Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, as I prepare to leave office at the end of this Congress, one of my greatest disappointments has been an inability to make progress dealing with our flood insurance system and the dangerous pattern of development and infrastructure.

What is so frustrating to me is that the handwriting has been on the wall. Even though I have tried to sound the alarm, we really have precious little to show for it.

I was on national TV 2 weeks before Hurricane Katrina, sketching in very vivid terms what was going to happen to New Orleans when the big one hit. Sadly, that was true even though Katrina wasn't the big one, but it could have been much, much worse. The devastation was unimaginable, and our efforts at recovery were woefully inadequate, inefficient, and unfair. We keep having to learn the same lessons with new victims in new disasters.

This inspired my first major piece of legislation, which aimed to reform the flood insurance program. However, looking back, it was simply inadequate. We tried to provide incentives which simply weren't strong enough. There are all sorts of examples.

Houston has been a poster child for repetitive flood loss. I used an example of one home flooded 22 times over 35 years and received more than $1.8 million in flood insurance claims for a home worth a fraction of that amount.

While we labored mightily through the legislative process to make modest gains in the flood insurance program, it was too little and too late. Our incentives weren't strong enough to overcome a 200-year history of people making poor decisions on where and how they live and how we designed our infrastructure.

People continue to live in low-lying, flood-prone areas because we are attracted to water. Rich and middle-class people are attracted to it, and poor people are forced to live in vulnerable areas because the land is less expensive.

Both strategies are flawed. What is so frustrating is that we spend enough money to potentially do things much better. Madam Speaker, $1 in prevention saves $6 in costs of damages, but we continue to make the mistakes of the past by spending billions of dollars on flawed reactions to catastrophes like Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy.

Additionally, it is not just massive storms. Day in and day out, we continue to put people in harm's way. We treat our rivers, waterways, and wetlands like machines that make the inevitable floods worse. We are happy to invest in decidedly suboptimal solutions. Traditional infrastructure that paves wetlands, channelized our rivers, and fortifies our coastlines make the inevitable flooding worse.

By giving people the illusion of protection, we encourage more people to move into harm's way. Over the past 20 years, we have failed in fundamental reforms. Making people respond to accurate flood mapping is too painful in the short term, so more people suffer pain in the long term.

The national flood insurance program is hopelessly inadequate and insolvent. The fundamental solutions have not changed over the last 25 years I have been working on this problem. We need to have accurate floodplain mapping, so people know exactly the situation they face and can act accordingly.

We can begin to make flood insurance actuarially sound. We shouldn't pretend that we can make incremental changes to a system that is fundamentally bankrupt. We should accept those losses and start over.

There must be stronger financial disincentives for people who refuse to do their jobs, and not just for individuals. State and local governments, with their land use planning, zoning, and building codes, should bear more of the financial burden in changing our policies to be sustainable financially, not the general taxpayer.

For people at risk, this is not unduly harsh. It is the reality in a world that is changing dramatically because of climate change. We do not do people any favors by ignoring the reality, subsidizing reckless behavior, and putting more people and property at risk. This does involve some short-term pain but will avoid long-term financial disaster and human catastrophe.

Madam Speaker, this week we are having a public media summit in our Nation's Capital, with representatives from independent television stations from across the country.

Thirteen years ago, the prospects were not particularly encouraging. We had just had a takeover in the House of Representatives with people intent on reducing government spending, and public media was in the crosshairs. Today, 13 years later, the Federal funding is still flowing at record levels to America's public broadcasters. We noted the retirement of the head of America's Public Television Stations, Pat Butler, who helped guide us through these difficult times.

Congress has enacted a new infrastructure investment program for public media nearly three times as large as the one it replaced. When COVID struck, the economy imploded. Congress provided $250 million in emergency financial assistance to America's public media. Our partnership for public radio and television includes our State governments, as well, who will commit a record $365 million to support public media.

There are hundreds of advocates who will hit Capitol Hill to share the strong positive message of public broadcasting. In a way, this should be the easiest of lobbying assignments. Public broadcasting is the most trusted name in media; 180 million people watch or listen to it every week.

The Senate passed the appropriation out of committee 24-2, at a funding level overwhelmingly approved last spring by Congress with the agreement with the President to avert a shutdown. It included 149 Republicans. The benefits are powerful and almost universally supported, and it is not just news, but most point out that PBS and NPR are where even the critics go when they need to know what is actually going on.

Part of our challenge now is that there are a handful of people who are holding the budget hostage, which is unfortunate, because there is overwhelming support in the House and the Senate if we are able to see our way clear. It is perplexing because funding for public media is overwhelmingly supported by rural and small-town America.

There is always going to be public broadcasting in New York, San Francisco, Boston, or even Portland, Oregon, but there will not be as much and the programming won't be as good, but it will be there. However, that is not the case for rural and small-town America, in the mountain States, in the rural Midwest, in Alaska.

That is why the late Republican dean of the House, Don Young, was such a fierce champion for public broadcasting in his State and nationally. He knew that it was more important in rural America where there are fewer choices, and it is more expensive. Federal support was critical.

News, entertainment, culture, think of where we would be during COVID without the public educational component. It is also increasingly important for public safety. The network supplied by public broadcasting is the emergency communications for natural disasters, for efforts in terms of fires and floods. It is a system that we depend upon, and it is public broadcasting that provides the backbone. People literally depend on it for their lives.

Let's hope, as the visitors from the public television stations visit Capitol Hill, meeting with our staff, providing this information, that people are receptive because this is an opportunity for us on a bipartisan basis to strengthen the ability of Americans to be able to learn, to be able to promote culture, education, and public safety. It is the best bargain for the taxpayer dollar, and I hope that we will be supportive.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the amazing life of my friend, Bob Moore. He was an icon in so many ways.

It was such a delight to visit him in his company headquarters. The connection he had with all his employees was astounding. He was an evangelist for healthy foods, understanding nutrition, and giving quality products to the public. He built a thriving business, and then turned it over to his employees to continue his amazing tradition of quality, innovation, and service.

I learned a great deal from Bob about healthy food and of course caring for the public. We are all richer for his legacy. Evidenced each time young people go overseas with packages of his food to help sustain them.

I thank Bob for enriching our lives with a model that everyone should embrace.

Madam Speaker, I have a strong belief in the power of international trade agreements to make a profound difference. It is not just because 95 percent of the global economy is outside the United States. These agreements are necessary to raise standards, protect the environment, and to avoid the tragedy of the commons.

I have seen the global economy raise living standards in China, Africa, and India, Singapore being the most powerful example. However, there were decidedly mixed results with Mexico. The gap between theory and practice showed that the promise of NAFTA was overblown and that the critics were right.

Poor Mexican farmers could not compete against massively subsidized American corn, and U.S. workers could not compete against $3 an hour Mexican factory workers.

Too much of American business was focused on financial and tax engineering, not actually engineering better products. They were gaming the tax system and extending patent protection, not winning new patents. The worst example was GE's downward spiral under Jack Welch's ruthless capitalism. However, I have been encouraged with the Biden administration's worker-centered trade policy.

I am proud of my work as the lead Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee dealing with international trade, working to level the playing field, fighting to improve trade agreements.

We made major advances, for example, reducing illegal logging by more than 40 percent and providing legislation that was a model for other countries to help stem this damaging practice. Our May 10th Agreement provided enforceable labor and environmental standards.

I was pleased to help lead the effort to revise NAFTA to strengthen its environmental protections, worker protections, and the enforcement of agreements to protect these advances. I hope these NAFTA revisions will start a new era of trade policy, but it is time to push back against the Chinese.

I am tired of their two-tiered system where they claim to be a developing country when it works to their advantage while being an economic powerhouse, one of the largest and most powerful in the world.

We must fight to protect and strengthen the WTO. There is no substitute for our being engaged in Geneva along with 163 other countries. It is hard work, but it is worth it.

Finally, we must battle to have China honor their WTO commitments made three decades ago. I have a special concern about the de minimis loophole, a provision in our tax code that allows China to ship directly to American consumers $800 or less in terms of product value. It is going to allow a billion packages into the United States economy untaxed, uninspected. We have 15 Republican attorneys general who have raised the alarm about this provision. We are seeing shoddy products made with slave labor. They are shipping fentanyl precursors directly to American drug dealers. It is time to stop that practice.

I have legislation that would close the de minimis loophole. I strongly urge my colleagues to cosponsor my Import Security and Fairness Act, which would stop these products flowing from a nonmarket economy on the watch list. Currently, that is just China, but they are the source of 60 percent of these 1 billion de minimis products. Doing so will protect American business, American consumers, public safety, and human rights. We can usher in a new era of worker-centered sustainable trade. The world is depending on us.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, listening on the floor of the House, there are arguments that are legitimate in terms of the shortcomings of this. It is not perfect, but I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. I don't want to deny 16 million children an opportunity for this Federal support in order to make a point.

I hope we will come to the point we are able to deal with tax policy in a more rational fashion. Under Chairman Neal, I think we will, but in the meantime, it is important to pass this legislation to meet the needs of American families.

Mr. Speaker, one of our society's greatest failures is our inability to equip and inform our families at the time of greatest stress and vulnerability: the end of life.

Even though Sarah Palin lied about ``death panels,'' I am proud to have been the foremost champion of protecting families and equipping them with the information they need to make those decisions before they are too late to inform those decisions and guarantee their wishes are respected and enforced.

No one wants to die in a hospital room but, sadly, too many people do so. Separated from their loved ones, too many are isolated from family and friends in those final hours. It doesn't have to be that way.

I fought for years to raise awareness to equip families to protect themselves and their loved ones, and to encourage doctors to have those often difficult conversations to do their part for those patients.

I led the battle for the Federal Government to put a value on those discussions. The Federal Government would spend tens of thousands of dollars for a 96-year-old woman with terminal cancer, but wouldn't pay $150 for her doctor to have the discussion with her and her family to understand her choices, how to manage it, and how to make sure her choices, whatever they were, were respected and enforced.

I led the battle for the Federal Government to put a value on that protection by adding end-of-life conversations to the list of services eligible for Medicare reimbursement. It took longer and was made more difficult by Sarah Palin's lies about death panels but, nonetheless, we won that fight.

Now doctors have the opportunity to invest their time and energy to have those often difficult discussions. This work ultimately had bipartisan, bicameral support. I enjoyed my partnership with the late Senator Johnny Isakson and with Senator Mark Warner.

We finally changed that policy for the Federal Government but, sadly, too few people today take advantage of it until it is too late and their loved ones face end of life at a hospital hooked up to some impersonal machine.

There are great resources and protections, but only if we help people understand how to take advantage of them.

For example, advanced directives capture the wishes of the patient and have an enforceable document, or hospice care, which is not just for the final hours of life.

Hospice care often, today, is not just the final hours. It can be many days, even weeks. President Jimmy Carter is the best example of living with hospice, a higher quality of care. Actually, many people on hospice live longer and enjoy that higher quality of life with their families.

I am proud of our progress, but so much more needs to be done to protect our families when they are most vulnerable and in need.

One other item: We all need to do our part by filling out advanced directives and making our wishes known so people don't have to guess what our wishes are. It is the least we can do for our families and loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, as I face the last 50 weeks as a Member of this Congress, I am appalled at the amount of time we waste on performances on things that will never become law, that shouldn't become law, and, in fact, the American public doesn't care that much about.

However, yesterday, the front page of The New York Times was something that people should care about, talking about the problem of diabetes and the complications that can lead to amputations, especially among men.

It is no secret we are facing an epidemic of diabetes. Nearly 15 percent of American adults, more than 38 million people, have diabetes, and it is even worse among Americans 65 years or older, with a rate of nearly 30 percent. It is the eighth leading cause of death in the United States.

Right now, we are marking up a commission to deal with the budget deficit in our Budget Committee. The direct and indirect costs of diabetes alone in 2022 were $413 billion, and the extra costs for a diabetes patient were more than $12,000 per patient.

We should make improvements in delivery that prevent the disease and the progression, not only for the health of

the patient but also for our healthcare system.

Type 2 diabetes is a huge factor dealing with modern diet and our health habits. These factors, combined with genetics and limited access to healthcare, can make it a challenge to control blood sugar levels and contribute to the progression of the disease. It can result in serious, life-threatening consequences on relatively minor events.

People can have a problem with their foot. It starts small with some nerve damage and maybe a foot ulcer, but it explodes, if untreated, to more intense conditions like gangrene and requires amputation to save the life of the patient.

Nearly half of diabetes patients develop this nerve damage, and many go on to develop the foot ulcers I referenced. It is worse for people of color. African Americans are two to three times more likely to need an amputation.

When we know that millions of Americans suffer from diabetes and face dire complications, why wouldn't we take the opportunity to do everything in our power to limit the progression of the disease? There are, in fact, low-cost solutions that can remedy the situation.

One that I have been working on for several years is a simple treatment of diabetic shoes, which deal with the foot conditions that are such a problem for people with diabetes, that can help prevent the problems that lead to those amputations.

Unfortunately, diabetic shoes require a prescription from a doctor. I mean, it is not rocket science. It could be done by a nurse practitioner or by a physician assistant, but we don't allow that. It is also an extra barrier for people who have problems navigating the healthcare system; they might give up or ignore it. It results in extra cost and extra time.

These delays can have profound consequences, as I mentioned. It is not a barrier for people with private insurance; if they needed these shoes when they were at 64, it wouldn't be a problem.

Congressman LaHood and I have a simple legislative fix to address this unnecessary quirk in our healthcare system. It would allow nurse practitioners and physicians assistants to satisfy the documentation requirements, at no extra cost to the patient, no extra delays, and do it directly. You shouldn't need a doctor to prescribe these shoes.

This is just one of dozens of examples of commonsense, bipartisan reforms that will reduce spending, improve outcomes, and, in fact, save lives and limbs. I hope we can focus on simple, commonsense things like this that are bipartisan in nature that aren't expensive and that make sense.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to save a life and save a limb.

Mr. Speaker, in the last 1\1/2\ years, we have seen the horrific impact of overturning the right to an abortion, and the assault continues.

The Supreme Court just announced that it would be hearing a challenge to the Biden administration's policy that abortion remains a form of emergency treatment for women whose lives are at risk.

This was done to ensure that even in States that have draconian abortion bans, doctors are able to provide needed emergency medical care.

It is unconscionable that doctors are calling their lawyers while patients are dying on the operating table.

Too often the so-called pregnancy crisis centers are a sham that peddle misinformation, and they certainly shouldn't be eligible for Federal dollars meant to help people in need.

Why are we wasting our time on culture wars instead of policies that actually help American families?

This is a disservice to the American people, and I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I will enter in the Record my comments that I would have made today.

Mr. Speaker, I am sad and I am angry.

I have been working for 50 years leading the effort to end the failed, unfair, cynical, dangerous war on drugs that targeted Black people, that discouraged the legal use of a therapeutic good, something that could have enriched our economy, but instead criminalized behavior, had unintended consequences, and continues to fail us today.

You have been reading comments lately about the problems we have in terms of the use of cannabis for some pregnant women who are unaware of the impact that that can have on a developing fetus. We are looking at impacts on our children from a cannabis that is much more potent than it used to be.

We don't have a system that regulates it, that taxes it, that keeps it out of the hands of children. No neighborhood drug dealer looks for identification, and they are perfectly happy to sell kids other, more dangerous and potent drugs. We don't have to do this.

The House of Representatives has passed a number of items that would remedy this situation. We passed the comprehensive MORE Act that would put it on equal footing. Frankly, we have legislation that would stop the unfair practice of taxing State-legal

cannabis businesses two or three times higher than regular businesses. No wonder they can't compete with the black market.

We have a situation now where the State-legal cannabis companies have to pay their taxes with shopping bags full of $20 bills, because we still deny them access to banking services. That is not just unfair; it is insane. It promotes money laundering, and it inhibits the opportunity of enterprises that are legal now for most Americans for either medical or adult use.

It is time that the Federal Government get its act together and stop making these problems worse. The Biden administration has taken some halting, positive steps, pardoning people who didn't need to be caught up in this in the first place, and they are looking at rescheduling cannabis to make it easier to do the research, and it would overnight end the unfair taxing situation. They would be able to deduct their business expenses. How novel. It is time for Congress to stop making this problem worse.

The Federal Government created the situation with the failed war on drugs, unfair to millions of Americans, and denied an opportunity for something that the American public has demonstrated time after time they want to happen by their State votes legalizing it.

It is not too late for this Congress to take the legislation that we have in the process to solve this problem, to be fair in the failed war on drugs, be able to allow State-legal businesses to not be at a disadvantage to the cartels and the cheaters, and get this right.

After 50 years, it is time to finally end the failed war on drugs and be fair to the American people.

Let's reflect for a moment on the cost of our failure to act on the critical cannabis reform proposals before this Congress.

Tens of millions of Americans have been trapped by the deplorable failed war on drugs and archaic prohibition of marijuana.

While this prohibition has harmed Americans across the board, it has not been enforced equally.

In every single state, Black people are more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than their white neighbors.

Black people are more than three times as likely than whites to be arrested for marijuana possession, despite comparable usage rates.

The public finally recognizes this injustice.

Ending to this failed policy is more popular than ever before.

Seventy percent of Americans support legalizing marijuana, including majorities of Republicans and Independents as well as Democrats.

It is states, led by my home state of Oregon, that have led the way to end this prohibition.

Twenty-four states and multiple territories having legalized adult- use marijuana.

Many of these states have worked valiantly to make these markets accessible to those directly impacted, especially communities harmed in the weaponization of marijuana prohibition.

They have invested in equity licensing structures, tax relief, and more.

However, it is clear, that without a comprehensive federal framework for legalization, these programs will continue to fall woefully short.

A state-by-state patchwork of legalization doesn't work.

To meaningfully address the harms facing our communities-- particularly Black and Brown Americans targeted in federal cannabis prohibition--we must act on the critical proposals before this Congress.

Obviously the MORE Act is the gold standard for comprehensive reform. This critical legislation:

Deschedules marijuana;

Expunges prior convictions;

Implements a real federal tax structure for these products;

Makes SBA funds available to these small businesses; and

Invests in programs that minimize barriers to marijuana licensing and employment for the individuals most adversely impacted by the failed war on drugs.

The House has twice passed this legislation with bipartisan support. It is devastating that the Senate has failed to act.

The SAFE Banking Act makes banking services available to regulated marijuana businesses--denying the benefits that keep employees safe and lower costs for vulnerable small businesses by getting cash off the streets.

The Veterans Equal Access Act allows veterans to work with their preferred providers to decide if medical marijuana is the right treatment option for them instead of denying them their preferred provider for care.

And, finally, perhaps most important for struggling cannabis businesses is tax reform.

Under Section 280E of the federal tax code, marijuana businesses are not able to deduct any business expenses from their federal taxes.

This exponentially increases their tax burden compared to other regulated businesses.

My Small Business Tax Equity Act would end this inequity, making it far more accessible for small businesses to enter the legal marijuana markets and fairly compete with the illicit market.

While Congress considers these critical pieces of legislation, President Biden has taken some action to address the ongoing harms of criminalization.

In 2022, he issued thousands of pardons for simple federal marijuana possession convictions and challenged governors across the country to do the same for state convictions.

This past December, he expanded this relief to convictions in D.C. and to those with federal convictions for attempted possession of marijuana.

For the people eligible, these pardons are tremendously impactful-- restoring their rights to education and housing and so much more.

The Drug Enforcement Administration has also confirmed their authority to deschedule marijuana.

Descheduling marijuana will allow full deduction of costs of marijuana business.

Allowing these businesses to deduct their expenses as the tax code was intended will help level the playing field for those who do not have the benefit of existing dominance in the industry.

Descheduling is a vital, common-sense leap forward that will make the federal government the partner our states and communities need to address the ongoing harms of our failed cannabis policies.

Congress must act on the common-sense reforms to meaningfully end the failed war on drugs and repair the harms caused by a state-by-state patchwork of marijuana legalization.

It is past time for simple bipartisan reform.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Incentivizing Dual-Eligible Alignment (IDEAL) Act.

This legislation seeks to better coordinate and improve care for dual beneficiaries enrolled in integrated special needs plans (D-SNPs). Highly integrated D-SNPs (HIDE SNPs) and Fully Integrated D-SNPs (FIDE SNPs) already manage dual beneficiaries' Medicare and Medicaid benefits, and this legislation will improve their ability to deliver needed services.

First, this legislation creates a pilot program to give Safety Net Health Plan HIDE and FIDE SNPs a rebate to provide services related to social determinants of health. We all know that a person's health is affected by far more than what happens in a doctor's office. If plans can deliver services like meals for people with chronic conditions, rental assistance, and pest eradication, they can address all the factors that contribute to the health of their beneficiaries. This five-year pilot can help inform future policy decisions as Congress weighs how to better improve outcomes. Second, this legislation provides regulatory flexibility to states to align administrative processes between Medicare Advantage and a state's Medicaid plan, allowing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and states to determine better ways to coordinate care for HIDE and FIDE SNP enrollees.

Fundamentally, the way we approach our health care system needs to change. The United States spends nearly one-fifth of GDP on health care and more per person than other economically comparable countries yet has lower life expectancy. I'm grateful for organizations like Care Oregon that provide care to my constituents and try to challenge the status quo. The federal government must be a partner in delivering care in better, innovative ways, and I believe the policies proposed here can be a part of that.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Wy'East Tribal Resources Restoration Act, which establishes a first-in- the-nation tribal co-management structure on the Mount Hood National Forest.

This bill directs the Forest Service to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs to protect and enhance Treaty resources within ``Indian Treaty Resources Emphasis Zones,'' through a co-management structure. The establishment of such Zones will help meet the trust responsibilities of the United States in protecting the exercise of Tribal Treaty rights and integrate indigenous ecological knowledge as an important part of the best available scientific information used to manage land within the Zones. The co-management plan will be developed with public input, subject to all existing environmental laws and regulations, including the National Environmental Policy Act. The bill also requires implementation of the Cultural Foods Obligations, which were included in the Public Lands Management Act of 2009 but have never been implemented.

The federal government forced Native Americans off of their homelands and onto reservations, and we haven't honored our promises for their treaty resources. I believe this tribal co-stewardship is an incredibly important step forward. It represents 21st century public lands management and I'm proud to lead the effort. It also helps the federal government fulfill its treaty obligations to Native American communities--a moral obligation that the federal government has never truly fulfilled.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which will return some land management authority to Native Americans who have lived on, and managed, this land since time immemorial.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for votes on November 2, 2023, I would have voted in the following manner: Roll Call No. 579 on the Crane Amendment No. 85, I would have voted No; Roll Call No. 580 on the Crane Amendment No. 86, I would have voted No: Roll Call No. 581 on the Fulcher Amendment No. 89, I would have voted No; Roll Call No. 582 on the Gosar Amendment No. 91, I would have voted No; Roll Call No. 583 on the Greene Amendment No. 94, I would have voted No; Roll Call No. 584 on the McCormick Amendment No. 101, I would have voted No; Roll Call No. 585 on the McCormick Amendment No. 102, I would have voted No; Roll Call No. 586 on the Miller Amendment No. 103, I would have voted No; Roll Call No. 587 on the Nehls Amendment No. 107, I would have voted No; Roll Call No. 588 on the Norman Amendment No. 110, I would have voted No; Roll Call No. 589 on the Norman Amendment No. 112, I would have voted No; Roll Call No. 590 on the Norman Amendment No. 113, I would have voted No; Roll Call No. 591 on the Norman Amendment No. 115, I would have voted No; and Roll Call No. 592 on the Ogles Amendment No. 116, I would have voted No.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend this afternoon's votes as I had a longstanding, immovable commitment that necessitated I not be in Washington, D.C. today.

Had I been present for the vote to order the Previous Question, I would have voted ``no'' on Roll Call No. 601.

Had I been present for the vote on H. Res. 847, I would have voted ``no'' on Roll Call No. 602.

Had I been present for the vote on the Escobar #5 amendment, I would have voted ``aye'' on Roll Call No. 603.

Had I been present for the vote on the Perry #20 amendment, I would have voted ``no'' on Roll Call No. 604.

Had I been present for the vote on the Perry #25 amendment, I would have voted ``no'' on Roll Call No. 605.

Had I been present for the vote on the Grotham #29 amendment, I would have voted ``no'' on Roll Call No. 606.

Had I been present for the vote on the Breecheen #20 amendment, I would have voted ``no'' on Roll Call No. 607.

Had I been present for the vote to table H. Res. 845, I would have voted ``aye'' on Roll Call No. 608. I will vote ``no'' on the resolution to censure Representative Rashida Tlaib when it comes before the House.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on H.R. 1607, to clarify jurisdiction with respect to certain Bureau of Reclamation pumped storage development, and for other purposes, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 599.

Had I been present for the vote on H.R. 359, the Fort Geronimo Preservation Act, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 600.

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to describe the anguish I feel in the aftermath of the horrific attack on Israel by Hamas. It continues the record I've seen from Hamas for as long as I've been in Congress. Under Yasser Arafat, Hamas torpedoed a peace agreement that was almost adopted with President Clinton. The pain was magnified because we were so close to an agreement for lasting peace. Even though optimism for the two-state solution has faded, I still believe it is the best chance for long-term peace and security. Ultimately, there is no military solution to this conflict.

I've traveled to Israel several times over the last 25 years and am heartsick that the optimism I first encountered there appears to have melted away. During my first trip to Israel in 1999, I met at a police command center in Ramallah led by both an Israeli officer and a Palestinian officer who were working cooperatively towards keeping the peace. Now we are on the edge of a humanitarian catastrophe made even worse with the widening scope of this war.

I am deeply concerned for the safety and security of the two million civilians in Gaza,

half of whom are children. Israel cutting off water, electricity, medicine, fuel, and humanitarian aid has already created horrific consequences. These actions are not recipes for lasting peace in the region.

It was important for President Biden to acknowledge the mistakes that America made in our military response to 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan. We lost our perspective. We overreacted and the world is still paying the price.

I hope the Israeli government pays attention to the President's words of caution--to follow international law and responsibilities for the rules of war. They must work to avoid civilian casualties.

As someone who has worked for years trying to solve the water and sanitation crisis in Gaza, I know full well the consequences they face.

As Congress provides funding to deal with this crisis, I hope we can redouble our effort for humanitarian assistance, using our leverage to urge restraint, and move as quickly as possible to help the Palestinian people. I hope there is a humanitarian pause with a corridor for civilian safety so that it can allow a reset for food, water and medicine, and fuel to help them survive.

I pray that everyone will work together to avoid having this humanitarian crisis spill out in the region and engulfing more people and accomplishing nothing.