Alan Lowenthal

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am a little surprised that someone from Kentucky is sponsoring this amendment, because if this amendment were to become law, who would be the biggest loser? It would be the Commonwealth of Kentucky. When the Army started developing natural gas under Fort Knox, it did so without notifying the Department of the Interior, which is the agency that is responsible for these resources. Now the Defense Department has admitted that it was a mistake and says that it has taken steps to prevent this from ever happening again. But we still know that they are producing gas, and I am glad that they have taken steps to prevent this in the future. To my knowledge, that is not the critical issue. The critical issue is that we have a real problem here. That is, the natural gas that is under Fort Knox belongs to the American people, not the military, and royalties are owed to the American people when that gas is sold. As we know, half of those royalties would go to Kentucky. For example, in 2014, the Army estimated that it effectively cheated Kentucky out of $250,000, and now there are 4 more years of cheating Kentucky and the American people out of their royalties. That number is probably much larger now than the $250,000 a year. We have no indication that the Army has paid any of these royalties, and until we deal with that issue that they are not paying royalties for the gas that the American people and the people of Kentucky own, we should not be letting them off the hook. I would ask the sponsor of the amendment to look closely at this issue and what his home State stands to lose because of it and then to reconsider again whether or not he wants this amendment to be adopted. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simply an attempt to waive portions of our environmental laws for all--and I use the word ``all''--new mines by pretending that these mines are essential for national security. Under this amendment, even sand and gravel--yes, sand and gravel-- would become a critical and strategic mineral. The proponents of this amendment have argued in the past that sand and gravel are extremely important when you need to build roads. I will agree with that; it is. But this is a deliberate distortion of the meaning of what is a critical mineral. When it comes to minerals, just because something is important does not mean that it is critical. When someone is in critical condition in the hospital, that doesn't simply mean that their condition is important. It has a specific meaning. The same is true for critical minerals. All reputable definitions of critical minerals make it clear that there must be a risk of losing access to the mineral for it truly to be called critical. Even the definition from an executive order signed by President Trump just 5 months ago says that a critical mineral has to have a supply chain that is vulnerable to disruption. In the final list of critical minerals identified by the Secretary of the Interior published just last week, the department states that it recognizes the economic significance and indispensable nature of minerals such as sand and gravel. But it also states: `` . . . these minerals do not currently meet the definition of critical'' because we are not reliant on imports and we have access here in the United States to adequate domestic sources. Simply put, we are not at risk of losing access to our supplies of sand and gravel, and no foreign government is threatening to close down our quarries. We should not be waiving environmental laws for every single mineral simply because it is important for something. Supporters of the amendment say a broad definition is needed because what is and isn't critical changes all the time, so we shouldn't tie our hands. But I point out, it only took 4 months for the Interior Department of this administration to publish their final list of critical minerals, and that is starting from scratch. Clearly the existing process is already very quick and very flexible. There is no need to define everything as critical and weaken environmental protections for all mines just so a mining company doesn't have to wait 4 months. Also, if this amendment looks familiar to many of my colleagues, that is because it is language that has come out of the Natural Resources Committee on a party line vote in each of the past four Congresses. In the past three Congresses it passed the House, again on a party line vote, only to go nowhere in the Senate. The reason why it goes nowhere in the Senate is because that body understands what the definition of a critical and strategic mineral is. This amendment would have similar luck in the Senate, and it has no business being added to a defense authorization bill. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, endangered salmon are not the only species that H.R. 3144 puts at risk. By removing critical protections for salmon runs, this bill would also push one of our most treasured whale species closer to extinction. As pointed out by Congresswoman Tsongas, the Southern Resident killer whales are critically endangered. In fact, there are only 76 of them that are left. These whales depend upon healthy and abundant salmon populations for survival. More than 50 percent of their diet comes from Chinook salmon in the Columbia River basin. Without access to these wild salmon populations, Southern Resident killer whales are literally starving to death. In order to save both of these iconic species, we cannot undermine important habitat restoration efforts or improvements in dam operations, both of which are essential to promoting survival in the river systems where these salmon spawn. Unfortunately, H.R. 3144 would do just the opposite. In addition, the Southern Resident killer whales provide immense economic benefits to the Pacific Northwest. Whale watching is a major tourist attraction in Washington and has contributed an additional $65 million to the State's economy each year. Losing these killer whales would not only have an irreversible effect on the marine ecosystem, it would be a huge blow to the tourism industry and to the local businesses that rely on their survival. H.R. 3144 may be known as the Salmon Extinction Act, but, frankly, we should tack on Southern Resident killer whales to that name. Without access to waters beyond the Snake River dams, salmon populations will continue to plummet, and without salmon, the Southern Resident killer whales will die. The fate of both these species rests in our hands. I urge my colleagues to stand with me and stand with the whales and vote against H.R. 3144.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in supporting this bipartisan legislation and urge its adoption by the House. H.R. 4465 extends the authorization through 2023 of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program. These two multiagency partnerships bring together local, State, and Federal agencies; water users; utilities; and environmental organizations to help restore four endangered fish species, while also maintaining water delivery, hydropower generation, and protecting economic development along the Colorado and San Juan Rivers. This legislation will allow for the continued funding of projects that improve habitat, support crucial research and monitoring, and remove non-native species, which will both benefit endangered fish species and protect the many other uses of the rivers. Healthy rivers are vital to a region's overall environmental and economic well-being. When our rivers are healthy, our communities are healthy. We all share a responsibility to sustain and preserve the integrity of these resources for future generations. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the bipartisan cosponsors of this legislation for this leadership. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation and its adoption by the House. H.R. 1800 authorizes the transfer of 80 acres of Forest Service land to the Utah State University Research Foundation. The land will support ongoing research efforts that support national defense and space programs. The idea that there should be national public lands that belong to and are managed on behalf of the American people is a value that dates back to the founding of our country and is embedded in our Constitution. Generation after generation of Americans have endorsed the idea that our public lands should be managed for the benefit of all Americans to support a wide range of activities. As stewards of this land, we must work to find a balance between compelling yet sometimes competing interests and make sure that the Federal Government is a good neighbor to local communities. Whenever we decide that it is appropriate to sell or convey these shared resources, we must make sure there is adequate compensation to Federal taxpayers or safeguards in place to guarantee that the land is used for public purposes. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Bishop for working across the aisle to ensure that we met these goals in this legislation. I support H.R. 1800 and its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. As we have heard from my colleague, Dean Stone was a fierce champion of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Mr. Stone spent much of his life promoting the long-term preservation of the park and encouraging others to visit this place that he loved so dearly. Today, the Great Smoky Mountains are one of our Nation's most visited national parks. In fact, the park set a new record of 11.4 million visitors in 2017 and became a destination for tourists from around the world who wanted to witness last summer's total solar eclipse. I am sure that many of these visitors directly benefited from the decades of work by Dean Stone on behalf of the park and the entire Smoky Mountains region. Mr. Stone passed away in 2016 at the age of 92. It is a fitting tribute to rename a bridge section of the Foothills Parkway in his honor. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), who is one of the sponsors of H.R. 4266.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank both Mr. Poliquin and Ms. Pingree for introducing this legislation to protect a true New England treasure, Acadia National Park. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yea'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan), the bill's sponsor. I thank him for his excellent work on this issue.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1350 is a commonsense, good governance measure, and I want to congratulate Mr. Nolan for his hard work in getting this bill through the legislative process. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, after twenty years of dedicated service to the American people as a staff member with the United States House of Representatives, Ms. Donna Jimenez will officially retire on February 28, 2018. Ms. Jimenez served with honor and distinction as the longtime District Office Manager for Congressman David Dreier from 1997 to 2012, and as a Senior Constituent Services Representative for my office and the residents of California's 47th District from 2013 until her retirement. During her time in the Legislative Branch, Ms. Jimenez served thousands of constituents of both Congressional districts, helping solve challenging cases with numerous federal departments and agencies. She demonstrated leadership and dedication in helping people navigate the federal bureaucracy, and derived great joy and satisfaction in serving those in most need of advocacy and assistance, among them including our nation's veterans, seniors, the disabled, and those immigrants seeking a brighter future in America. In addition to her dedicated service to the American people, Ms. Jimenez further distinguished herself by earning her Master of Public Administration degree with an emphasis in Immigration, from the University of LaVerne in 2002. It is with great pride and gratitude that I extend my best wishes to Ms. Donna Jimenez upon her retirement from the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, the tax bill passed by the House GOP today embodies everything that Americans dislike about Congress: It was drafted behind closed doors where the drafters cast aside expert analysis and relied instead on special interests and faulty disproven assumptions. The plan slashes tax rates for multinational corporations and the superwealthy, but leaves hardworking Americans in the 47th Congressional District to pay the bill. It penalizes taxpayers in California and other blue States for investing in our schools, in our roads, and in our public services. It cruelly hits children, seniors, and low-income Americans by putting at risk Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, and Social Security. Mr. Speaker, I could not, and proudly did not, vote for this disastrous piece of legislation.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I want to quote from one of my colleagues from California: ``Eliminating the State and local tax deduction would assure that almost all of the bill's tax cuts would be distributed to other States, leaving California with the bill.'' That was from my Republican colleague, Darrell Issa. Mr. Speaker, he was right on this. The Republican tax plan is cruel in so many ways. But perhaps the worst provision specifically targets States like California, New York, and New Jersey. Our States have stepped into the breach left by the Federal Government. We have raised taxes to pay for infrastructure. We have raised taxes to pay for hospitals. We have raised taxes to pay for schools. Now the Republicans want to punish us? Mr. Speaker, this is a political game, plain and simple. Californians are smart enough to see through it.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is quite simply a giveaway of mining rights on roughly 5,000 acres of public lands right next to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in northern Minnesota to a Chilean mining conglomerate so that it can develop a copper mine that will, in all likelihood, leach toxic acid waste into the Boundary Waters for decades, if not centuries, to come. In order to do this, this bill overrides multiple laws that are in place to allow priceless natural places to be protected and it vetoes the scientific conclusions of the U.S. Forest Service. Last year, the Forest Service recommended that two undeveloped 50- year-old mining leases in Minnesota's Superior National Forest be allowed to expire, stating that the development of a copper mine on these leases could lead to potentially extreme contamination of the Boundary Waters wilderness from acid mine drainage and leached materials. The Boundary Waters isn't just a pristine and unique wilderness, it is also an economic engine for northern Minnesota. Over 1,000 pristine lakes, 1,200 miles of streams, and 2,000 campsites attract more than 150,000 visitors each year to canoe, kayak, fish, bird watch, ski, and simply explore and enjoy the natural beauty and peacefulness that is unlike anywhere else in the United States. These visitors bring in tens of millions of dollars annually, supporting thousands of local jobs. The ecological and economic value of the Boundary Waters led the Forest Service to conclude: `` . . . development of a regionally untested copper-nickel sulfide-ore mine within the same watershed as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness might cause serious and irreplaceable harm to this unique, iconic, and irreplaceable wilderness area.'' As a result, the leases were not renewed, and the Forest Service began a study to look at whether to protect the area adjacent to the Boundary Waters from mining for the next 20 years. This 2-year study is open. It is a public process designed to gather scientific information and local views on the potential impacts of copper mining, which is immediately adjacent to the Boundary Waters, and it is supported by an overwhelming majority--79 percent--of the voters in Minnesota. Even this administration here in Washington has said that it intends to allow the study to run its course before making any decisions, but this legislation would make that study meaningless. It would reinstate the leases and make it almost impossible for them to expire. It would block the Forest Service from acting on its study no matter what it found and how the people in the region feel, and it would make it impossible for the President of the United States to protect this area using the Antiquities Act, all so a Chilean mining company can move forward with a dangerous mine next to one of our most pristine and special natural places. Mr. Chairman, our public lands belong to all Americans, not simply to wealthy mining companies with the connections and the cash to try to overturn decisions they don't like through legislation. The company that we are talking about is challenging this decision to not renew their leases in court. That is the appropriate venue for that debate, not here in the Halls of Congress. We shouldn't rewrite the law to make sure that they get their way. Even if the company wins the case, we should not be tying the Federal Government's hands to make sure that this mine gets developed, no matter what, instead of listening to the science. That is the wrong thing to do for any project like this, let alone one that sits right next to a unique and delicate wilderness like the Boundary Waters. This bill is a blatant attempt to reward an individual foreign company at the expense of the American people and the American landscape, and I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

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

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).