Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

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

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

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

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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. BLUMENAUER. 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. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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.''

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, more than 40,000 people were killed last year on America's roads. This tragic toll is unacceptable, even more so because every single one of these deaths is preventable. Today, I am introducing legislation named for Sarah Debbink Langenkamp, who was killed while bicycling here in the Nation's capital. Sarah was a U.S. diplomat whose family had just been evacuated from Kyiv. She was bicycling home from her children's new school in Bethesda on August 25, 2022, when she was struck and crushed by a flatbed truck. She was riding in an unprotected bike lane on the shoulder of a five- lane urban highway, a route she was forced to take because it was the only connection between the low-traffic neighborhood street of the elementary school and the multi-use path to her home. While drivers are responsible for operating safely around cyclists and pedestrians, fixing gaps in infrastructure presents opportunities to build safe systems that could have protected Sarah. Disconnected and incomplete networks are unfortunately common features of bicyclist and pedestrian infrastructure in the United States. These gaps in infrastructure present serious dangers. Deaths and injuries of pedestrians and bicyclists have grown dramatically in recent years, rising to the highest levels in decades, and now make up 20 percent of traffic deaths. This legislation encourages the construction of complete active transportation networks, separated from vehicle roadways, which will contribute to safer trips and fewer deaths on our roads. I look forward to working my colleagues in the House and Senate to pass this legislation in memory of Sarah and every other person killed on our Nation's roads.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced the End Oil and Gas Tax Subsidies Act of 2023. This legislation eliminates nearly a dozen of the most egregious tax breaks enjoyed by the oil and gas industry. President Biden proposed a similar initiative in his Fiscal Year 2024 budget. The climate is changing. This fact is indisputable, as is the fact that humans are the primary cause of the changing climate. The United States emitted nearly 6 billion tons of greenhouse gases in 2020 and the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions comes from the combustion of fossil fuels. Despite consistent profitability, fossil fuel companies receive billions of dollars in federal tax breaks and subsidies, which underwrite the costs of continued oil and gas production. These forgone revenues undermine the United States' ability to combat the climate crisis and invest in critical initiatives like education, housing, infrastructure, and healthcare. Recent analysis released by the Stockholm Environment Institute found that just two oil and gas tax subsidies--the expensing of intangible drilling costs and the percentage depletion allowance--increased the value of new oil and gas projects by more than $20 billion in some years. These two subsidies alone helped spur and sustain the shale development boom in the United States. Follow-up analysis examining the impacts of continuing these subsidies found that the subsidies increase average rate of return by 55 percent to 68 percent and more than 96 percent of the subsidy value goes to excess profits. Oil and gas tax subsidies are unnecessary and a wasteful use of hard- earned taxpayer dollars. I look forward to working with my colleagues to rid them from the tax code once and for all.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Oregon has led the nation in defending the right to vote, which is the very cornerstone of our democracy. Vote at home laws have been extremely successful at increasing voter turnout all while upholding strong security standards. That is why today I introduced the Vote at Home Act. This legislation will bring Oregon's model nationwide and strengthen the fundamental right to vote that is so central to our democratic process. Nearly 50 percent of voters used a vote-at-home ballot in the November 2020 election, an all-time high in federal races. It is time to build on the innovative electoral reforms expanding access to the right to vote. The Vote at Home Act updates the Vote by Mail Act, which I first introduced with Senator Wyden in 2017, to promote the ability of voters to vote by mail, expand options for casting ballots, fund the U.S. Postal Service by covering the costs associated with mailing ballots both to and from voters in federal elections, and enact automatic voter registration. Under this legislation, all registered voters would receive ballots in the mail weeks before Election Day, allowing them to carefully research candidates and issues ahead of Election Day to inform their vote. States would be required to ensure that each citizen who provides identifying information to the state motor vehicle authority is automatically registered to vote. Voters are given 21 days to opt out if they do not wish to be registered to vote. This crucial legislation is a nation-wide effort and is endorsed by voting rights groups including Common Cause, Fair Fight Action, Demand Progress, End Citizens United, Sojourners, Stand Up America, and People for the American Way. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to enact this legislation and finally establish access to voting at home nationwide.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to remember my friend and former colleague, Cindy Gaulke. During my time as a Portland city commissioner, Cindy was our office's scheduler and a dedicated public servant in the truest sense of the term. Cindy was an integral team player, focused, and determined. She was the heart and soul of our City Hall office. She was dedicated to doing her job well, sorting things out, and was there when you needed her. And she had a great sense of humor. When I won a special election to serve in Congress, I turned to Cindy to ask if she would come out to Washington, D.C. to help set up our Congressional office. I was thankful to have a friend and terrific partner as the team figured out how Capitol Hill worked. I will forever be grateful Cindy was willing to share some of her competence with me and my team. Cindy was a bright spot of confidence, good cheer and dedication that made our lives function in our Nation's Capital. I am honored to have known her and to have worked with her.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced the No Tax Subsidies for Stadiums Act. This commonsense legislation will close the tax loophole that allows a tax-exemption on municipal bonds used to finance professional sports stadiums. For more than a century, the federal government has supported state and local infrastructure projects by excluding the interest on municipal bonds from federal income taxes. Qualified projects eligible for a tax-exemption include roads, sewers and water systems, hospitals, schools, govenunental buildings, and other projects for the public good. However, a loophole in the tax code allows professional sports franchises to use public money to construct stadiums using taxexempt municipal bonds. Since 2000, dozens of professional sports stadiums have been constructed or rehabilitated under financing provided by federal tax- exempt municipal bonds, costing taxpayers nearly $4 billion. While professional sports teams promise state and local governments that their stadiums will produce local economic development and job creation, there is no quantifiable evidence that they provide these benefits. Providing a federal subsidy for a professional sports stadium requires residents of a state without a professional team to subsidize a stadium in another part of the country, where they receive no benefit whatsoever. Public financing creates a race to the bottom where teams worth hundreds of millions, or billions, of dollars have all the leverage to exploit city budgets for their own gain. By disallowing a federal tax-exemption, hundreds of millions of dollars a year will be returned to American taxpayers or can be put toward making our communities more safe, healthy, and economically secure. I thank my friends Senators Lankford and Booker in their support for this legislation in the Senate and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this critical legislation.