Alan Lowenthal

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, this Earth Day, we celebrate the historic steps that most of the world's countries, from tiny island nations to the biggest polluters, are taking to reduce pollution and to improve the state of our climate. On Earth Day, more than 160 countries, including the United States, are signing the landmark Paris climate agreement, taking the next step toward creating a healthier and a safer environment for our communities and protecting our families and our children's health. I am proud that the United States is leading this effort. I urge my colleagues to throw out those tired and false talking points about international inaction. Instead, capitalize on this global effort by supporting a swift transition away from dirty fuels toward a future of low-cost, locally made clean energy. This is our time to lead. Happy Earth Day 2016.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, Tom Hennessy was a beloved columnist at the Long Beach Press-Telegram for nearly 30 years. Tom passed away recently with his Duchess Debbie by his side. For his readers, Tom was Mr. Long Beach. He was a humorist, he was an advocate, he was our favorite uncle, and our closest neighbor. He was a friend who lived in the same world, but somehow saw it so much more clearly and never shied away from using his Irish wit to say so. Every morning for three decades Tom was the champion of what was right, good, and decent in Long Beach. I was fortunate to have read him, I was lucky to have known him, and now I will join his readers, his family, and his friends in missing him.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, this week the Cambodian American community of Long Beach will observe Remembrance Day, commemorating 41 years since the end of the Cambodian genocide. This horrific event, in which the Khmer Rouge killed approximately 1.7 million Cambodians from all walks of life, devastated Cambodia for years, depriving the country of a generation of its best and its brightest, and leaving a lifetime of trauma for Cambodians living in the United States and around the world. I have introduced H. Res. 436, along with over a dozen of my colleagues, to ensure that we never forget the unspeakable horrors of the genocide and honor the memory of its many victims. Today I ask my colleagues and people across this country to join us in coming together to remember the Cambodian genocide to commemorate the almost 2 million people who were killed.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. It would simply allow the price of the Federal duck stamp to be changed by the rate of inflation. Inflation is something that each and every one of us cannot avoid. Just as inflation decreases the value of a dollar for all Americans over time, it also steadily decreases the real value of a duck stamp. That is very unfortunate, because the duck stamp is a highly effective conservation program. The revenue from the Federal duck stamp that all hunters must buy each year as a permit to hunt waterfowl is used to preserve wetlands and maintain a sustainable population for hunters and bird watchers alike. Moreover, the preservation of wetland habitat from the duck stamp, in conjunction with the National Wildlife Refuge System, has reversed the decline in waterfowl populations across this country. Also, not insignificant, co-benefits are that these wetlands buffer our communities from flooding, saving billions of dollars in damages, and they help filter water and recharge, Mr. Chair, aquifers that are vital to our groundwater supplies. The duck stamp works. Ninety-eight cents of every dollar spent on a duck stamp goes back to preserving wildlife habitat. To date, more than $800 million from duck stamp sales have been spent on the preservation of over 6 million acres of habitat. The duck stamp is a true user fee, where all the funds are spent to benefit the fee payer. I hope this is an amendment that the chairman can support as a commonsense update to address the reality of inflation that inevitably will erode the ability of the duck stamps and the National Wildlife Refuge System to continue this highly successful conservation program. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, it is unfortunate that we can't come together today to support such a simple fix to, as Mr. Wittman pointed out, such a highly successful program. I think the operative word that you have said is that it is premature at this point, not that you really oppose the ability to protect our waterfowl populations to keep them vibrant and make sure that duck hunters have ducks to hunt. I think we all agree upon that. I also just want to say that the one issue is just to make clear that we are not talking about automatically increasing inflation. All we are saying is that when inflation does come--which will erode this program--that there is a process in place that the Secretary of the Interior will make a recommendation to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. That Commission has to support it. At most, it would have been a 35-cent increase. But I hear what you are saying about that, and if you will work with me as we go forward to see when is the best time that we can work on this, I will ask to withdraw this amendment. Can I get a commitment that we will work together?

Mr. LOWENTHAL. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of EPA's Clean Power Plan. I am concerned that the Supreme Court ruling on the Clean Power Plan will significantly and unnecessarily delay the full implementation of this important action. The longer we wait, the more expensive it will be to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and the less chance that we have to keep this world's warming below a safe threshold. This week's Supreme Court decision only highlights Congress' inaction on the issue of climate change as well as the immediate and pressing need for action. A damaged climate has a negative impact upon our Nation and on my southern California community. Changing weather patterns, more frequent droughts, worsening air quality, and sea level rise all cost us money and threaten the well-being of our families and our neighbors. We all want the world to be safe, to be a healthy place to raise our families and to grow our economy. Now America has the opportunity to lead the world in making our environment safe and healthy, both now and into the future. We can do this by increasing our use of local, renewable energy sources, investing in research and development to bring about the next generation of clean and efficient energy systems, and assisting communities both here and abroad in adapting to the inevitable changes that are caused by the damages that have already been done to the climate. Reducing emissions from our power sector is a foundational action in this endeavor. This is an achievable endeavor. America's innovation has given us spaceflight, the Internet, cures to disease once thought to be incurable. Our innovation and our leadership is paving the way for a cleaner, safer world, and many States have already determined how they can meet their goals and reduce carbon pollution. Cities and electric utilities in my district have taken the extraordinary steps in increasing efficiency and sustainable practices to reduce their carbon footprint. My State of California is on track to exceed its carbon pollution reduction goals under the Clean Power Plan. California implemented the first statewide carbon trading system and has set ambitious targets for increasing renewable energy, increased efficiency, and decreased petroleum usage. America's leadership like this will save us money and create jobs, but if we delay, the costs will be higher to us and especially to our children and grandchildren. We are not doing this alone. Because greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide spread around the world, no country is immune to the damaged climate. No country can fix this problem alone. Representatives of over 200 nations recently gathered in Paris and agreed on an international agreement to lower greenhouse gas emissions and develop strategies to adapt to changing climate. This contribution from the world's biggest polluters, including China and India, represents 90 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. These international contributions demonstrate how seriously the world is taking its moral responsibility to care for our common home, our families, and our neighbors. This roadmap for the world reduces climate-damaging greenhouse gas emissions, increases investments in clean energy development and deployment, and assists the most vulnerable communities in adapting to climate change. But the United States has to do its part. This pause on the Clean Power Plan slows down the progress we have been making and puts U.S. leadership on climate in question. I am deeply troubled by the Supreme Court's decision, but I am optimistic that the Clean Power Plan will ultimately be upheld. By acting to reduce carbon pollution, we will create more opportunity today and a better future tomorrow for all of us.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the STREAM Act, or H.R. 1644, which is simply the latest attempt by the majority to prevent the implementation of new, commonsense rules to protect people and the environment from the destructive impacts of mountaintop removal coal mining. Mountaintop removal mining is a serious environmental and health threat. It occurs throughout Appalachia. Countries literally blast the tops off of mountains, scoop out the coal, and dump what used to be the mountaintop into the valleys below. In the process, landscapes are scarred, wildlife habitat is destroyed, mountain streams are buried, fish are killed, and the people living in the valleys suffer. The impact on the landscapes, as you can see from this picture here, is obvious. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at this photo of a mountaintop removal mine and understand the catastrophic impact to the environment. The impacts, however, to people are not as obvious to the naked eye, but they are just as severe. Several years ago there was an article titled ``Mountaintop Mining Consequences,'' in the journal Science. As we all know, Science is one of the most preeminent scientific journals in the world. In that paper, a dozen scientists from 10 institutions reported that mountaintop mining with valley filling ``revealed serious environmental impacts that mitigation practices cannot successfully address.'' They went on to write that ``water emerges from the base of valley fills containing a variety of solutes toxic or damaging to biota,'' and that ``recovery of biodiversity in mining waste-impacted streams has not been documented.'' Again, that is a direct quote. But let's also talk about the impacts upon people. They write, ``Adult hospitalizations for chronic pulmonary disorders and hypertension are elevated as a function of county-level coal production, as are rates of mortality; lung cancer; and chronic heart, lung, and kidney disease.'' These are serious issues. They deserve a serious response. The current administration proposed such a response in July of last year with a new rule to govern mountaintop removal mining. Sadly, the majority is falling back on the same political playbook they have used time and time again: attack, obstruct, and delay. What do I mean by that? As it was pointed out, the development of the stream buffer zone, which is what we are talking about, took place under the Reagan administration in 1983, in which the President and the administration proposed a buffer around streams to protect the valleys around it. It was just the beginning. It gave the Office of Surface Mining oversight over the management, knowing that there are really some problems in there still to be worked out later in terms of how you regulate when this is done primarily by the States. This new buffer requirement that you have got to give these streams 100 feet on each side went on after 1983. On December 18, 2008, at the very last moment--at midnight--in President Bush's term, he introduced a new stream buffer rule in which he basically eviscerated the old and gave many more exemptions and, as I quoted, put in a new rule in 2008 that said that not only did it loosen protection, it allowed for the dumping of this residue from mining into the streams if avoiding disturbance of the stream is not potentially or reasonably possible. So what it said is that you can dump. If you can't figure out what else to do, you can dump. Immediately that was challenged in the courts. By 2014, the Federal courts overturned Bush's stream buffer rule. That is where we were by 2014. It was overturned by the courts even though it was never fully implemented to change the Reagan rule. Then what happened right after that, in February 2014, the majority party then said, ``Let's put up the loosening of the buffer rule by having now put the Bush rule into legislation.'' Well, that was voted down. That came out of this House, but never was voted upon and never got to the President's desk. Then what happened in the omnibus bill is they decided to change from direct opposition by weakening the rule to delaying the rule. They said, ``Well, let's put in a 1-year delay.'' This December that was one of the riders in the appropriations omnibus, but that was taken out at the last minute. Then we held a hearing in Natural Resources on this new bill that is before us, H.R. 1644, which occurred, as we all know, in May of 2015. We held a hearing on this stream buffer rule to delay the new rule that was going to be coming out in 3 years. But we had the delay in it. We held that hearing 2 months before the rule was even proposed. So we are delaying a rule that was first proposed months before we even actually saw what we were delaying in that rule. Then what happens is that we are now here to vote on a bill that delays the action for 3 years. It is really all about delay. It is not about the policy, because the policy, we would give at least a chance to work with this new stream protection rule if we were really dealing with the policy and seeing what needs to be improved upon where we are. We are going back to delaying it, the new implementation. Why did it take from 2008 until now to really come up with a new stream protection rule? Well, in large part that was due to the majority party's multiyear investigation into the rule. We had various subpoenas and tens of thousands of pages of documents, but in the end we found no political misconduct. All we did was to delay the implementation of a new rule from even coming out and costing the taxpayers money. There were political shenanigans going on in the rule, even though they found no real political shenanigans going on. However, we had 12 hearings to deal with political shenanigans. The administration's proposed rule comes out in July. It is now January, over 7 months. How many hearings have we heard on the proposed rule? How many? I think the answer is zero. So we have never discussed the proposed rule. We are now voting to delay it, without ever discussing what it is, and it is just completely irresponsible to be now voting on something that stops a rule in its tracks that we have never had time to discuss. Now, we know that this bill isn't going to go anywhere. Even if the Senate was to pass it, the President has already issued a veto threat. So instead of this bad rerun, where the majority now is trying to evade and block this rule for the fourth time, maybe we should take a look at some of these environmental consequences and health impacts of mountaintop removal mining; look at the proposed rule and try to work with the administration to really come up with something that protects communities, instead of just attacking and, if that doesn't work, delaying. I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the Member from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I would like to talk in response to some of the points raised by my esteemed colleagues from the other side about the doom and gloom of job loss numbers that they presented. I believe 70,000 jobs will be lost with the proposed rule or we just heard also possibly 80,000 direct mining jobs might be lost. These are, indeed, frightening numbers. Unfortunately, they are not credible and not based upon any kind of evidence. Those estimates which we are hearing come from a study that was paid for by the National Mining Association, and those numbers are the same, that 70- or 80,000, as the total number of coal mining jobs currently in the United States, according to the Energy Information Administration. In fact, the National Mining Association study that we have heard about projects up to 52,000 coal mining job losses in Appalachia as a result of the administration's proposed rule. There are less than 50,000 coal miners in that entire region today, so apparently this rule creates jobs before it costs jobs. We shouldn't be surprised that the industry would come up with such inflated numbers. After all, they don't need to be accurate. They just need to scare people, much in the same way as the American public was told that the Affordable Care Act is going to destroy an untold number of jobs, except that we have now added 14 million private sector jobs since that act was signed into law. Today we should be extremely skeptical of industry scare tactics. Actually, the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the stream protection rule found, in fact, not 70,000, not 80,000, but there would be a net loss of only 10 jobs. This is a small price to pay for cleaner water and healthier communities. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would like to respond to my colleague's comments about the lack of any health impacts of mountaintop mining, quoting a study from Johns Hopkins University about the lack of any identifiable birth defects that are correlated with coal mining or mountaintop mining. I would like to again read from the Science article of January 8, 2010, called ``Mountaintop Mining Consequences,'' a collaborative effort of scientists from the University of Maryland; from Duke University; from the University of Minnesota; from West Virginia University; from Wake Forest University; from Miami University, Oxford, Ohio; from the University of California at Berkeley; from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and from the same Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. They found their results on the potential for human health impacts were this: adult hospitalizations for chronic pulmonary disorders and hypertension are elevated as a function of county level coal production, as are rates of mortality, lung cancer, and chronic heart, lung, and kidney diseases. That is what the scientists have found that are the result of a potential for human health impacts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to respond to some of the attacks from the other side that are supporting the STREAM Act that the administration's stream protection rule is really an attempt to destroy jobs, it is really part of, as one of my colleagues has said, the war on coal. But nothing could be further from the truth. What we are talking about are commonsense protections for communities. Contrary to the Republican chorus that there is a war on coal, let me read to you, Members, that the Energy Information Administration estimates that U.S. coal production for 2014 was up 14 million short tons from 2013, and that this production growth is going to continue through 2030. While coal exports are predicted to drop in the short term, they are going to reach historic high grounds around 2030. We are not talking about destroying these communities. We are talking about allowing these communities to thrive, to be healthy, to protect the valleys, to protect the streams, to protect the ecology, to protect the public health, and to allow us to have mountaintop mining, but safe and healthy mountaintop mining. That is what we are talking about. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I would like to read a few lines from a letter that was sent from a coalition of 35 national and local groups which are strongly opposed to this bill. They write: ``The proposed stream protection rule is essential to protect the waters in mining regions and to ensure that communities will have viable economies after the resource is extracted and mining ceases.'' They go on to point out that mountaintop removal mining is ``responsible for the destruction of over 500 mountains and approximately 2,000 miles of stream channels across central Appalachia. This form of coal mining devastates both the thriving natural ecosystems of the Appalachian Mountains as well as entire communities of residents who have lived on their homesteads for generations.'' They conclude: ``Please oppose the STREAM Act, and allow the proposed stream protection rule to proceed without congressional interference so that communities living in the shadows of mining sites can have safe water resources.'' I also have a letter of opposition from the United Auto Workers and eight other organizations, which state: ``This bill would put costly and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles into the already overburdened regulatory process with the sole intent of ensuring that coal companies can continue to destroy streams and coal wastes. We urge you to vote against this legislation both to protect mining communities and to reject attempts to delay and frustrate improved regulatory protections.'' Mr. Chairman, I urge the opposition to H.R. 1644. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes a small change to section 2 to make the bill somewhat more palatable to scientific publishers. So I will not oppose it, but it does nothing to actually improve the bill itself nor the requirement surrounding the advance publication of scientific data. Today we received a letter from the Union of Concerned Scientists that says they are strongly opposed to H.R. 1644. The scientists write: ``This proposal is just another attempt of what is becoming an old and tired song, an attempt to cloak an effort to block commonsense regulations in the guise of transparency.'' They continue: ``The amended version improves the original bill by exempting certain types of data from public disclosure. However, the language is so vague it will make it very difficult for scientists doing federally funded research to know whether or not the data they have spent years collecting may be prematurely disclosed before they can publish their own studies. At the very least, this discourages scientists from doing any crucial research that may be required to be publicly disclosed.'' They conclude: ``If passed, H.R. 1644 would inhibit the Department of the Interior's ability to carry out its science- and evidence-based responsibility to protect human health and the environment. We strongly recommend a `no' vote on H.R. 1644.'' I agree with the scientists on this one. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following: Whereas, in 1911, the City of Stanton, previously known as the ``Benedict'' community, was incorporated and named after Philip A. Stanton an honorable legislator; and Whereas, Stanton remained an incorporated community until 1924. At an election held on July 22, 1924, the voters decided to disincorporate to allow the State to construct roads in the territory; and Whereas, on May 15, 1956 a successful election was held on incorporation. On June 4, 1956, the City of Stanton was officially incorporated again under the general law form of government as specified by the State of California; and Whereas, upon recommendation of the Stanton Women's Civic Club in October 1959, the Jacaranda was selected as the City Tree, and the Bird of Paradise was selected as the City Flower; and Whereas, at the City Council meeting of January 24, 1989 the City was presented with a flag that incorporated the official city logo and colors. The City Council unanimously adopted the City flag on February 14, 1989; and Whereas, on March 24, 1987 the City Council unanimously adopted ``Community Pride and Forward Vision'' as the official City motto; and Whereas, Stanton is home to more than 39,000 residents within its three square miles in the heart of northwestern Orange County. Recent years have seen the City of Stanton experience rapid growth in the commercial, industrial and residential sectors, creating a balanced community with a deep sense of pride in its accomplishments; and Now, therefore, be it resolved, that January 12, 2016, is the beginning of celebrations for the 60th anniversary of the City of Stanton and encourage all residents of the City of Stanton to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the City of Stanton by exploring and honoring its rich history and embracing the City's future.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable sadness and a profound sense of loss that I report that the Long Beach community lost a dear friend and a dedicated public servant on the passing of Marilyn Green on October 29, 2015. Marilyn--with long-time professional partner Dick Cantrell--founded the law firm of Cantrell Green--now Cantrell Green Pekich Cruz & McCort--in 1971. Marilyn was also the heart and soul of the progressive movement in Long Beach. She was a advocate, mentor, and friend to several generations of progressive leaders in Long Beach. I count myself lucky to have had her friendship and counsel over the years. A native of Newark, New Jersey, Marilyn eventually made her way to Stanford Law School. While attending as one of only two female students in her class, she met and married journalist Terence Green. Determined to finish what she started, she sat for the California Bar exam in 1951 and was admitted to practice law in January, 1952, just one month before her first son, Alan, was born. She used to recall how odd it felt walking to take her oath while almost 9 months pregnant. Terry's job brought them to Playa del Rey and, eventually, to the Long Beach area that would become their home for well over 50 years. Like many women of her generation, Marilyn found herself unwelcome in many law firms due to her gender and was limited to family law practice. Knowing it was a matter of time before she found the right job, she settled into family law. She used to joke that, as a young lawyer, she had no idea how to create a safe exit strategy while interviewing a less-than-savory character. During one such interview, she decided ``the case was much too complicated'' and referred the person to the FBI. She later told us ``From then on, I decided to keep the FBI's number in my top drawer, but think I certainly wore out my welcome.'' Marilyn joined the prestigious Levy & Van Bourg firm as an applicant's attorney in Workers' Compensation in the late 1960s early 1970s. When she and Richard Cantrell first opened Cantrell and Green in 1971, their first office was a public phone booth on the comer of Broadway and Pine Avenue in downtown Long Beach. Later, good friend and union official, Tony Rodriguez from the United Rubber Workers Union, would offer them a small office at his Local. Marilyn and Richard would go on to build Cantrell and Green into one of the most well-known and respected workers' compensation firms in Southern California. Their practice also included social security, labor law, and personal injury claims. Not only did Marilyn Green talk the talk, she walked the walk. When asked why she would settle in a practice not as lucrative as other areas of practice, Marilyn said ``If I wanted to make money, I would never have chosen a workers' compensation practice. However, I love and believe in what I do and that is why I became a lawyer.'' Over the years, Marilyn was honored by many organizations, including being named as Long Beach Bar Association Lawyer of the Year. She was a true professional in her work, a good friend to many, and a powerful force for good in our community who will be sorely missed.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply saddened by the passing of Tibor (Ted) Rubin. Our community and our nation have lost a true hero. Ted was born in Hungary in 1929. He survived 14 months in a Nazi concentration camp during WWII, before his liberation, and eventual migration to America. Inspired by the American soldiers who rescued him, he enlisted in the U.S. Army, eventually being deployed as a member of the 1st Cavalry Division during the Korean War. During his service, he faced anti- Semitic discrimination from his sergeant who sent Ted on the most dangerous assignments in South Korea's Pusan Perimeter, where he fought valiantly in several notable engagements. He was eventually captured by the North Koreans on one of these missions. During his captivity he continued to inspire others, providing moral support and improvised medical techniques to care for his fellow soldiers. For his gallantry in close contact with the enemy and his unyielding courage and bravery while a prisoner of war Ted was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor in 2005. Last August, I was proud to join Ted at a ceremony in Garden Grove to celebrate the first United States Postal Service stamp honoring the extraordinary courage of the 145 Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine service members who received the Medal of Honor for action during the Korean War. I was also proud to see the City of Garden Grove name a library after Ted earlier this year: the Garden Grove Tibor Rubin Library. Talking about his decision to immigrate, Ted once said that America is, ``. . . the best country in the world and I am part of it now. I do not have to worry about the Gestapo knocking on my door tonight. I have shalom--peace--people die for it.'' A long-time resident of Garden Grove, Ted was an inspiration to our community in so many ways. We should all honor his perseverance, dedication, and determination to make the world a better place.