate through expropriated American-owned port
infrastructure in Western Hemisphere countries with U.S. free trade
agreements.
We know this is not just a hypothetical example. For years, the
Mexican Government has targeted the U.S.-based Vulcan Materials
Company.
In 1986, Vulcan Materials Company built the only deepwater port in
Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula, and for decades this operation supplied
crushed limestone to critical infrastructure projects across the Gulf
and Atlantic Coasts, roads, bridges, housing, and energy facilities in
States represented by Members on both sides of the aisle.
But starting in May of 2022, the Mexican Government launched an
endless pressure campaign against Vulcan Materials and sent the
military to forcibly shut down its operations.
In 2023, they invaded and occupied the property again just to hand it
to a private Mexican competitor.
In 2024, they declared the port and a quarry adjacent to it a
``naturally protected area'' to complete the expropriation, and now
Mexico is weaponizing its tax authority, pursuing billions in
retroactive dollars in claims to seize what remains.
Meanwhile, Mexico has allowed a dozen unpermitted quarries in the
same exact region for Mexican companies to operate freely. Let me say
that again. Mexico used its military to forcibly shut down an American
company and created false environmental claims to do so. That is a
direct violation of the USMCA.
We did not resort to legislation as a first option. In fact, for 4
years, the United States has pursued every available diplomatic tool,
congressional letters, administration engagement, and bilateral
pressure, and none of that worked.
This represents a coordinated multifront campaign by Mexico against
an American company that undermines our diplomatic progress and
threatens all U.S. investment in Mexico.
Now, my colleagues may ask: Why is this bill the right response?
First, it is surgical. It targets expropriated port infrastructure
only. It will not disrupt current, legitimate shipping operations.
Second, it includes clear off-ramps. If the foreign government returns
the property, provides fair compensation, and resolves the dispute,
then the restrictions are lifted. Lastly, it includes exceptions for
emergencies and maritime safety.
I am proud to have worked in a bipartisan way with Representatives
Carbajal and Sewell and Chairman Graves' committee staff on this
legislation.
This isn't just about one company. We cannot allow a foreign
government to steal American property and face zero consequences.
This is an opportunity for us to protect American investment abroad,
to protect American companies, and to protect our own communities. If
you are an American company operating abroad, we have vowed to protect
you, and this legislation does just that.
I urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on H.R.
7084.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal).
Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I thank
Representative Pfluger for his leadership today.
I rise in support of the Defending American Property Abroad Act. This
is a commonsense and targeted bill that gives the United States a real
tool to respond when foreign governments unfairly seize property owned
by Americans without due process.
The bill would look to identify foreign ports, harbors, and marine
terminals where American-owned property has been expropriated or taken
without due process.
Once identified, goods loaded at those facilities and passenger
vessels serving them may be restricted from entering or operating in
United States ports.
Let me be clear about what this means.
It means that if you take American property, you don't get to do
business as usual with the United States. We can identify those ports
and terminals and restrict the ships that use them from entering our
ports.
That is real consequences, not just words.
It is a targeted solution to support American innovation. This
legislation focuses on one bad actor.
In recent years, an American company, Vulcan Materials, invested in
port and terminal infrastructure in Mexico in good faith under the
expectation that its property rights and contracts would be respected.
Instead, the Mexican Government took action that resulted in the
seizure of that port facility, despite longstanding agreements.
What makes this even more frustrating is the justification that was
offered. Mexican officials pointed to environmental and permitting
concerns, but the same government that is accusing this company of
environmental harm awarded six Clean Industry awards from PROFEPA,
which is their environmental enforcement agency, for the company's
environmental stewardship.
You can't speak out of both sides of your mouth.
And at the same time, the Government of Mexico has allowed for the
use of Vulcan's deepwater port by another company.
That is not what good faith partnerships look like, especially from
our largest trading partner.
Trade should not be a race to the bottom. It should support good-
paying jobs, protect the environment and labor standards, and
strengthen local communities.
And it should be grounded in mutual respect, where countries that
benefit from access to U.S. markets also respect the rights of workers,
investors, and communities tied to that trade.
This bill reinforces that principle.
Just like I have been willing to call out unfair practices by foreign
governments, I have also spoken out when our own government does
something similar, including under President Trump, who has imposed
blanket tariffs without rhyme or reason, an equally reckless action.
This bill is a targeted solution. I urge my colleagues to also
support this bill.
Mr. EZELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Moore).
Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, what we have seen happen to
Alabama's own Vulcan Materials Company should concern every Member of
this body.
A foreign government shut down an American company's operations,
moved to seize its property, and ignored the rule of law. If it can
happen to one American company, it can happen to any of them.
We must protect American jobs and American investments and stand on
the principles that the United States will stand for its people and its
companies wherever they operate.
[[Page H2785]]
The Government of Mexico's actions, shutting down operations,
expropriating a deepwater port and quarry, and hiding behind
environmental designations set a dangerous precedent that weakens trade
relationships and threatens our national security.
The Defending American Property Abroad Act of 2026 makes it clear. If
you target American businesses, there will be consequences.
It strengthens our trade enforcement rules, expands section 301
authority, and allows the United States to take real action against
those who seize or interfere with American property.
We will not allow foreign governments to benefit from the access of
our markets while violating the rights of American companies.
I urge my colleagues to stand with the American workers, stand with
the rule of law, and support this bill.
{time} 0930
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia).
Mr. GARCIA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong
opposition to this bill.
First of all, this bill and the substance of the bill, this dispute,
is undergoing consideration by the international bodies established by
the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. We really should wait until a
decision is arrived at with respect to that mechanism, but there are
other considerations.
First, let's consider other far-reaching implications. The bill gives
the President the authority to prohibit vessels that travel through
certain Western Hemisphere ports, which he designates, from entering
U.S. waters. While supporters say that the bill is narrowly written to
target a specific project in a specific country, the reality is that
the President will be given broad authority that could be applied to
other countries in the future.
Let's not forget who we are talking about here. This is the same
President who used military force in Venezuela to force regime change,
the same President who is now engaging in an illegal war with Iran
without even consulting Congress.
Mr. Speaker, do we really want to entrust the President with this new
authority granted under this bill?
Equally damaging, the bill ignores the objections of local people
fighting for their right to safe drinking water in a surrounding
environment free of contamination. That is what is in the dispute
resolution matter being addressed now.
I have spoken to local community leaders who have suffered from the
environmental damage caused by these mining operations. This bill
limits the ability of foreign governments to adopt measures that
protect their communities and their environment, essentially coercing
those foreign governments to prioritize the interests of U.S.
corporations over their people.
We should not be legislating to hinder a foreign government's ability
to protect its citizens from environmental harm. We should not be
granting the President a new authority that could have broad foreign
policy implications.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with me and to vote ``no''
on this proposal.
Mr. EZELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. McGuire).
Mr. McGUIRE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7084, the
Defending American Property Abroad Act of 2026.
I am a proud cosponsor of this vital piece of legislation, and I
thank my colleague, Chairman Pfluger from Texas, for his leadership on
this matter.
In 2022, the Mexican Government unlawfully took over and shut down a
limestone quarry in Mexico operated by a U.S.-based company. This
seizure violated the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, undermined American
property values, and threatened U.S. economic growth and national
security.
It is of the utmost importance that we protect American businesses
and vessels from being unfairly targeted or having their assets
unlawfully seized while operating around the world.
I am proud to support H.R. 7084, which ensures that there are real
consequences when American property is seized abroad.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this
bill and show the world that America stands firmly behind its workers,
businesses, and investments at home and abroad.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Figures).
Mr. FIGURES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Defending
American Property Abroad Act because it is the right thing to do.
We have talked here today about this being a U.S.-based company. It
is a little bit more personal than that to me, my colleague
Congresswoman Sewell, and a few of my other colleagues from the State
of Alabama.
This is an Alabama-based company, and it is the right thing to do
because, Mr. Speaker, when you have a company that is operating on land
lawfully acquired nearly four decades ago that is performing lawful
operations, paying taxes lawfully, and exporting the goods lawfully--
many of which come through my hometown, the Port of Mobile, which is
now the deepest port in the Gulf, which they are doing lawfully--then
they should be treated lawfully.
What we have here is not really complicated. It is not complex in
terms of what the Mexican Government did here. They came in and just
took it and said: We are not abiding by a process. We are not abiding
by any contractual terms or any other terms. We are just taking it, and
by the way, we are not going to pay you for it.
When a foreign entity uses the full force of its military and
government to take away property rights from an Alabama-based company,
I am going to stand up for them.
We also have an obligation to make sure we are using the full force
of our government in response to it. That is what this legislation
does. I urge my colleagues to support it for that reason.
Not only that, we are here because it is an Alabama company today,
but tomorrow it could be a Mississippi company or a Washington company
or Oregon, Indiana, Illinois, or any other State. We cannot sit by
quietly and not respond, and not respond proportionately, to what the
Mexican Government has done.
I don't have anything against the Mexican Government personally, and
I don't have anything, certainly, against the Mexican people. What I do
have a problem with is that when we see a government, even our own
government, mistreating businesses and people, we have an obligation to
speak out and to stand up for that. For that reason, I stand in support
of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. EZELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Strong).
Mr. STRONG. Mr. Speaker, the question is: Do we support President
Trump with this authority? Absolutely, we do.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7084, the Defending
American Property Abroad Act of 2026.
This legislation makes it clear: The United States will not stand for
unlawful harassment campaigns against American companies and American
workers.
For over 35 years, Vulcan Materials Company, based in Alabama, has
lawfully owned and operated a limestone quarry in Mexico. Yet, since
2018, the Mexican Government has unlawfully restricted Vulcan's
operations and wrongfully targeted them through coercion and
intimidation.
In 2022, the Mexican President attempted to seize the property. When
Vulcan refused to surrender, Mexico retaliated by issuing shutdown
orders.
No American company should be pressured into accepting a fire-sale
takeover or punished for standing up for its lawful rights. Vulcan
followed the law, held up its end of the deal, and operated
transparently. What they received in return was their property stolen
and seized by the Mexican Government.
These actions have essentially left the only deepwater port on the
Yucatan Peninsula--owned, constructed, and operated for years by
Vulcan--and the surrounding land open for sale to our adversaries. This
is unbelievable.
The Defending American Property Abroad Act gives the United States
the tools to push back against foreign countries and trading partners
when our companies are unlawfully targeted and harassed.
[[Page H2786]]
America owes Mexico nothing. This is about fairness and
accountability. The United States will no longer sit by and allow
foreign nations to profit from stolen American property.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 7084. I thank
Congressman Pfluger for his leadership in advancing this important
legislation.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).
Ms. SEWELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Defending
American Property Abroad Act. This narrowly tailored bill will target
vessels that attempt to enter the U.S. after moving through a seized
American-owned port.
Vulcan Materials Company is proudly headquartered in my Alabama
district, so I have been following this dispute closely since 2018.
The facts of the case are clear. The Government of Mexico used its
military force to illegally occupy Vulcan's property, and, in 2022,
President Obrador illegally shut down Vulcan's operations.
Mexico's justifications for the seizure are fabricated, and it is
clear that the government wants to take Vulcan's port because it is the
only deepwater port in the region.
Mr. Speaker, Vulcan has attempted to use all existing legal and
diplomatic options to resolve this situation. Since 2018, they have
used the USMCA arbitration policies and processes, and multiple U.S.
Ambassadors to Mexico under the Biden and Trump administrations have
attempted to find an amicable resolution.
I have met directly with President Obrador about this issue. While
previous Ambassadors have been sympathetic to our concerns, President
Obrador and now President Sheinbaum have overruled their own diplomats
and staff.
It is time for Congress to act. I was told by the President that we
had to have an act of Congress in order for the port to be returned.
So, today, I say proudly: We are doing something. Congress is doing
something.
This is just not about an Alabama company. It is about American
property abroad.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Congress to vote in favor of this bill, and I
support this legislation wholeheartedly.
{time} 0940
Mr. EZELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Palmer).
Mr. PALMER. 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. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time to close.
Again, I just reiterate, the bill before us today does not resolve
this dispute between the Mexican Government and an American company.
There are tools available and that continue to be available to resolve
that. It gives the Coast Guard more work on top of all the work our
U.S. Coast Guard is already doing.
I had an amendment in the Rules Committee. They rejected an amendment
that would have required the President to consider potential costs
before exercising the authorities granted in this bill. That Rules
Committee amendment was rejected.
Arbitration, treaties, trade agreements, these mechanisms exist to
solve international disputes. These are appropriate venues for this
dispute and not legislation. For those reasons, I will be voting
``no.''
In conclusion, I do want to note something. These 13 to 14 bills that
came before this body earlier this week from the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee--those were on suspension. This one was not.
But it needs to be said that the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee works extremely well. We see ourselves as an island of
partnership in a sea of partisanship in the U.S. Congress.
Even though this bill may not fit that bill, the Committee works that
way because of one person, and that one person is Representative Sam
Graves.
This morning, it was announced that Sam will not be running for
reelection.
I wanted to take this brief moment as part of my time in closing to
just note that we are going to be losing a fierce advocate for
infrastructure investment and for transportation safety with his
announcement that he will not run again.
Sam and I have served together nearly 26 years. We came in together.
In recent years, we have developed a partnership that overrode the
partisanship in Congress. This body has dealt with the Federal Aviation
Administration reauthorization, a Coast Guard reauthorization, a Water
Resources Development Act reauthorization, and a lot of other things.
We have passed a FEMA act that reforms FEMA. We have yet to get that to
the floor. We certainly want to see that get to the floor.
Importantly, we are working right now on a bill to reauthorize the
surface transportation authorization to fix roads, bridges, highways,
transit, rail, and some other things. We are working on that right now.
That work continues to progress, all because of the work of
Representative Sam Graves.
Although the House is losing Sam, his home is regaining him back in
Tarkio, Missouri, at some point at the end of this year. His family is
getting him back. I have always said that Sam likes three things in
life: his grandkids, vintage aircraft, and Congress, and in that order.
I thank Sam Graves for his friendship and his partnership and helping
us to continue to do the work of this Committee to bring bills to the
floor that we can debate in a manner that is respectful of the body
that we all get to serve in.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. EZELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, passage of H.R. 7084 gives the President the authority to
effectively address the illegal taking of a United States citizen-owned
port, harbor, or marine terminal throughout the Western Hemisphere.
[[Page H2787]]
American companies are the source of more investments in the Western
Hemisphere nations than investors from any other country.
Infrastructure projects in the Americas, especially port
infrastructure projects, represent significant potential business
opportunities for American companies.
Protecting overseas U.S. investments is an important policy
objective. This bill creates an appropriate cost and consequence for
stealing property from an American-owned business.
The Defending American Property Abroad Act of 2026 is consistent with
other authorities Congress has given the President to act against the
illegal taking of American businesses and investments.
Mr. Speaker, I am a former sheriff from Mississippi. Where I come
from, when you take something that doesn't belong to you, that is
stealing, and you have broken the law. If you break the law, there are
consequences.
This bill ensures there are consequences for foreign countries that
steal from our companies. Simply put, this legislation is common sense.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this bill, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, today, the U.S. House of Representatives
is acting in response to a situation in which a foreign government shut
down an American company's operations, seized its property, and ignored
the rule of law.
When an American business is targeted in this way, it is not just an
attack on one company, it is an attack on American workers, American
jobs, and American interests.
Vulcan Materials, an Alabama company, has lawfully operated for 35
years in Mexico. Yet the Mexican government illegally seized its
assets. If this can happen to an Alabama company today, it can happen
to any American business tomorrow.
That is why this legislation, H.R. 7084, the Defending American
Property Abroad Act is so important. It allows the United States to
take real action against foreign entities that seize American property.
This is about fairness and accountability. It is about ensuring that
American companies and workers are not punished for following the rules
while foreign governments face no consequences for breaking them. With
this, we are ensuring protection for American companies that operate in
the Western Hemisphere.
The protection of American property rights overseas is essential not
only for economic growth but also for our national and economic
security. When we stand up for our businesses, we stand up for the
workers and communities who depend on them.
I am proud to support H.R. 7084 because it defends American property
owners from wrongful seizure and sends a clear message: the United
States will stand beside its companies, its workers, and its values.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weber of Texas). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1131, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 247,
nays 164, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 105]
YEAS--247
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei (NV)
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barr
Barrett
Baumgartner
Bean (FL)
Begich
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs (AZ)
Biggs (SC)
Bilirakis
Bishop
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Bresnahan
Brownley
Budzinski
Burchett
Burlison
Bynum
Calvert
Carbajal
Carey
Carter (GA)
Carter (LA)
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyburn
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Correa
Costa
Crane
Crank
Crawford
Cuellar
Davidson
Davis (NC)
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Downing
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Fedorchak
Feenstra
Figures
Fine
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foster
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Garbarino
Gill (TX)
Gillen
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Goldman (TX)
Gonzalez, V.
Gooden
Gosar
Gottheimer
Gray
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Hamadeh (AZ)
Haridopolos
Harrigan
Harris (MD)
Harris (NC)
Harshbarger
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hinson
Horsford
Houchin
Houlahan
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Hurd (CO)
Issa
Jack
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kaptur
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy (UT)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley (CA)
Kim
Knott
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
Langworthy
Latta
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lee (NV)
Letlow
Lofgren
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luttrell
Lynch
Mace
Mackenzie
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Massie
Mast
McBride
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McDowell
McGuire
Messmer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moore (WV)
Moran
Murphy
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Panetta
Patronis
Perez
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Riley (NY)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rouzer
Roy
Ruiz
Rulli
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schmidt
Schneider
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Sewell
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Soto
Spartz
Stanton
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Stutzman
Suozzi
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner (OH)
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Epps
Van Orden
Vasquez
Veasey
Vindman
Wagner
Walberg
Walkinshaw
Wasserman Schultz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Whitesides
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NAYS--164
Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Ansari
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bell
Bera
Beyer
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Carson
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Cleaver
Cohen
Conaway
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans (PA)
Fields
Fletcher
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Friedman
Frost
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gomez
Goodlander
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kamlager-Dove
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (NY)
Khanna
Krishnamoorthi
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latimer
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Liccardo
Magaziner
Mannion
Matsui
McBath
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McCollum
McDonald Rivet
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Meeks
Menefee
Menendez
Meng
Min
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Morrison
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Olszewski
Omar
Pallone
Pappas
Pelosi
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Pou
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Randall
Raskin
Rivas
Ross
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sherman
Simon
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Stansbury
Stevens
Subramanyam
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Tran
Underwood
Vargas
Velazquez
Waters
Watson Coleman
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--20
Buchanan
Cammack
Cherfilus-McCormick
Clarke (NY)
Crenshaw
Garamendi
Goldman (NY)
Gonzales, Tony
Graves
Hern (OK)
Kean
Lieu
Luna
McCaul
Mfume
Miller (OH)
Moskowitz
Moulton
Nehls
Strickland
{time} 1027
Mr. SUBRAMANYAM changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. HORSFORD and SOTO changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I missed a series of votes today. Had I been
present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 105.
Stated against:
Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote today due
to an urgent commitment in my Congressional district. Had
[[Page H2788]]
I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 105.
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, today, I missed a vote for personal reasons.
Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 105.
____________________