Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor for the last time I will address this Chamber after 28 years in Congress.

My goal as a Member of Congress was to leave this place a little better than I found it, and I am proud of what we have done. There are things that you are not going to see on FOX or MSNBC News, Mr. Speaker, and it is not going to rocket around the internet, but they are simple, commonsense efforts to bring people together to solve problems.

At the beginning of each Congress for the last dozen years, I have given each new Member, hand-delivered, my thoughts about what they need to know to be able to navigate these strange waters in Congress.

Together, we have been able to achieve some interesting things, as I say, items you don't see in the news necessarily, Mr. Speaker, but that have made a huge difference.

I am proud of the work we have done with international water and sanitation that has resulted in millions of people having their lives saved and reducing the burdens on 140 million women who struggle to get water, often dirty water, for their families every day.

I am proud of the work I have done in terms of agriculture reform because it is past time that we stop subsidizing a diet that makes Americans sick.

I am proud of the work we did in the midst of the pandemic to create the Restaurant Rescue Plan: 100,000 grants that have resulted in many independent restaurants that were able to stay in business.

I am proud of the work we have done with transportation and infrastructure to rebuild and renew America. Instead of having infrastructure week be a joke, we are actually doing it.

I am proud of the work that I have done, for example, in terms of bicycling, symbolized by the bike lanes in the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue, making it easier for people to burn calories instead of fossil fuel and transform the face of our communities.

I am proud of the work that we have done dealing in terms of saving the lives of Iraqis and Afghans who put their trust in us when they were helping our people in those troubled countries. You don't have to believe in the wars, Mr. Speaker, I didn't, but I worked to make sure that the men and women who were the drivers, the guides, and the interpreters were not left to the tender mercies of al-Qaida and the Taliban.

Together we were able, with Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy, to pass a Special Immigrant Visa that has resulted in thousands of these people who worked with us to be able to live and, in many cases, to be able to seek safety in the United States.

As I say, these are not things that people necessarily see in the news or on the internet. They are not going to raise campaign money for their goals using them, but they are the things that make the difference.

I guess my last piece of advice that I leave to the people who are coming in the next Congress is to focus on things that bring people together rather than divide them and to look for ways to solve problems rather than to create new ones.

Over the course of the last 28 years, I have seen this formula work, and I hope in the new Congress people will employ it in ways that will make a difference.

Heaven knows we need to do it.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Butler's courtesy. It was my pleasure to sit next to Bill Pascrell for 16 years. We came to Congress at the same time. We entered the Ways and Means Committee at the same time, and he was right there every step of the way.

We have these special moments, learning more about our colleagues. Who knew that he had a master's degree in philosophy? You think about it, it is not unrealistic. I appreciated John Larson's three times a year celebrating the 10th anniversary of his 90th birthday, and the way that Bill took it in stride and brought people together. He was playing baseball well into his 60s with energy.

People talk sometimes about Bill being angry. I don't think so. It was passion. He carried a spark of passion for people he cared about, for issues he cared about--the unformed firefighters, police officers. He had deep concern for people who had suffered traumatic brain injury.

He had, obviously, special interests. We found out a lot about trade and Donald Trump, but he added a human dimension that is too often lacking here. I will cherish those memories sitting next to Bill.

Ben, those times when you couldn't quite contain him as he would reveal that passion and get things going, but it adds a dimension to this institution that at times is lacking, the human nature. I know the chairman has endless stories about his experience here.

Bill Pascrell is a chapter all by himself, and I feel privileged to have served with him and appreciate people coming together to reflect on his legacy and his memory. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the extraordinary heroism displayed by Timberline Lodge employees and first responders from Hoodland Fire, Clackamas Fire, Estacada Fire, Portland Fire, Gresham Fire and the United States Forest Service.

In the middle of the night on April 18, 2024, a fire was detected in the attic of the historic Timberline Lodge on Oregon's iconic Mount Hood. Lodge staff jumped into action with fire extinguishers and safely evacuated guests who were staying at the Lodge, many of whom were roused from their sleep to be escorted out. Fire crews from around the mountain arrived in record time to battle the blaze and protect Timberline Lodge, a national historic treasure.

Constructed in 1937, Timberline Lodge stands on the south slope of Mount Hood at an elevation of 6,000 feet. Iconic and awe-inspiring in its architecture and design, it is a tribute to the rugged spirit of the Pacific Northwest. The Lodge was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1977 and is one of Oregon's most popular tourist attractions, drawing nearly two million visitors every year.

The quick thinking, bravery, and exemplary effort by both staff and first responders ensured that fire damage was limited to the attic and that all the guests made it out safely with no injuries reported. To think, we could've lost this national treasure if it wasn't for the courageous actions of a few brave souls. I am forever grateful for their response.

Mr. Chair, I seek the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, I deeply appreciate the opportunity to join my friends Representatives Mast, Lee, and Joyce in supporting this amendment.

Mr. Mast talked about the necessity of providing our veterans with the best possible treatment. I have heard from veterans across the country how medical cannabis fills a critical need. There is less long- term harm and more opportunities to be able to meet, as he said, the wounds of war, seen and unseen.

This is ironic. The rest of the Federal Government is moving toward the recognition of the long overdue need to reschedule cannabis. The Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice are soon going to reschedule cannabis to schedule III, recognizing that it has medicinal value and recognizing the opportunities for more research activities. At the same time, the Department of Veterans Affairs is stuck in the past. As my friend mentioned, this poses problems for veterans who cannot seek help from their

own physicians to get guidance and counseling for things where medical cannabis would make a difference for them.

The rest of America has recognized the value of medical cannabis. Thirty-eight States have approved it. As I said, where the rest of the Federal Government is moving toward rescheduling, it is unfortunate that the Department of Veterans Affairs is trapped in time, not giving veterans the full benefit of medical cannabis. It is ironic because for a time they were handing out opioids like Tic Tacs and have erred on the side of overcaution dealing with medical cannabis.

Mr. Chair, I urge strongly the approval of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I deeply appreciate the leadership of my friend from Florida, and his personal experience adds particular impact to his leadership on this.

Another tireless champion for rational cannabis reform is Congresswoman Barbara Lee, with whom I have been pleased to partner for years now with the Congressional Cannabis Caucus in moving on a series of reform proposals. She is a tireless champion. She will be missed in Congress in the future, but luckily, we have her here now.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) to share her insights and her wisdom.

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

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote today on Roll Call No. 227, Ogles Amendment No. 1, I would have voted ``no.'' Had I been present for the vote on Roll Call No. 228, Mooney Amendment No. 2, I would have voted ``no.'' Had I been present for the vote on Roll Call No. 229, Davidson Amendment No. 3, I would have voted ``no.'' Had I been present for the vote on Roll Call No. 230, H.R. 5403, I would have voted ``no.'' Had I been present for the vote on Roll Call No. 231, the Democratic Motion to Recommit on H.R. 192, I would have voted ``aye.'' Had I been present for the vote on Roll Call No. 232, H.R. 192, I would have voted ``no.''

Madam Speaker, had I been present for the vote today on Roll Call No. 221, Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 1243, I would have voted NAY.

Had I been present for the vote on Roll Call No. 222, H. Res. 1243, I would have voted ``no.''

Had I been present for the vote on Roll Call No. 223, Casar Amendment No. 1, I would have voted ``aye.''

Had I been present for the vote on Roll Call No. 224, Norman Amendment No. 3, I would have voted ``aye.''

Had I been present for the vote on Roll Call No. 225, Perry Amendment No. 4, I would have voted ``no.''

Had I been present for the vote on Roll Call No. 226, H.R. 4763, I would have voted ``no.''

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote today on H.R. 5863, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for the vote on H.R. 3019, I would have voted ``yea.''

personal explanation

Mr Speaker, today I rise to celebrate Captain Tom Cramblett for his 41 years of service on the Columbia Gorge Sternwheeler and designate May 30th as Captain Tom Day in Cascade Locks.

Tom has been part of the Columbia Gorge Sternwheeler community from the beginning. As a young man, Tom first saw the Sternwheeler as she was being constructed by the Nichols Brothers in Hood River. He was aboard on her maiden voyage in 1983, serving as a deckhand. Before long, Tom was promoted to engineer and within a couple years became captain.

With Captain Tom at the tiller, generations of guests have delighted at the Columbia River Gorge from the deck of the Sternwheeler, learning about the Gorge's history from Captain Tom.

Tom's understanding of the region is steeped in his reverence for its history and its people. A noted expert on the Lewis and Clark Expedition, Tom addressed a room full of historians at the Corps of Discovery's 200-year anniversary celebration as it passed through Cascade Locks in 2004.

Tom's own family history stretches back five generations in Cascade Locks. His great-grandfather operated a wood scow, supplying sternwheelers with fuelwood cut from local forests.

Earlier this year, Captain Tom and his crewmember George valiantly saved the Sternwheeler after it broke from its moorings during a winter storm. They boarded the ship from a footbridge over the old locks where the boat had drifted and become lodged. Facing almost certain destruction, Tom piloted the ship away from hazard and downriver through the wind and roiling swell to safety below the Bonneville Locks.

Broader than the Sternwheeler, Tom's commitment to the town of Cascade Locks is legendary. A man of many hats, Tom served as town mayor for eight years, coached youth sports, led the Boy Scouts, acted as the town's Santa Claus, and volunteered at the Columbia Gorge Interpretive Center Museum.

Tom and his wife Brenda married in 1982, and have two sons, Jared and Scott, who are both in the National Guard. Scott has his captain's license and serves as engineer on the Portland Spirit.

Tom has also trained a number of captains now operating on the Columbia River, and currently works part time on the Port of Cascade Locks' maintenance crew, working to keep Marine Park beautiful and available to the public.

A true living legend, we designate May 30th as Captain Tom Day, in light of his contributions and decades of service to the Cascade Locks community.

Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration announced the long-awaited rescheduling of cannabis from schedule I to schedule III.

This reschedule eliminates the vestige of the failed war on drugs started by the Nixon administration. Contrary to science, it was used for political purposes against Black Americans, young Americans.

A schedule I controlled substance, which cannabis has been for over 50 years, is one that has no medicinal value and is highly addictive. At the time the Nixon administration made that determination, they knew that that was false. It is not highly addictive, and it has, in fact, medicinal purposes. That has been demonstrated by vote after vote by Americans across the country that recognize that medical cannabis has tremendous therapeutic features.

I could not be more excited or optimistic that we are finally on the homestretch to end the failed and misguided war on drugs. This action by the Biden administration ties together many of our initiatives, from justice to research to tax fairness, and charts the path for more progress sooner.

One of the overhauls here is the prohibition of the State legal cannabis businesses from banking services. Every day in the United States, there are people with shopping bags full of $20 bills that they use to pay their State taxes.

Think of it. It is outrageous. It has made these State legal cannabis businesses sitting ducks for robbery, and it severely handicaps their ability to work in a constructive fashion.

Furthermore, what is going to happen with this rescheduling is it is finally going to allow State legal cannabis businesses to fully deduct their business expenses.

Right now, due to a provision known as 280 of the tax code, these businesses are prohibited from deducting legitimate business expenses.

As a result, State legal cannabis businesses pay two, three, maybe four times more than a comparable noncannabis business. It is outrageous. It poses serious problems in terms of their profitability and being able to thrive.

These decisions are going to raise the profile of an issue very important to some of us but which has never gained the attention it deserves or the momentum that it demands.

We have made some progress here in the House. We have passed safe banking seven times with overwhelming bipartisan support, but it never could quite get across the finish line.

This rescheduling by the Biden administration is going to help us change

that, and it is going to help the almost half a million people who work in the industry, the $40 billion a year of economic activity, eliminate the injustice, and perhaps, most of all, it will usher in a new era of protections because right now, somebody who buys their marijuana from a corner drug dealer in a park, that person has no license to lose. It doesn't check for ID.

Treating marijuana in a thoughtful fashion is going to help us solve the racial injustice that has been evidenced against Black, against young people.

It is going to be able to open up a whole array of cannabis products that will make a big difference in communities across the country.

Today's decision changes all of that, and there is no going back. In this troubled Congress, it will also pave the path for building on our bipartisan Cannabis Caucus, an example where people can come together to work on something that can unite us rather than divide us.

The rescheduling of cannabis is an important step in that direction and will have profound impacts from coast to coast.

Mr. Speaker, in recognition of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Month, today I am introducing the Captive Primate Safety Act of 2024.

The private ownership of primates poses significant public health and animal welfare issues. Primates are not pets: they are highly intelligent and social animals whose needs cannot be met when they are inappropriately confined However, primates are easily obtained on the Internet and through out-of-state dealers and auctions.

There have been several high-profile incidents of pet primates attacking humans including when a Connecticut woman was mauled by her neighbor's pet chimpanzee and lost her hands, nose, eyes, lips, and mid-face bone structure, along with enduring significant brain injuries. There is no reason to tolerate the risk of an avoidable tragedy like this that puts the public and first responders at risk. Beyond the immediate health risk of an attack, these animals also often carry dangerous viruses that can be transferred to humans such as COVID-19 and Herpes B.

The Captive Primate Safety Act supplements the more than 30 state laws that already outlaw the private ownership of primates by amending the Lacey Act to ban interstate or foreign commerce, or possession, of any prohibited primate species.

It should not take another tragedy to make common sense change. I thank my colleagues Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick, Congressman Joe Neguse, Congresswoman Nancy Mace, and Senator Richard Blumenthal for their partnership, and I look forward to advancing this critical legislation to safeguard public health and animal welfare.

Mr. Speaker, streetcars are still the foundation of cities and suburban areas across the country, establishing a pattern that guided development for over a century.

By 1910, you could travel from Boston to Chicago entirely on streetcar lines, just transferring from one to another. Sadly, 60 years later, the streetcar had largely disappeared. Only the St. Charles Streetcar Line in New Orleans remained of this vast network.

We had a different vision in the city of Portland. In 1987, I called for the development of a circulator system in the central city that built around the streetcar.

I worked with the late Bill Naito, a visionary Portland businessman and developer, who bought old streetcars from Portugal. He brought them to town, thinking that if people actually saw them, it would help promote his concept of their reintroduction.

I worked with a gentleman named Rick Gustafson to bring this to fruition. We had a 10-member citizen steering committee, who worked with the city to fashion an approach going forward, and it worked. Within a decade, we had a loop in downtown Portland connecting it.

That loop of streetcars was the focus for much of our affordable housing. It changed the dimensions of downtown, where people used the streetcar for short trips rather than vehicles. It guided development in modern Portland.

This is part of a national movement reintroducing streetcars. I am proud to have helped lead that with the Portland model. We now have streetcars in over two dozen cities across the country, with more on the way. There is hard work in Omaha, Nebraska, which might be the next major development.

This is human-scale technology. It is proven. It is cost effective. People love streetcars. They are energy efficient and help promote a development pattern that is human oriented.

We have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to be able to continue this effort at mobilizing efforts to promote livable communities, another transportation alternative, and guide development.

I was pleased to, 10 years ago, be in Tucson, Arizona, for the opening of their streetcar. Before it even opened, the streetcar redefined its downtown development, relationship to the university, and promoted additional housing opportunities.

The streetcar is a chance for us to be able to use this proven technology and mobilize patterns of growth and development in a low- cost, high-energy initiative. The modern streetcar has the opportunity to help communities across the country.

I was pleased to be at the Streetcar Summit in Charlotte, North Carolina, this last week. People from around the country gathered to share their stories of streetcar development. This is a new wave of urban development, proven transportation technology, and an opportunity to reshape our central cities.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to look at these examples in so many of our communities. The streetcar is making a difference in a way that saves money, saves time, improves the planet, and makes people feel good about their urban environment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am listening to my dear friend from Missouri, and it is an example of sort of being disconnected from reality.

My friends on the other side of the aisle, for instance, refuse to accept a compromise that is on a bipartisan basis that would make a difference in dealing with immigration. I think that will rank along with Speaker Boehner's refusal to accept the bipartisan Senate compromise for immigration and not even allow it to come to the floor to be voted on.

Today, we are having an exercise in futility. There is no carbon tax pending, and Republicans have nothing here that would be significant. It is a nonbinding resolution, and as I say, it is disconnected from the reality.

The reality, for example, for those of us on the West Coast, is that the climate crisis is real. It becomes more apparent and urgent every day. This winter was the warmest winter on record in the United States, 5.4 degrees higher. 2023 was the world's warmest year on record. In fact, the 10 warmest years have occurred in the last 10 years.

What is the response from our Republican friends? They make stuff up and move away from solutions that would make a difference.

Every independent analyst, Republican and Democrat alike, agrees that the way that we are going to deal with carbon pollution, notwithstanding some of the climate deniers on the other side of the aisle, is a carbon tax. The rest of the world is moving in this direction.

Having a price on carbon is the most efficient, cost-effective, and fair way to deal with this crisis. However, the majority is having none of it. As I say, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are making stuff up in the face of things that have real consequences.

There are people dying in the Pacific Northwest from the unprecedented heat wave. We have had unprecedented events in California, extreme weather events. The costs of those extreme weather events dwarf the costs that my Republican colleagues are dreaming up in fantasy.

In 2022, the climate disasters totaled more than $165 billion. The United States needs to double down on our investments in the Inflation Reduction Act to halt the worst and most expensive consequences of the climate crisis.

Instead, my Republican colleagues put forth a nonbinding resolution that doubles as a love letter to Big Oil. It paints a grim picture of the impacts of a tax on carbon, a picture that is, in fact, completely divorced from reality. Areas that have placed taxes on carbon have fostered innovation, and it is a preferred approach for most of the thoughtful business community.

The global cost of climate change is estimated to be over $3 trillion per year by 2050. Further investments in oil and gas without accounting for the true costs of carbon will overly drag down our economy and increase this sum.

Moreover, this resolution purports to show concern about the costs to American families associated with a carbon tax, particularly the poor, the elderly, and those on fixed incomes. Those are the people who are going to pay the cost most dramatically from continued efforts to allow the climate crisis to move forward.

Every single Republican voted against the Inflation Reduction Act, a bill that has already saved households hundreds of dollars in energy costs, not to mention hundreds more on prescription drugs. The Republicans all voted against it, yet the majority's constituents are benefiting. My colleagues didn't care about reducing the costs back then, and we shouldn't fall victim to Republicans' attempts to pretend about reducing costs now.

The longer we fail to deal meaningfully with the climate crisis, the defining question of the 21st century, our answer will determine the lives of our children and grandchildren.

We have made already significant strides in lowering costs and investing in clean energy. This love letter to Big Oil is absolutely the wrong step, and it is one they will be unable to justify to their children and grandchildren. It is a wrongheaded, inaccurate approach, one that is sadly not where we should be now, not where they should be, and it defies reality.

I strongly urge--even though it is nonbinding and doesn't make a difference, we will go ahead and play this out--but I urge its rejection.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am listening to my dear friend from Montana and the University of Oregon, and I couldn't disagree more.

We have the opportunity to produce clean energy in the United States. The cost today of alternatives with wind and solar is cheaper than fossil fuel, and this is where the world is going. Having our technological edge to produce cleaner energy and not be susceptible to those international forces is absolutely essential.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I just have to note that my dear friend from West Virginia, a woman I deeply respect, would have reliance on fossil fuel for energy security.

In her own State of West Virginia, the cheapest sources of power are renewable energy sources like wind and solar, which we incentivized with our policies and all of our Republican friends voted against.

The market has made a judgment that these are the most cost-effective ways to generate energy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. Speaker, Republicans used to believe in market forces. They were part of a bipartisan effort to reduce acid rain, which had a cap, which in the short term increased price, but drove innovation. We solved that problem for a fraction of the alternative costs.

Denying the ability to price carbon is turning our back on innovation, turning our back on what the rest of the world is doing, and providing more opportunities for Americans.

I hope at some point they will rediscover the power of market forces and join us in efforts with the legislation that we have passed to harness those market forces and promote American innovation, as we are seeing now under the Inflation Reduction Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal).

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

Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate the gentleman's tutorial on economics and history, and I could not agree with him more. I hope at some point our Republican colleagues rediscover the power of the market, like what would happen with the carbon tax, which we are seeing around the world moving in this direction.

There are two basic approaches we can take. One is to use market forces, like putting a price on carbon, or simply being the handmaiden to Big Oil.

I can't think of a more dramatic example of the fallacy of that approach than to look at the home State of our Speaker that has done the bidding of Big Oil for decades.

What is the result of that impact in Louisiana? It hasn't been a hotbed of economic development. To the contrary. But there are other consequences that are serious.

A recent study by the Environmental Integrity Project found that Louisiana is home to eight of the worst polluting refineries in the entire country. Their refineries make up half of the top 10 ammonia polluters. A region on the banks of the Mississippi River between New Orleans and Baton Rouge is known as Cancer Alley because of the negative consequences of the petroleum industry and the refusal of the State to provide regulation.

The untrammeled growth of the fossil fuel industry has resulted in cutting up the landscape, the loss of about one football field a day into the Gulf of Mexico. Parts of the State are sinking. Their low birth rates and preterm births are double the national average, and respiratory ailments are nearly triple. The vast majority of the residents who suffer are Black.

Look at New Orleans and the consequences of Louisiana to what happens when you just do the bidding of the oil companies. It is not better environmentally and it is not better economically. It has been, pure and simply, a disaster.

An alternative is to use market forces, to tax what we would like least of. A carbon tax would raise prices for some, but it would foster innovation. That is exactly what we did with our approach to acid rain. It sparked innovation and cured that problem much more cost effectively than other solutions.

It is time for the Republican Party to rediscover market forces and be able to do what the vast majority of economic experts--Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal--agree is the best solution. Rather than lots of rules and regulations, use market forces. We have done that with our Inflation Reduction Act, sparking innovation and investment, even though all my Republican friends voted against it.

Mr. Speaker, there are two approaches: Give in to Big Oil, abandon your principles for environmental protection, market forces for innovation, or look at alternatives that will help us deal with the crisis of our age, the climate crisis.

I appreciate the opportunity to share those observations with you, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would hope at a time when it looks like we are starting to see some adjustment on the other side of the aisle, we are starting to see some of the people in the governing wing of the Republican Party moving forward to try and rein in some of their more extreme elements, we may actually deal with what we should have done months ago, which is fund the government according to the agreement that 149 Republicans signed onto last spring.

I have had a little fun tweaking some of my Republican friends, but we know how this is ending up, and that is exactly what is happening. Some people in the more extreme elements of the Republican Party may feel a little pinched, but this is what we agreed to.

This is an approach that solves the problem. It is not a good solution. It is not the solution we would have done, but it is the only one that the extreme elements of the Republican Party will allow us to move forward with. It is better than having a collapse of the economy, our agreements moving forward.

I hope that we will have the governing wing of the Republican Party moving forward and that this might be a path forward because there are so many things that we ought to be able to agree upon: innovation; protecting the American public; lowering costs,

like we did with our legislation for prescription drugs, like we are doing now in terms of energy innovation.

The record is pretty strong. We have the lowest rate of inflation of any developed economy in the world. We have watched the inflation rate, which my Republican friends are focused on, and I think it is okay, but they deny reality. No major country has done a better job of controlling inflation.

It was 6 percent in 2021. It dropped to 5.6 percent, and this last year, 3.1 percent. Those are the facts; the best performance in the world. All the railing, yelling, and finger pointing don't change those facts.

We have opportunities that we could do on a bipartisan basis to help solve the immigration problem that was worked out on a bipartisan basis in the other Chamber. In fact, we were moving toward an agreement that would put more investment in border security, beefing up opportunities that could have bipartisan support that would help the public. It is not our solution. We would like to do better, but we thought it was the best we could do with our Republican allies.

As it was moving toward enactment, Donald Trump went gunnysack: We can't do that. It would not help my reelection campaign. Afterwards, we have seen Republicans retreat from a bipartisan solution on immigration.

I think this will be as shameful as my friend John Boehner's refusal to allow us to vote on a bipartisan solution from the Senate on immigration back in 2012. We can do better than that if the other side of the aisle will listen to some of the governing wing of the Republican Party, not be held hostage by the most extreme, and work with us on these elements that are already bearing fruit.

What will not bear fruit is tilting at an imaginary windmill of a carbon tax, misrelating what it is, and denying the reality of the costs for failure to deal with the climate crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge rejection of this proposal. It is not going anywhere. It is not real. It is a sad distraction and an opportunity to misrepresent what we could do.

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

Madam Speaker, I am here this morning on the occasion of the 24th annual National Bike Summit to celebrate the bicycle. It was an honor to kick off the annual bicycle ride through the Capitol this morning with several hundred enthusiasts.

We had a lot to celebrate. The infrastructure bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, has unleashed unprecedented investments. We have $1 billion a year for the Safer Streets for All Act, and we have already $1.7 billion committed. There are over 1,000 communities that are dealing with plans for their bicycle network.

Madam Speaker, there is a lot of dissension here on Capitol Hill. You may have noticed that it is hard sometimes for people to agree, but we are celebrating bike partisanship.

The bicycle brings people together to be able to burn calories instead of fossil fuel. It is the most efficient form of transportation ever designed.

There are exciting programs internationally. The World Bicycle Relief program has distributed three-quarters of a million bicycles to developing countries. A health professional in sub-Saharan Africa with a bicycle can see three times as many patients and do so more safely.

We have opportunities in terms of being able to extend the range of activities for our children. Legislation I have been working on for years in terms of the Safe Routes to School Program has been extended to include high schools now.

I started the week watching grade school bike bus with young people surrounded by a rope moving as a bus on their way to school.

The bicycle helps eliminate the congestion around our schools in the morning, and it gives young people a sense of freedom while it encourages their health.

During the pandemic, people turned to the bicycle for recreation in a way that was safe, and it extended their recreational experience.

Bicycle tourism is having a profound effect in rural and small-town America as people discover the joy of looking at the countryside at 10 miles an hour instead of 70. It is also good for the economy because people on bicycles tend to actually spend more than people who are racing through neighborhoods.

This notion of burning calories instead of fossil fuel, I think, is profound. We are working to extend activities for e-bikes. Part of our legislation has more e-bike charging stations, and the e-bike makes any bicycle commuter into a regular, effective commuter, extending their range.

It has contributed here on Capitol Hill. When I first came, there were a few of us who were biking. You would see an occasional bike messenger, but now we are looking at massive investments even in our Nation's Capital.

One of the things I am most proud of is bicycle lanes in the center of perhaps America's most iconic street, Pennsylvania Avenue. There is a whole range of investments that have been made in our Nation's Capital to make it more livable.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to greet these bicycle warriors, welcome them to Capitol Hill, learn about the opportunities in this new legislation, and then work with them to implement it in their relationships. After all, the bicycle is the indicator species of livable communities.

Madam Speaker, in 2022, the world lost more than 16 million acres of forest, an area bigger than West Virginia. Deforestation accounted for about 10 percent of the world's annual greenhouse gas emissions and 40 percent of all tropical deforestation as a result of illegal clearing.

Put another way, deforestation would rank as the third largest country in terms of overall carbon emissions, underscoring the need to address this problem as part of a global solution to the climate crisis.

Nearly half of the tropical deforestation is estimated to be the result of just four commodities--beef, soy, palm oil, and wood products that drive this deforestation. The people who are engaged in illegal logging are some of the worst people on the face of the planet. They engage in bribery, theft, crimes against indigenous people whose rights are trampled on, or worse, actual violence directed against them.

There is, of course, a solution: Deny people who grow crops on illegally forested land access to the American economy.

There is precedent here, too. I had amendments to the Lacey Act focusing on disallowing illegally harvested timber to be imported to the United States. That earlier legislation was based on the success of the original Lacey Act that protected endangered species and wildlife. It is commonly accepted and simple to administer, although not always easy.

It required companies to control their supply chain and to be able to document that control and respect for requirements of legally sourced product. It formed a framework not just for American law, but it modeled the European Union, Australia, and Japan who modeled their actions on my bill.

Now, we have an opportunity to expand this approach to soy, cocoa, palm oil, beef, and rubber commodities. There is rough agreement that this approach has promise and the large companies are concerned about the legal, practical, and reputational consequences for being involved with products that are grown on these illegally harvested lands.

We have introduced bipartisan legislation, the FOREST Act with Senator Schatz, to codify the conversation and to advance this policy to choke off this practice.

The goal of the legislation is to encourage responsible companies to observe requirements to avoid products from illegally harvested timberland.

It will require adjustment in terms of mindset and procedures to have control of the supply chain, but helping provide a framework is necessary to change these engrained habits.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support our legislation to use the tools of trade and supply chain control to end the environmentally destructive pattern of commodities from illegally harvested land. It is going to be hard, but it will be worth the effort.

Mr. Speaker, I have dedicated my career to making the Federal Government a better partner for livable communities. These are places where families are safe, healthy, and more economically secure.

One of the most important tools in making a community livable is the promotion of historic preservation.

It is more than just preserving landmarks or putting up plaques. The historic preservation movement has resulted in preserving over 45,000 historic buildings that celebrate and inform our heritage and our past.

Historic preservation helps us understand who we are, where we went, and what we might be.

I fought to protect these historic treasures that enrich community by recycling buildings that preserve that heritage. Not only do they give definition and character to our communities, but they are also a powerful boost for the local economy.

A building that has been renovated creates many more jobs because it is labor intense and it is located in historically relevant space. Preserving these buildings makes communities stronger, more resilient, and more energy efficient than abandoning historic locations for new construction, which is often outside of the core area.

A green building is one that has been revitalized and rebuilt rather than new construction.

Historic preservation helps revitalize adjacent properties. The value radiates out from the historic property. Historic preservation is a tremendous attraction for tourism.

Because it is so labor intense, the historic tax credit has created nearly 3 million jobs since its creation 40 years ago and has attracted $173 billion in private capital. That means each dollar for credit generates $4 in private investment.

You don't need to be a billionaire developer.

Projects that employ historic preservation on a smaller scale make it possible for a broader range of owners to participate, sharing the advantages.

That is why the National Park Service found that in one study $33 billion in tax credits generated over $38 billion in Federal tax revenue.

This is a program that pays for itself even before consideration of the increased value of surrounding properties and the benefits of tourism and energy savings.

Because it is labor intense, the historic tax credit has created nearly 3,000,000 jobs since its creation barely 40 years ago and has attracted approximately $173 billion in private capital.

This means that each dollar of the tax credit generated $4 in private investment.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to think of another Federal program that makes such a strong contribution to the sense of place, revitalizing of local economies, promoting tourism, and encouraging other investment.

We will continue fighting to preserve this important private incentive for rehabilitation and reuse of historic buildings. It is changing the face of American communities, both rural and urban, by making such an investment protecting our heritage.

By celebrating our past, we promote our future in a way that is cost- effective and respectful of that heritage. I can't think of another program I have been involved with that has had such a profound effect on the livability of our communities.

Historic preservation doesn't just celebrate and strengthen physical community. It speaks to the life and the spirit that is so vital.

Preserving a community's past heritage is an important example across the country for projects large and small that inspire such pride celebrating the past while we invest in the future.