Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, during Bike to Work Week and in advance of Bike to Work Day, today I am introducing the Bicycle Commuter Act of 2023.

The bicycle's value on one's physical and mental health, to say nothing of the health of our communities, is more apparent than ever since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. For years, I've said that the bicycle is the most efficient form of urban transportation ever devised. Communities across the country are getting on board with this sentiment and substantially investing in building better, safer bike networks and improving facilities for biking to work. While rates of biking to work have increased by more than two-thirds since 2000, only 0.4 percent of workers biked to work in 2021. Congress has the opportunity to increase mode share and, critically, not penalize one mode of transportation over another.

Unfortunately, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (P.L. 115-97), suspended the previously available bicycle commuting reimbursement benefit through 2025, taking away a valuable financial incentive for people who choose to bike to work. The Bicycle Commuter Act reverses the bicycle commuter benefit's suspension in Public Law 115-97 and changes the structure of the benefit by making the benefit a pre-tax benefit, allowing employees to receive a bicycle benefit of up to 30 percent of the parking benefit, allowing the bicycle benefit to be used in concert with the transit and parking benefits, and adding bikeshare and scootershare as eligible for the benefit and clarifying that electric bikes are eligible.

I thank Senator Brown for his leadership on this legislation in the Senate. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to advance this critical effort for the health and wellbeing of the American public, our communities, and our planet.

Mr. Speaker, I am having flashbacks in terms of what we were facing in 2020. Every member of my office was working to try and deal with panicked people who couldn't get through to get their unemployment in a system that was bogged down, 600 percent increase.

Now, we are taking up legislation that would cut fraud-fighting dollars and hold hardworking Americans liable for overpayments that were not necessarily their fault. Families would be forced to repay these funds up to 10 years later. Even the Congressional Budget Office has said there is uncertainty about how much would be recovered.

I was in the middle of that. I saw the panic, the challenge, and despair. I think it would be far better to take advantage of extending the statute of limitations so we make sure we can claw it back. But don't punish people who may be caught up in this net that was not of their making.

I strongly urge that we reject this, that we deal with ways to increase the statute of limitations and recover the money that needs to be recovered.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Travel for Care Act.

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court upended decades of precedent set by overturning Roe v. Wade. In the months since, we've seen the horrific effects of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision including an increase in states implementing abortion bans. As a result, a third of women of reproductive age in the United States now live more than an hour from the closest abortion facility and the average travel time to get an abortion has more than tripled.

After the Dobbs decision, President Biden signed an executive order to preserve abortion access, which included protecting people's ability to travel. Additionally, the House of Representatives passed the Ensuring Access to Abortion Act which prohibited states from interfering with people traveling for an abortion. Several major Fortune 500 corporations announced or reiterated that they would offer reimbursement for employees who needed to travel to receive abortion care.

The unfortunate reality is that far too many Americans are now dependent on their health plan and employer benefits to access care that they deserve to have. The Travel for Care Act would remove additional barriers to implement or within these benefits by ensuring that any reimbursement is not taxable income, raising the dollar limit for related costs like meals and lodging, and allowing employees covered by high deductible health plan to access this reimbursement without having met their deductible.

It's egregious that employers have stepped in where the federal government hasn't. Nobody should be forced to leave their state to seek medical care, but in a world where that's the case, they shouldn't face additional financial barriers. I will continue working to ensure that we are increasing access to abortion care in every way possible and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

I rise in opposition to this resolution.

My Republican friends continue to be in a state of denial of the climate crisis, the real and urgent sense that we have now.

Last month, in Houston, I had an opportunity to meet with two dozen leaders of the renewable energy sector. They weren't concerned about rolling back the things that we have done. They want to accelerate it.

The chairman and my Republican colleagues have spoken at length about the importance of increasing accountability for China's unfair trade practices and maintaining protections for American workers.

It is interesting, though, that these same individuals voted against Democratic provisions to strengthen our antidumping and circumvention laws and reauthorize the Trade Adjustment Assistance in the America COMPETES Act.

They all voted against the Inflation Reduction Act's provision to incentivize clean energy domestic manufacturing. In fact, 2 days ago, they voted to repeal these provisions.

This resolution would undermine America's hard-fought wins in the Inflation Reduction Act.

There are problems. No doubt, the Chinese are likely cheating.

President Biden struck the right balance by instituting a temporary freeze on these solar tariffs. This approach is how we fix the long- term problem.

Importantly, he has said that he does not intend to extend the freeze beyond June 2024 and that he will veto this resolution if it gets to his desk.

My friends on the other side of the aisle are concerned about working men and women. I would point out that the President's position is consistent with the leaders in organized labor from IBEW, from LIUNA, the Carpenters, and the Operating Engineers, people who represent these hardworking Americans, as well as organizations in the environmental community and the National Taxpayers Union.

This is a 2-year bridge that gives the solar industry the time needed to reorient supply chains away from China and produce panels domestically. We can't do that overnight, but we are committed to making that change.

For too long, the United States has lacked a cohesive renewable energy manufacturing policy. As a result, we have outsourced far too much of our production.

In 2021, there were only 7 gigawatts of domestic manufacturing capacity. That is the reality. But the Inflation Reduction Act marks a significant departure from those flawed policies of the past. This legislation bakes in domestic content bonuses in clean energy credits to incentivize the industry to onshore production. But that takes time. It also revives the advanced manufacturing credit and creates a new manufacturing production tax credit.

The Inflation Reduction Act has already led to the announcement of more than 45 gigawatts of domestic solar manufacturing capacity. Again, my Republican colleagues voted to repeal all of those incentives just 2 days ago.

Ending the President's temporary initiative here would immediately institute high, retroactive tariffs in the hundreds of percent that would hurt solar development, increase energy costs, and lead to a supply reduction at exactly the moment when the climate crisis means that we need to ramp it up.

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

The clean energy tax credits are projected to reduce carbon emissions 40 percent by 2030, giving us a legitimate chance to meet the goals contained in the Paris climate agreement. We should resist these efforts to undermine this hard-won victory for America.

I would encourage my colleagues to take a hard look at the legislation and then reject it when it comes before us for a vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement from the carpenters union and operating engineers union, who oppose legislation that eliminates thousands of jobs; the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; and LIUNA.

IUOE Contact: Jeff Soth

UBC Contact: Jen McKernan

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.''

``The President'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\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleagues' newfound concern for the environment and for the industry.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record correspondence from the solar industry in the United States opposing their resolution and supporting our position.

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 would penalize 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; E2; Silicon Valley Leadership Group; Clean Energy

Buyers Association; Advanced Energy United; Coalition for

Community Solar Access.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), who played an instrumental role in crafting many of these energy provisions. I love the partnership with him.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement from the National Taxpayers Union opposing the proposal from our Republican friends to raise tariffs on solar goods.

[From National Taxpayers Union, Apr. 25, 2023]

NTU Urges All Representatives To Vote ``NO'' on House Joint Resolution

39, Congressional Review Act Legislation on Solar Tariffs

Just weeks after the House of Representatives passed The

Lower Energy Costs Act (H.R. 1), the House will consider a

proposal to increase energy costs by raising tariffs on solar

goods.

A proposed Congressional Review Act resolution, H.J. Res.

39, would nullify a two-year suspension of tariffs on certain

solar panels from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, or Vietnam

that use parts and components manufactured in China.

National Taxpayers Union (NTU) does not believe that

Congress should increase energy costs via the Congressional

Review Act.

The tariffs in question were initially imposed on

Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells from the People's

Republic of China in 2012. In 2022, in response to a request

from Auxin Solar Inc., the Commerce Department determined

that some of these duties were being circumvented through the

inclusion of Chinese parts on goods imported from other

countries.

NTU agrees with the House Ways and Means Committee that

trade policy should protect the interests of American workers

and our economy as a whole. However, the initial imposition

of solar tariffs resulted from a flawed and biased system.

The Commerce Department and U.S. International Trade

Commission (USITC) failed to utilize cost-benefit analysis to

consider the impact of tariffs on the U.S. economy. Solar

taxes were imposed without consideration of their impact on

U.S. jobs, on the energy industry, on manufacturing, or on

American households' energy bills.

A more fundamental question than whether foreign suppliers

are attempting to circumvent solar tariffs is whether

Congress should continue to allow the Commerce Department and

USITC to impose tariffs on solar goods, tin mill products,

fertilizer, and other goods without first considering the

impact of such tariffs on all Americans, not just the

industry seeking protection.

These tariffs would protect Auxin from import competition.

Ironically, according to the federal National Renewable

Energy Laboratory, as of 2019 most of the components and

materials used by Auxin are imported. Earlier this year Auxin

even asked the Office of the U.S. Trade Representatives to

exclude certain Chinese-produced solar goods from Section 301

tariffs, writing: ``Removing tariffs on junction boxes, solar

glass, EVAs, and solar module assembly equipment would free

up further resources to hasten the expansion of the U.S.

solar value chain, ultimately yielding a more secure domestic

solar supply chain.''

At a time when many taxpayers are struggling with high

energy prices--brought on, in part, by flawed government

policies--Congress should not use the Congressional Review

Act to increase taxes on American energy users. NTU urges you

to reject H.J. Res. 39.

Roll call votes on H.J. Res. 39 will be included in NTU's

annual Rating of Congress and a ``NO'' vote will be

considered the pro-taxpayer position.

If you have any questions, please contact Bryan Riley,

Director of NTU's Free Trade Initiative.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement from the 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, and Union of Concerned Scientists that urges the rejection of the proposal that our Republican friends are making.

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, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the concern I have is that what is being missed here is the reality that we are dependent on the supply chain in which China plays a key role. We don't like it. My Republican friends don't like it. Unfortunately, they have undermined efforts that we have to try to reposition the supply chain.

The energy proposals that we have offered up are an opportunity to grow and strengthen America's capacity. Just yesterday, they would repeal a number of those provisions. Their proposal would impose over a billion dollars of retroactive tariffs on our solar industry at a time when we are trying to grow it.

We want to give the industry time to reorient the supply chain. That takes time. It is already made clear on the floor right now that the current solar industry is at capacity. They need time to change the supply chains.

Sadly, my Republican friends would reduce incentives to strengthen the American supply chain. The reality is in the past we have allowed China to have a dominant position. We don't want that.

We have offered up a variety of proposals that would strengthen and incentivize American business, but this proposal, if enacted, would punish American workers, it would punish American business, and it would set us back on our climate goals. That does not serve anybody well.

Instead, the Biden administration has offered a reasonable compromise extending for 2 years the ability to continue the course here while we reorient the supply chain.

I have a whole host of proposals if my colleagues want to be tough on China. Mr. Beyer referenced the fact that, through the de minimis provisions, we are allowing over 2 million packages a day in the United States' stream of commerce often, no doubt, produced by forced labor, uninspected, and not paying tariffs.

This is a simple, commonsense provision that we have offered up that would help change that, and we have others if people want to deal meaningfully with the Chinese challenge. This doesn't. This doesn't change the reality of our current dependence on China for the supply chain, and, indeed, it will complicate our ability to make the transition.

I respectfully urge that we reject this resolution and allow the opportunity for our industry to get its footing and make the transition that we all want them to make.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to share my opinions, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Representative Dave Joyce and I introduced the Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking Act, or the SAFE Banking Act. This legislation would prevent federal interference in the relationship between a depository institution and a cannabis or cannabis-associated business. This legislation will also protect these businesses' employees are eligible for federal loans and other banking services like employees of any other legal business.

U.S. cannabis laws are broken, including those that prevent state- legal cannabis businesses from accessing banking services and force regulated businesses to operate fully in cash. To date, 38 states have enacted medical marijuana programs, including 21 states that have also decriminalized broader adult use. However, the conflict between state regulation and federal prohibition prevents many financial institutions, including community development financial institutions, minority depository institutions, and credit unions, from serving cannabis and cannabis-related businesses and their employees. Denying state-legal medical and adult-use cannabis businesses, particularly small and locally owned businesses, access to banking services is untenable. Without access to bank accounts, credit cards, and checks, state-legal cannabis and cannabis-related businesses are forced to operate in cash, leaving them vulnerable to a dangerous and deadly pattern of violent robberies.

The SAFE Banking Act will finally allow state regulated cannabis and related businesses to access banking services. This legislation will save lives and livelihoods.

The House has passed the SAFE Banking Act on a bipartisan basis seven times. I am delighted that the Senate is joining us in making it a priority. I look forward to working with our co-leads and our colleagues in the House and Senate to enact this legislation and end the harmful prohibition on banking services for state-legal cannabis businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and there are some shared goals here: Ending welfare for the wealthy and helping people realize the dignity of work. There are ways we can come together to do that, but let's not do it by making it harder for poor people to get food.

You want to end welfare for fairway farmers. There is no recognition that people who get these lavish subsidies are actually on the farm and working. There were almost 20,000 farmers who got payments averaging $1 million a year for 37 consecutive years. Let's cap and limit those lavish subsidies. Let's require people who get them to work on the farm. Let's have some limits, not poor people seeking food, but fairway farmers and those who are benefiting from these lavish expenditures. We can do better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the passing of a true Portland icon. A beloved member of the LGBTQ+ community, a pioneer for equality, and a dazzling performer, Walter Willard Cole Sr. embodied the spirit of Portland. Walter passed away on March 23rd in Portland, Oregon after a long and accomplished life. I am honored to have known Walter and deeply admire his many contributions to our city, both as a civic leader, small business owner, activist, philanthropist--and yes--as the drag performer Darcelle.

For decades, Darcelle was a fixture in Portland's live entertainment scene, captivating audiences as the world's oldest working drag queen. For over 50 years Darcelle entertained patrons acting as master of ceremonies to a cadre of drag performers and dancers, all the while bantering with audience members and performing memorable routines in extravagant, hand-made gowns.

In 1967, Walter purchased a bar in Portland's Old Town neighborhood, then skid row, that would later be known as the Darcelle XV Showplace. Well before the gay rights movement took hold, Darcelle XV experienced its share of protests, threats, and hardships. Yet Walter persisted, creating a welcoming and inclusive space for audiences to relax, laugh, and enjoy a show.

As LGBTQ+ acceptance grew throughout Portland and the country, the nightclub's impact cannot be understated. Darcelle had a way of putting people at ease and created an environment where patrons, both gay and straight, felt comfortable and welcomed. At Darcelle XV, drag queens had a stage to perfect their act before taking their performance on the road, showcasing their talents for the broader public. The nightclub and Walter's stewardship were influential in advancing mainstream acceptance of drag performance and contributed significantly to the broader societal acceptance of gay rights. Today, Darcelle XV is considered a Portland institution and a pioneering establishment in the fight for LGBTQ+ equality.

Outside the club, Walter was a fierce advocate for Portland's LGBTQ+ community. He understood and embraced his position as a community leader who worked to create positive and lasting change. Walter used his performances to raise awareness and funds for the causes he cared deeply about. During the AIDS crisis of the 1980s and 90s, Walter stood up for his community. He helped raise money for medical research, people living with AIDS, and their families.

In 2020, I was honored to support the effort to preserve Walter's legacy by including Darcelle XV in the National Register of Historic Places. This was the first institution recognized in Oregon that honored our LGBTQ+ community and its history. I'm glad we were able to honor Walter's work in this way and protect his legacy for generations to come.

Walter will be dearly missed by his friends and family, the LGBTQ+ community, and all of Portland.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduced the Small Business Tax Equity Act. This legislation would create an exception to Internal Revenue Code Section 280E that allows businesses operating in compliance with state laws to take business-related deductions associated with the sale of marijuana just like any other legal business.

U.S. cannabis laws are broken and woefully outdated. Section 280E of the federal tax code prohibits anyone engaged in the purchase or sale of Schedule I or Schedule II substances from deducting their business expenses from their taxes. To date, 38 states have legalized medical or adult use marijuana in some form. However, marijuana is currently a Schedule I substance under federal law and therefore businesses operating in compliance with state law are not allowed to deduct the ordinary expenses of running a small business, like rent, utilities, and payroll. They cannot claim the Work Opportunity Tax Credit if they hire a veteran; they cannot depreciate their American-made irrigation equipment; and they cannot take any credit or deduction relating to construction or operation costs if they want to revitalize a building for their operations.

Prohibiting marijuana businesses from deducting their business expenses means that marijuana businesses often pay federal income tax rates that are orders of magnitude higher than non-marijuana businesses. Disallowing business expense deductions creates a disproportionate burden that can put small dispensaries out of business and prevents many small businesspeople from entering the industry in the first place.

The Small Business Tax Equity Act will finally allow state regulated marijuana businesses to deduct their business expenses on their federal taxes, restoring equity with other legal businesses and helping make the legal cannabis competitive.

I look forward to working with the original cosponsors, Representatives Joyce, Lee, and Mace and my colleagues in the House and Senate to enact this legislation and end the harmful prohibition on tax deductions for state-legal cannabis businesses.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduced the Restaurant Revitalization Tax Credit Act. This legislation creates a tax credit to offset restaurants' payroll tax liabilities and help the industry stay afloat as it rebounds from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The restaurant industry was uniquely devastated by the pandemic, at one point accounting for a quarter of all job losses. The pandemic cost restaurants and bars more than $280 billion in sales and left devastating impacts on the entire food supply chain. 90,000 restaurants have permanently closed and hundreds of thousands more have significantly scaled down their operations.

Created in the American Rescue Plan Act, the Restaurant Revitalization Fund provided $28.6 billion for restaurants, bars, food trucks, caterers, tasting rooms, and taprooms to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. Within days of opening the Fund, the Small Business Administration received requests for more funding than was available and was forced to close the application portal on May 24, 2021, leaving 177,000 applicants without any aid.

My Restaurant Revitalization Tax Credit Act provides restaurants who applied for, but did

not receive, aid with long overdue support. Despite months of steady job growth and families dining out again, restaurants and bars are still under a mountain of debt from years of anemic business in wave after wave of the pandemic. I appreciate the support of my colleague Dean Phillips (MN) on this legislation and I look forward to working with him to provide the support our independent restaurants so desperately need.

Mr. Speaker, today Representative Mast and I introduced the Veterans Equal Access Act. This legislation would provide equal access to state-legal medical marijuana for veterans participating in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care. It ends the harmful VA prohibition on doctors and health care providers giving opinions or recommendations on, or completing forms for, state- legal medical marijuana programs.

U.S. cannabis laws are broken, including our laws that govern veterans' access to medical cannabis. Many veterans report using cannabis for medical purposes as a substitute for prescription drugs. The VA National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) has acknowledged that veterans use cannabis to relieve symptoms of PTSD, and that in many states PTSD is a qualifying condition for enrollment in medical cannabis programs.

Most states with state-legal medical cannabis programs require some sort of recommendation or approval from a medical provider for patients to enroll in the program. However, VA policy prevents VA physicians and care providers from any participation, including helping with the required paperwork or forms.

This forces veterans to seek care outside of the VA system to receive medical cannabis recommendations, which can interrupt continuity of care, lead to mistakes or gaps in care, and require veterans to pay out of pocket for additional physician visits. VA physicians should not be denied the ability to offer a recommendation that they think may meet the needs of their patients. And veterans should not be forced outside the VA system to seek treatment that is legal in their state.

The Veterans Equal Access Act would allow VA doctors and healthcare providers to give their opinions or recommendations on medical cannabis and to complete forms in compliance with state-legal medical marijuana programs.

I look forward to working with my co-leads, Representative Brian Mast and Senators Jacky Rosen, and my colleagues in the House and Senate to enact this legislation and provide equal access to state-legal medical cannabis for our veterans participating in VA health care.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduced the Right to Try Clarification Act. This legislation would expand access to life- changing treatments by including in the federal Right to Try Act Schedule I substances that have completed phase 1 clinical studies.

Oregon has a long legacy of ensuring that end-of-life patients have access to the full spectrum of treatment options to alleviate their condition and improve their quality of life. Patients and doctors deserve to discuss treatments--including psilocybin--that researchers find provide immediate and sustained relief from pain, anxiety, and depression for people battling terminal illness.

Federal restrictions have obstructed access to end-of-life care for too long, this legislation will change that and ensure that all patients have the Right to Try.

The psychedelics laws in this country are broken, including our laws governing patients' access to new and promising end-of-life care. Forty-one state legislatures have passed Right to Try laws to allow terminally ill patients access to treatments, including psilocybin, that are still in investigational stages. Both psilocybin and MDMA have demonstrated tremendous care potential in phase 1 and phase 2 clinical trials.

The Drug Enforcement Agency, however, has refused to accommodate Right to Try laws and denied terminally ill patients their freedom to elect their preferred treatments. These patients deserve to be able to discuss and pursue treatments with their doctors that researchers are finding provide immediate, substantial, and sustained relief from anxiety and depression for people battling terminal illness. That is why the Right to Try Clarification Act is necessary to ensure patients have the Right to Try these treatment options.

I look forward to working my co-leads Representatives Nancy Mace, Madeline Dean, Andy Biggs, and Luis Correa to enact this legislation and clarify and strengthen the Right to Try.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduced the Food and Farm Act. This legislation is a holistic vision for a better Farm Bill that focuses resources on those who need them most, fosters innovation, encourages investment in people and the planet, and ensures access to healthy foods.

The Food and Farm Act reforms the federal farm safety net so that it stops giving too much to the wrong people to grow the wrong things in the wrong places. Federally backed crop and commodity insurance wastes taxpayer dollars by giving big agribusiness massive subsidies while small farmers and ranchers are left to struggle.

These subsidies are highly targeted to six commodity crops that receive 94 percent of all subsidies, disadvantaging diversified farms and nurseries that grow the food we actually eat. In my home state of Oregon, known for its agricultural bounty, nearly 9 in 10 farmers receive no subsidies from the federal government.

Agriculture accounts for more than 10 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, yet the Farm Bill has historically been a failed opportunity to promote climate resilience. Federal dollars should come with conservation requirements that lead to better water quality, reduced soil erosion, more vegetation buffers, cover cropping practices, and supporting pollinator habitats.

Making these upstream to changes to what we grow would result in countless downstream nutrition and health benefits. Food assistance programs should expand access to healthy foods, whether it's in a grocery school, farmers market or school lunch.

The last few years underscored the need for strong local food systems that are insulated from international markets and supply chain shocks. We should be growing the food we need to nourish our population here at home, and supporting the next generation of farmers and ranchers who want to do just that.

I look forward to crafting a better food and farm policy this year that supports small and mid-size farmers and ranchers, protects our environment, and promotes access to healthy food.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote today for the Green Amendment No. 10, I would have voted ``aye.''

Had I been present for the Jacobs Amendment No. 13, I would have voted ``aye.''

Had I been present for the Massie Amendment No. 15, I would have voted ``no.''

Had I been present for the McCormick Amendment No. 17, I would have voted ``no.''

Had I been present for the Roy Amendment No. 19, I would have voted ``no.''

Had I been present for the Roy Amendment No. 20, I would have voted ``no.''

Had I been present for the Democratic Motion to Recommit on H.R. 5, I would have voted ``aye.''

Had I been present for the vote on H.R. 5, I would have voted ``no.'' This legislation is misleadingly titled as ``Parents Bill of Rights'' while ignoring the partnerships that already exist between parents and educators. Further, it dismisses educators' experience and dedication to their students at a time where our country is facing shortages. It will exacerbate censorship at a time when the American Library Association already reported a 38 percent increase in book banning. Lastly, but most importantly, this legislation creates a more harmful environment for students. Every student in every community deserves access to high-quality public education and to feel safe at school regardless of race, gender identity, religion, or sexuality.

Additionally, had I been present for the vote on H. Con. Res. 25, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote today on Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 241, I would have voted ``no.''

Had I been present for the vote on Agreeing to H. Res. 241, I would have voted ``no.''

Had I been present for the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 406, I would have voted ``aye.''

Had I been present for the Passage of H. Joint Res. 30, I would have voted ``no.'' This legislation would block the Department of Labor's recent rule, entitled ``Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights,'' which clarifies that fiduciary planners may consider environmental, social and governance (ESG) risk when making investment decisions. I commend the Department of Labor's ESG rule, which will assure beneficiaries that their retirement savings will not be subjected to the pendulum swings of changing policy. Fiduciary planners must not have their hands tied when it comes to considering ESG factors that pose legitimate economic risks to Americans' benefit plans.

Had I been present for the Bonamici Amendment No. 5, I would have voted ``aye.''

Had I been present for the Crane Amendment No. 6, I would have voted ``no.''

Had I been present for the Davidson Amendment No. 7, I would have voted ``no.''

Additionally, had I been present for Fitzpatrick Amendment No. 8, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for rollcall No. 144, the vote today on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1093, I would have voted ``yea.''

Additionally, had I been present for rollcall No. 145, the vote on H.R. 1159, a bill to amend the Taiwan Assurance Act of 2020 to require periodic reviews and updated reports relating to the Department of State's Taiwan Guidelines, I would have voted ``yea.''