Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, we are going to pick up where we left off over the weekend, sort of the high school drama about governing the House of Representatives.

We have some people who are playing with fire. We have watched them work to the brink. It happened earlier in the spring where we were dealing with the debt ceiling, and we are back at it now, dealing with what we are going to do in terms of funding the government going forward.

We know where this ends. There will be an agreement in November or December or January that largely follows the outline of what we all agreed to do in the spring. Democrats, Republicans, and President Biden had an agreement that set the top-line numbers to be able to move forward with the budget.

Ultimately, I think the governing wing of the Republican Party will come around and work with a unified Democratic Caucus to be able to fulfill the commitment that we made in the spring. Whether or not Kevin McCarthy is Speaker or not is largely irrelevant in terms of this larger issue. The governing wing of both parties will come together and, I think, will do what is right for the American people based on what we agreed to do months ago.

In the meantime, we actually have work to do. There are issues that need our attention. In The New York Times 2 days ago: ``It's Only a Matter of Time Before More Dams Fail.'' We watched two dams in Libya collapse, killing more than 11,000 people. This should be a wake-up call for those of us in the United States.

There are more than 91,000 dams in the United States. The average age is 61 years. For about one-third of those, the failure would result in loss of life and significant economic loss and environmental damage.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act included hundreds of millions of dollars for dam safety, which was welcome, but a minuscule amount of what we need to do when there is about $76 billion of immediate need dealing with dam safety.

There are some very cost-effective solutions. One of them we pioneered in the Pacific Northwest, which is just removing the dam. In 2012 and 2014, we transformed the ecosystem of the Elwha River in Washington, the largest dam removal in American history, and we are currently working on an even larger project, with four dams being removed on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California.

Dam removal is much more cost-effective. I have worked on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to try to have a system where anytime a dam removal was more cost-effective than trying to renovate it that it would be authorized.

We are looking at the changing landscape, the problems with the Colorado River, where the dams no longer have intakes where they will be able to get the water out. We are looking at dead pools being formed along the Colorado River.

We have to rethink the way that hydrology works, the dam works. Climate change has radically adjusted our notion of what we can and should do with them for the future.

This is but one example of a simple, commonsense, direct effort that we should take that will save lives, save money, and regenerate the environment, as we are going to see in the Klamath River Basin.

Working with Native Americans on nature-based solutions for climate challenges, we are all going to be better off, and then we can perhaps stay away from the sideshows here that are entertaining but don't get us anywhere.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this legislation to stand with those advocating for human rights in Iran however I have concerns that the legislation could prohibit the President's ability to adjust sanctions as national security conditions warrant. I am hopeful this is the last time that Congress puts forward a sanctions bill without a clear mechanism to remove them as needed.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and his leadership.

I am proud to lead this amendment with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) to inject some sanity into our medical marijuana approach.

Veterans in Oregon and across the country have shared powerful stories with me about how medical cannabis has saved their lives and given them relief from wounds of war seen and unseen. These veterans have also shared their fear about what would happen if they worked with the VA doctors to incorporate their cannabis use into their treatment plans.

The VA denies veterans access to this care option by preventing providers from completing forms in compliance with State medical marijuana programs. This is a shameful disservice to the men and women who put their lives on the line. The VA is forcing veterans to seek care outside the VA or self-medicate.

Our veterans are paying the price for Congress' failure to act. That is why I am proud to join Representative Mast in leading the Veterans Equal Access Act and why I call on my colleagues to support this amendment. Simple justice for our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Hemp Access and Consumer Safety Act. This legislation would allow the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate hemp and hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD) like any other legal dietary ingredients, foods, and beverages.

U.S. cannabis laws are broken, and legalizing hemp was a significant step forward. However, in order for the market to fully operate with hemp and hemp-derived CBD products with a federal consumer safety standard, FDA has to regulate these products. FDA has announced that it does not plan to use existing authorities to regulate these products.

I am introducing this legislation in partnership with my fellow Oregonian, Senator Wyden, because our constituents are directly impacted by this gap in federal safety standards. As the public has grown increasingly interested in CBD, the federal government's consumer protection mechanisms have failed to keep up.

The Hemp Access and Consumer Safety Act will finally bring CBD regulations up to par with the safety standards Americans should be able to expect for these legal products. It will also ensure packaging and labeling can be regulated to prevent minors accessing these products or any other undue confusion for consumers.

I look forward to working with my co-leads, Senators Ron Wyden and Rand Paul, and my colleagues in the House and Senate to enact this legislation and finally guarantee common-sense safety regulations for hemp and hemp-derived products.

Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed in the recent debate we had here dealing with the National Defense Authorization Act. It was a culture war instead of national security. The biggest failure was the inability to address our nuclear weapons policy.

We couldn't even eliminate one outmoded bomb. We couldn't allow the reevaluation of our land-based intercontinental ballistic missile system, even though they have been plagued by rampant corruption, cheating, and drug use.

Sadly, Congress continued to avoid the issue of nuclear deterrence. How many times do we have to destroy a country before they are discouraged in attacking us?

How many billion dollars need to be wasted in piling on additional nuclear weapons that pose threats in and of themselves?

This is a question that the American people deserve Congress to address. Sadly, this legislation continues to ignore the issue.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduced the Afghan Adjustment Act. This legislation would establish a pathway to permanent legal status for newly arrived Afghans displaced at the end of the 20-year U.S. mission in Afghanistan.

Without this legislation, the tens of thousands of Afghans who were admitted to the United States under temporary humanitarian parole, including those who supported the U.S. mission in Afghanistan during the past 20 years, face tremendous legal uncertainty. These Afghans can only pursue permanent legal status in the United States through the asylum system or, for those who are eligible, the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program. Both paths have substantial backlogs, long processing times, and logistical obstacles for these individuals.

I became involved in the cause of Afghan allies nearly 15 years ago after being contacted by a social studies class from Portland's Lincoln High School working with the American Legion to help bring an Afghan interpreter to safety in the United States. Those discussions prompted me to work with former Senators John McCain and Ted Kennedy to create the Iraqi and Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) programs. Ever since, I have continued to work to strengthen these critical programs and provide a permanent, safe outcome for the brave men and women who risked their lives to help the United States. The personal connections to our Afghan allies have created a powerful coalition working to keep our Nation's promises.

Congress must fulfill our commitment to provide safe, legal refuge to the those who willingly put their lives on the line to support U.S. mission in Afghanistan. Following previous wartime evacuations and humanitarian crises, including the Vietnam War and the rise of Castro in Cuba, Congress provided a legal adjustment process for those evacuated to the United States and should do so once again, without delay.

I look forward to working with Representative Miller-Meeks in the House and Senators Amy Klobuchar, Lindsey Graham, Chris Coons, Roger Wicker, Richard Blumenthal, Jerry Moran, Jeanne Shaheen, and Lisa Murkowski in the Senate to enact this legislation and finally establish a path forward for Afghans admitted to the United States on humanitarian status.

Mr. Speaker, I couldn't disagree more with my distinguished colleague who just spoke.

Even with 1,500 proposed amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act, it remains a disgrace. The majority talks big about cutting money, but they fail on some of the most fundamental opportunities.

They reject commonsense solutions and have failed to support meaningful cost-saving reforms. They have held the global economy hostage over spending levels, but I hope they will take advantage yet to make some adjustments, including my amendment with Representatives McGovern and Garamendi to end the wasteful funding of the outdated, ineffective B83-1 bomber that the 2022 defense posture laid out. It was unnecessary and wasteful.

If they wanted to get serious about addressing spending levels, we should stop wasting taxpayer dollars on weapons that don't work, on ships the Navy doesn't want, and nuclear weapons that are outdated and increasingly costly to maintain.

Adding even more money to an all-time record defense spending regime does nothing to improve American security or strengthen our allies, including the valiant Ukrainians in a fight for their very survival.

At a time of renewed security threats to the United States, a war raging in Ukraine, tensions in Asia and the Pacific, so much controversy over government spending, this legislation falls so painfully short of the mark.

It is funding battleships that don't work after spending billions to develop the Freedom-class littoral combat ships that marked their initial run with engine failures. The Navy doesn't want them. Retiring them would save $4.3 billion over the next 5 years, but Republicans continue to protect it to have jobs in Florida.

This bill leaves unfinished business in the work of protecting our troops, their families, and their neighborhoods from military toxins and explosives. Congress has long failed to make UXO and toxin cleanup a priority, and our servicemen and civilians continue to pay the price.

The United States is the largest energy consumer in the world. We should be focusing on ways to make them even more energy efficient.

The Department of Defense has appropriately been a leader in clean energy, water protection, and disaster preparation. These are not arts and crafts projects. It is all about readiness. Improving efficiency and energy resilience makes our troops safer and saves critical money.

The newly empowered Republican majority has decided to throw money at mismanaged priorities in terms of taking the culture wars to the Department of Defense, stripping away protections and programs that deal with the diversity of our military.

Social issues are defense issues, and the continued onslaught of restrictions against people of color, those who are LGBTQ, or those whose healthcare is under attack causes America to lose potential servicemembers we need most.

We are not meeting our recruitment objectives now, and taking the culture wars against the Department of Defense, fighting against diversity, makes us less ready.

Recruitment and retention are serious challenges plaguing our military, and the Republican attacks on those they don't like make us more vulnerable. These are honorable people, and the military needs them.

The good news is that most of the sideshow we will be dealing with today and into the night will never be enacted into law, but making these attacks and forcing these votes on readiness is not harmless. Even though they are ineffective does not mean that damage is not being done.

Look at the charade from Alabama's junior Senator paralyzing the orderly function of the military command structure over an ill-advised, unpopular, wrongheaded crusade against giving American military personnel the healthcare they deserve.

Denial of healthcare is another way we are driving qualified people out of the military. It is a travesty to deny them the same option, for instance, for medical cannabis that Americans enjoy in most States.

With so many of our veterans and servicemembers suffering from wounds, visible and hidden, the record is clear that medical cannabis can be transformative. It will help our servicemembers save money and improve the quality of their care.

I am pleased that my colleague Brian Mast and I have been able to develop bipartisan legislation to remedy the situation, and I hope this Congress will relent and allow us to enact it.

While I may disagree with the spending priorities and the massive increase in spending, I remain impressed with our men and women in uniform, from the brave recruits to the senior officers. They reflect so much of what is good about America. We should embrace our responsibilities for today and into the future by respecting the differences and strengthening opportunities to serve.

Mr. Speaker, we have a duty to them and our national security to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer amendment No. 27.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the Rules Committee permitting this to be in order to be discussed. These are important issues, and we don't often spend time on the floor discussing them.

In my career, I have worked to contain nuclear weapons, their danger and cost. Many of these weapons we cannot afford and cannot afford to use. Unfortunately, we continue to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on weapons that pose serious risk to safety and physical security.

We have an opportunity this afternoon to take a small but significant step prohibiting the use of funds for the B83-1 bomb.

This amendment reflects the conclusion of the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review, which, unfortunately, was not reflected in the majority report.

The B83 was added to the nuclear arsenal 30 years ago and has dramatically diminished utility.

Remember, Mr. Chair, we are on a trajectory to spend over $1.7 trillion in the next 30 years on nuclear weapons, most of which are no longer necessary for our security. Eliminating support for the B83 will save $1.5 billion over that period at no risk at all to our security.

As Everett Dirksen once famously said: ``A billion here and a billion

there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money.''

Here is a chance to make a long-overdue reform at no cost to our national security and save some real money.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

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

Mr. Chair, I respectfully disagree with my colleagues. This is a weapon whose time has passed.

It can only be delivered by the B-2 bomber, which is aging out. It cannot be delivered by a B-52 or a B-21. This antiquated weaponry is not enhancing our defense. It is an example of weaponry that really has outlived its usefulness.

These are serious issues. We are looking at trying to contain government spending. Some of my colleagues were willing to actually risk the global economy to make their point and grind things to a halt.

This isn't low-hanging fruit. This is literally picking the fruit up off the ground.

The security review, I think, is clear. This has outlived its usefulness. We have to start somewhere.

The $1.7 trillion that we have in the pipeline for nuclear modernization is, to be charitable, overkill. We need to start someplace. We ought to start with dealing with the B83 consistent with the national security review.

Mr. Chair, I urge approval of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's tenacity and her leadership on this issue.

We have more than we need to have a credible deterrent; more than we need. This small but important amendment would allow the military leadership to evaluate how to evolve the needs.

The land-based nuclear ICBMs are far in excess of what we need, and we have been seeing scandal in the papers in terms of the management of them, drug use, cheating on tests, and they are not necessary for our security. There is no security benefit in this sort of redundancy.

We ought to at least be able to examine the path going forward. Locking into 400 permanently is lunacy, it is expensive, and it is dangerous, as anybody who has read, for example, Eric Schlosser's book, ``Command and Control,'' to see how close we have come to nuclear disaster with this stockpile.

The record is not very rosy. We at least ought to allow our military leadership to evaluate what we need to do going forward.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the amazing life and, as The New York Times put it, the outsized career of Richard Ravitch, who passed away 2 weeks ago.

A lawyer, a builder, a public servant extraordinaire, Lieutenant Governor of New York, he ran the subway system. The Times' obituary labeled Dick ``the rescuer of New York.'' As someone who had a chance to work with him, I can attest he was that and much, much more.

He was a tireless student of government. He sought to understand its inner workings, and he would be quick to share his insights with others. His was a strong voice for thoughtful, sound, creative policy.

Those skills are what enabled him to work to rescue the subway in a dire time in New York, to improve municipal finance in that city, unscramble New York State finances, and help Detroit and Puerto Rico navigate bankruptcy.

He was a respected, successful businessman; pioneered integrated public housing. He was an adviser to organized labor, involved with Major League Baseball, and, along with his friend, Paul Volcker, an outspoken advocate for public finance and sound State and local budgeting.

Well into his eighties, he was still teaching at Yale Law School. He seemed to know everyone and have a story or two that involved each. He displayed a vast memory and boundless energy.

He was a practitioner of the political arts at the highest level. He spent his final months keenly focused on the upcoming election for Congress. He invested untold hours and significant resources helping men and women make their way politically. Dick was a proud member of the governing wing of the Democratic Party.

He never ceased to amaze me with the breadth of his interest, expertise, and skill. He was a master woodworker, and his Central Park apartment was filled with amazing pieces that he had crafted.

Dick took great pride in his family, his sons, Michael and Joey. His marriage to Kathy Doyle brought three stepdaughters into the family. There were 13 grandchildren, a tremendous source of pride and joy to Dick.

I was lucky to call him a friend and mentor. His biography, ``So Much to Do'' should be required reading for everyone who would be a public servant, an elected official, indeed, anyone who takes their citizenship seriously.

Even though it was written a decade ago, anyone who cares about government and the civic fabric has much to learn from Dick's life story and his many accomplishments.

I, along with countless others, benefited immensely from Dick's friendship, mentorship, and wisdom. His passing is a significant loss to New York City, New York State, and, I would say, for the country.

But his life, indeed, was a blessing. The lessons he left us and the leaders he helped shape will carry on his legacy for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago this week, Oregon became the first State to decriminalize cannabis. I was honored to be a part of that process.

It is time for the Federal Government to catch up.

We owe it to the generations of Black Americans targeted by the failed war on drugs.

We owe it to our veterans with their wounds, seen and unseen.

We owe it to thousands of workers and their employers who fail drug tests every day because they used State-legal cannabis weeks before.

We owe it to the large and growing cannabis industry, whose employees are targets for violent robbery because we deny them bank accounts.

We owe it to the American public who are not waiting for the Federal Government.

We need that framework to tax and regulate cannabis.

On the anniversary of Oregon's historic step to decriminalize cannabis, it is past time for the Federal Government to be a real partner and not a roadblock on the path forward.

Madam Speaker, we have heard claims from Republican leadership that they passed a bill to lift the debt ceiling.

That is laughable. What they did was pass a wish list to reassure their most extreme Members. Make no mistake: They have no plan.

I just consulted with the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. They haven't even agreed on the top-line numbers for this year's appropriations process, let alone move forward to implement the extreme cuts that they imagine are going to happen.

I just left a Trade Subcommittee hearing where a parade of witnesses from both parties said we need to invest more in Customs and Border Protection to protect Americans from fentanyl.

Without a plan, they will continue to target the poor and protect the privileged and get nothing done.

America deserves better. Let's pass a clean debt ceiling proposal and get back to work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the extraordinary life of Kathryn Harrison, who walked on last Sunday at the age of 99. Kathryn was an extraordinary woman of vision, leadership, and determination.

Kathryn was a key leader for her Grand Ronde tribe, and indeed for Native Americans everywhere. Her amazing life resulted in numerous honors and widespread recognition for her testimony before Congress that ultimately led to the restoration of Grand Ronde's federal recognition. After the restoration, Kathryn was instrumental in developing ways to capitalize on tribal resources for the lasting benefit of both the people of Grand Ronde, and indeed all Oregonians.

She was patient, thoughtful, determined, and always had a great spirit and a terrific sense of humor. I am honored to have been able to work with Kathryn on tribal issues for over 20 years. She led with dignity and focus simply by being in the room. We are all better people for being touched by her life and her services of giving back. I count myself lucky that our paths crossed many times. She was a powerful symbol of determination--helping secure justice for tribal people and providing inspiration for Native Americans across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. President Biden struck the right balance by instituting a temporary freeze on solar tariffs.

The Inflation Reduction Act has already led to the announcement of more than 45 gigawatts of domestic solar manufacturing capacity, and work has already begun.

In 2021, there were only 7 gigawatts of domestic manufacturing capacity, but it takes time to build out manufacturing capacities. It doesn't happen overnight.

This 2-year bridge gives the solar industry the time needed to reorient supply chains away from China to produce panels domestically.

That is why the President's position is supported by leaders who do the work: organized labor from IBEW, LIUNA, the carpenters, and the operating engineers, as well as a variety of other organizations in the environmental community and the National Taxpayers Union.

The solar industry itself strongly supports the administration's position. Kenneth Cooper, president of IBEW, characterized the President's action as a carefully crafted compromise that would provide market certainty to allow American companies to continue deploying solar panels.

H.J. Res. 39 is a backward-looking resolution, he said, looking to reopen a settled matter rather than create a solution.

It is not just organized labor. Members of the environmental community say that this resolution could destabilize the solar supply chains, harm ongoing deployment, threaten high-quality solar construction jobs, and impede our Nation's decarbonization goals.

The National Taxpayers Union opposes this proposal, saying that Congress should not, ``increase energy costs via the Congressional Review Act.''

Many of us in Congress have worked for years to achieve the policy victories contained in the Inflation Reduction Act.

We share the goal of pushing back against China and have supported legislation to do precisely that. Now is not the time to undermine our efforts in producing a robust supply chain in solar.

I encourage my colleagues to consider the overwhelming evidence and reject this legislation when it is called for a vote today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully disagree with the gentlewoman from West Virginia. This would not help American industry.

I include in the Record statements from nine American stakeholders in the industry who relied on Commerce's regulations to make significant business and economic decisions.

Re. Please Oppose Retroactive Duties and Protect American

Clean Energy Jobs and Investment with a ``No'' Vote on

the Auxin CRA (H.J. Res. 39/S.J. Res. 15)

We are writing to respectfully ask that you oppose H.J.

Res. 39/S.J. Res. 15. Enactment of this resolution would

impose over $1 billion in retroactive duty liability,

increase energy costs for consumers, cost thousands of

American jobs, and hamstring efforts to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions.

Last year, a single company filed anti-circumvention

petitions with the Department of Commerce (Commerce). The

threat of duties ranging from 50 percent-250 percent on solar

panels and cells from Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, and

Cambodia called for in the petitions abruptly froze solar

supply chains. A significant number of domestic solar

projects experienced cancellations or delays as a result.

To address this disruption, after Commerce accepted the

petitions and initiated a set of investigations, President

Biden issued an emergency declaration that included a

temporary 2-year pause on potential duties arising from the

investigations. This pause allowed planned solar projects to

move forward while the investigations proceeded.

American stakeholders subsequently relied on Commerce's

regulations to make significant business and economic

decisions. Nullifying Commerce's rulemaking as provided for

in H.J. Res. 39/S.J. Res. 15 woul1enalize companies, acting

in accordance with the law, by imposing large (up to 254

percent), unanticipated retroactive duty liability for these

stakeholders--back to April 1, 2022. Going back on this

federal commitment would create a chilling effect on American

business, setting a terrible precedent that undermines

America's competitiveness in the global marketplace.

Passing H.J. Res 39/S.J. Res 15 would also stall or cancel

planned solar projects, eliminate 30,000 jobs, including

4,000 manufacturing jobs, and $4.2 billion of investment in

domestic solar projects. 4GW of planned solar projects

representing roughly 14 percent of the industry's anticipated

deployment in 2023 would be cancelled. This in turn would

increase CO2 emissions by 24 million metric tons.

American businesses need certainty and a bridge to domestic

manufacturing. Right now, only about one-third of U.S. demand

for solar panels (including both crystalline silicon and thin

film photovoltaic panels) can be met with domestic

production, and domestic manufacturers are sold out for the

next 2-3 years. It is our preference to source solar panels

domestically, and we are heartened by the rapid expansion of

domestic solar manufacturing that is currently occurring.

However, ramping up this production capacity across the solar

supply chain will take time, and the temporary 2-year duty

pause provides a necessary bridge to the point where domestic

production capacity is more capable of meeting demand.

For these reasons, and to avoid needless disruption in the

solar marketplace, we respectfully ask that you oppose H.J.

Res. 39/S.J. Res. 15. Thank you in advance for your

consideration.

Sincerely,

Solar Energy Industries Association

American Clean Power

American Council on Renewable Energy

Edison Electric Institute

Mr. Speaker, they say nullifying Commerce's rulemaking as provided for in H.J. Res. 39 would penalize companies acting in accordance with the law by imposing large, up to 254 percent, unanticipated retroactive duty liability for these stakeholders going back to April 1, 2022.

Going back on this Federal commitment would create a chilling effect on American business, setting a terrible precedent that undermines our competitiveness in the marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, (Mr. Doggett).

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement from Terry O'Sullivan, the general president of LIUNA, the Laborers' International Union of North America.

His statement is on behalf of a half million members of the Laborers' International Union in strong opposition to this proposal: ``This CRA resolution comes at a time when our Nation is looking to bolster its wind and solar industry, steering away from more harmful energy sources. Our union has never seen this much solar construction work, and future construction already on the books, within the renewable energy industry, and it is now all at risk if the CRA is passed.''

LiUNA!,

Washington, DC, April 19, 2023

Hon. Jason Smith,

Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC.

Hon. Richard Neal,

Ranking Member, House Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Neal: On behalf of

the 500,000 members of the Laborers' International Union of

North America (LIUNA), I write in opposition to the

Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution regarding solar

panel manufacturing. This resolution will have a harmful and

disruptive impact on our members' jobs within the solar

industry.

Our nation's energy industry directly employs tens of

thousands of LIUNA members across the country. These jobs

span across all sectors of energy production including,

natural gas, nuclear, hydro, and renewables. By way of the

Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), The Biden Administration has

brought good-paying union construction jobs into the

renewable industry. Because of this, our members have seen a

significant and rapid growth within the renewables sector, in

particular the solar industry. These jobs are finally good

jobs, with family-supporting wages and benefits.

Repealing President Biden's moratorium, however, will bring

several solar construction sites to a halt, leaving our

members without a paycheck. We recognize that the Department

of Commerce's investigation found some solar panel producers

committing trade violations. Of course, in time, this will

need to be addressed.

This CRA resolution comes at a time when our nation is

looking to bolster its wind and solar industry, steering away

from more harmful energy sources. Our union has never seen

this much solar construction work, and future construction

work already on the books, within the renewable energy

industry, and it is now all at risk if the CRA is passed.

I urge you to oppose the Congressional Review Act being

marked up today in committee.

With kind regards, I am,

Sincerely yours,

Terry O'Sullivan,

General President.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement from James T. Callahan, general president of the International Union of Operating Engineers, and Douglas J. McCarron, general president of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.

The statement indicates, among other things: ``Repealing President Biden's proclamation will result in retroactive duties and tariffs that would jeopardize 30,000 construction and 4,000 manufacturing jobs. . . . We are not prepared to stand by and let some partisan dispute eliminate Operating Engineers' jobs and slow the deployment of clean energy.''

For immediate release: April 19, 2023.

Carpenters and Operating Engineers Unions Oppose Legislation That

Eliminates Thousands of Jobs

Washington, DC.--The following statement was issued today

by James T. Callahan, General President of the International

Union of Operating Engineers, and Douglas J. McCarron,

General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and

Joiners of America, regarding their unions' opposition to

legislation that will eliminate thousands of American jobs:

Last year, the Department of Commerce opened a

circumvention inquiry, alleging that four Southeast Asian

countries were circumventing tariffs and duties on solar

cells and modules from the People's Republic of China. The

inquiry generated massive uncertainty in the domestic solar

market by suggesting possible retroactive tariffs as high as

250 percent. This threat resulted in a drop of 20 percent

fewer solar construction and installation jobs across the

United States.

President Biden took action to preserve these jobs, issuing

Emergency Proclamation 10414 to prevent tariffs on any solar

module and cell imports from the four countries until June

2024. House Joint Resolution 39 will repeal the President's

Proclamation and eliminate thousands of jobs in the American

solar industry.

``Repealing President Biden's Proclamation will result in

retroactive duties and tariffs that would jeopardize 30,000

construction and 4,000 manufacturing jobs;'' said James T.

Callahan, General President of the International Union of

Operating Engineers. ``We are not prepared to stand by and

let some partisan dispute eliminate Operating Engineers' jobs

and slow the deployment of clean energy:''

``President Biden's Proclamation saves Carpenters' jobs and

smooths the development of the domestic solar manufacturing

industry. Today, we're seeing the American manufacturing

sector respond to incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act

and develop homegrown solar modules,'' said Carpenters Union

General President Douglas J. McCarron. ``Now is not the time

to disrupt the solar industry and layoff thousands of union

workers just as we're getting a foothold in the burgeoning

solar business.''

The International Union of Operating Engineers and United

Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners urge Congress and

members of the Ways and Means Committee to vote against House

Joint Resolution 39, which will repeal the administration's

Proclamation and eliminate thousands of union jobs, slow the

deployment of renewable energy, and generate unnecessary

greenhouse gases.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Staten Island has it backwards. The fact is that there is a process underway to review the challenges of the circumvention. There will be a report within the next year, but what the President did was put a pause on that to allow American industry to reorient and to catch up because otherwise they do not have the capacity.

I quote a strong representative of working men and women, the general president of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Douglas McCarron: ``President Biden's proclamation saves Carpenters' jobs and smooths the development of the domestic solar manufacturing industry. Today, we are seeing the American manufacturing sector respond to incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act and develop homegrown solar modules.'' According to this international union president, ``Now is not the time to disrupt the solar industry and lay off thousands of union workers just as we are getting a foothold in the burgeoning solar business.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Flint, Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a strong and effective voice, for whatever he advocates.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan.

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

Mr. Speaker, there was a reference about false choices. Well, it is a false choice that we adhere to our interests and goals at the expense of throwing out of work thousands of American union workers and disrupting opportunities to smooth the supply chain.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement from 10 leading environmental organizations that says: ``While the Commerce Department investigation of tariff circumvention was being conducted, the administration sought to provide enough lead time for domestic solar panel manufacturing and supply chains to rapidly expand operations to meet demand, bring certainty on the prices of imported panels to solar companies deploying clean energy, and job stability for those workers installing panels.''

April 17, 2023.

Dear Member of Congress: The undersigned groups write to

express our opposition to the Congressional Review Act (CRA)

resolutions of disapproval (H.J. Res 39 and S.J. Res 15)

aimed at reversing President Biden's temporary suspension of

tariffs on certain solar cells and panels from manufacturers

in Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam. Passage of these

resolutions could destabilize solar supply chains, harm

ongoing deployment of large scale solar projects, threaten

high-quality solar construction jobs, and impede our nation's

decarbonization goals.

Proclamation 10414, issued by President Biden in June 2022,

gave the U.S. Department of Commerce authority to issue

regulations suspending new solar tariffs until June 2024

while the department proceeded with its investigation into

claims that facilities in the Southeastern Asian countries

were circumventing existing tariffs on Chinese solar

companies. The Commerce Department subsequently issued rules

implementing the

delay, and H.J. Res 39 and S.J. Res 15 would nullify that

rulemaking.

Our organizations support both a shift to cleaner and

fairer supply chains for clean energy, as well as the rapid

deployment of clean energy in order to meet the urgency of

the climate crisis. Thanks in part to the expansive

investments in clean energy manufacturing and high quality

job standards included in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA),

we are now well positioned to achieve both of these goals.

The administration's strong implementation of the IRA's

domestic content provisions is a critical piece to further

drive manufacturing buildout in the U.S. However, passage of

these CRA resolutions would undermine the ability of the U.S.

solar industry to succeed in accelerating the shift to more

clean energy on the power grid.

The President's decision to pause tariffs for two years is

providing U.S. businesses with much-needed certainty after

several months of project cancellations and delays last year

due to the Commerce Department's investigation, which caused

solar deployment to decline by 30 percent--10 gigawatts below

expectations.

We have already seen more than $13 billion in domestic

solar manufacturing announcements since the passage of the

IRA. While more buildout is needed, this demonstrates that

domestic investment is headed in the right direction.

Additional panel shortages, as we saw during the Commerce

Department investigation, would once again debilitate U.S.

utility-scale solar projects and jobs. And if a CRA

resolution rolls back the President's two-year tariff pause,

then debilitating shortages and lost investment capital could

begin this year.

Beyond the harm to solar deployments across the U.S., there

is the larger issue of the CRA being the wrong tool for

Congressional oversight. Congress has always had the power to

create, modify or eliminate rules using the regular

legislative process. The CRA provides a more extreme path by

repealing a rule in its entirety and preventing an agency

from issuing a new rule that is ``substantially the same,''

an undefined phrase that can essentially freeze the

regulatory process.

In this instance, while the Commerce Department

investigation of tariff circumvention was being conducted,

the administration sought to provide enough lead time for

domestic solar panel manufacturing and supply chains to

rapidly expand operations to meet demand, bring certainty on

the prices of imported panels to the solar companies

deploying clean energy, and job stability for those workers

installing panels. Passing these resolutions could prevent

future administrations from being able to find appropriate

solutions to other tariffs and trade challenges.

For these reasons, the undersigned organizations urge you

to vote NO on H.J. Res 39 and S.J. Res 15. Thank you for your

attention to this matter and for considering our views.

Sincerely,

League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense

Council, Sierra Club, Climate Action Campaign, Environmental

Law and Policy Center, Clean Energy for America, Chesapeake

Climate Action Network, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense

Fund, Union of Concerned Scientists.

Mr. Speaker, somebody listening from the sidelines would think that there is a great deal of disagreement between my honorable friend from Missouri and me. That is not the case. We share many of the same goals, as he knows, with legislation that I am proposing to try to rein in some of the egregious abuses of the Chinese.

What we are disagreeing about today is to undercut a process that is working with the Department of Commerce for accountability. The goal here is for another year to be able to work the process through. I have no doubt that we are going to end up essentially in the same place but without compromising the ability of organized labor and workers to be able to have jobs without undercutting the opportunity for the businesses to be able to cope with these changed circumstances and to be able to develop a supply chain, which you cannot do overnight. But over the course of the next year or so, we can make significant progress. That is our goal. We don't think that we have to punish American companies and American workers to achieve that goal.

I am convinced that over the course of the next year, we will be largely in the same place after that process is finished with the Department of Commerce. In the meantime, we are not going to have American workers and businesses pay the price for this, frankly, unfortunate demonstration of political messaging. We want to reach the same goal. We don't want to punish workers and industry while we get there.

Having this additional year requested by the Biden administration that would be achieved by sustaining his veto is a reasonable outcome and I think gets us where we want to be.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that we reject this resolution, allow the process to work, do not penalize American workers, and strengthen supply chains so that a year and a half from now, we can, in fact, be in the same place, having a robust domestic industry and enforcing our goals and objectives.

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

Madam Speaker, our Supreme Court is a symbol of corrupt and cruel judicial politics.

Clarence Thomas is the poster child for the Supreme Court, the only Federal court with no ethical standards at all, let alone, enforce them.

They empower extremists who would deny vital lifesaving care in their zeal to enforce their vision on the limits of women's health.

It is not just about their opposition to abortion. They are forcing women to be pregnant, regardless of the consequences to real people.

The harms are not theoretical as illustrated in today's Washington Post editorial. Real women and their families suffer serious injury being denied care they need.

I am proud I come from one of the few States that has no limitations on families' access to reproductive healthcare, the most personal of decisions.

Change is coming, make no mistake, as more and more recognize the impact of this cruel interference in the most personal of decisions.

Despite hopelessly gerrymandered State legislatures, the people ultimately will win.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduced the Smarter Approaches to Nuclear Expenditures (SANE) Act.

The United States will spend $494 billion on our nuclear arsenal through Fiscal Year 2028, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Even the Pentagon acknowledges that this level of spending--more than XXXX--is not necessary to secure the United States. The Defense Department's 2013 Report on Nuclear Employment Strategy of the United States declared we can ensure the security of the U.S. and our allies and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent, while pursuing up to a one-third reduction in deployed nuclear weapons from the level established in the New START Treaty. Other experts, including a commission chaired by former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General James Cartwright, said the U.S. could go even lower without jeopardizing security.

The SANE Act aims to inject fiscal responsibility and strategic reality into the United States' nuclear weapons planning by reducing the purchase of replacement nuclear submarines, cutting the existing ICBM fleet, cancelling the development of new ICBMs, removing the nuclear mission from the F-35, eliminating the life extension program for the tactical B61 gravity bomb and cancelling the development of a new air-launched cruise missile, and terminating construction of new facilities for nuclear weapons processing and storage.

By strategically sizing our nuclear weapons programs, the SANE Act will save at least $73 billion over 5 years and stay within the New START Treaty warhead levels.

America must reconcile the facts: our Defense budget is already squeezed, a nuclear deterrent is irrelevant to current international security challenges, yet a nuclear deterrent is still a national security imperative. The SANE Act would secure our nuclear deterrent without undercutting critical investments in readiness and other essential programs.