Alan Lowenthal

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 36. Few people in history have shown the sort of bravery for which we will be honoring Raoul Wallenberg. As Sweden's special envoy to Hungary during the Second World War, Mr. Wallenberg quietly issued thousands--and I say thousands--of protective passports and sheltered as many Jews as he could in Swedish Embassy buildings, protecting them from being rounded up by the Fascist authorities. It is estimated that his efforts saved potentially up to 100,000 Jews from the horrors of the Holocaust. Sadly, as the gentlewoman from Michigan pointed out, Mr. Wallenberg would never see the impact of his great work. As the Iron Curtain descended on Eastern Europe, he was apprehended by Soviet authorities, never to be seen again; but if not for his commitment to the protection of human rights, untold thousands would not be among us today. One of the lives that he saved was that of our former colleague, Congressman Tom Lantos, who wrote the bill making Raoul Wallenberg an honorary citizen of the United States in 1981. In 2012, we posthumously awarded Raoul Wallenberg the Congressional Gold Medal in recognition of his achievements and heroic actions during the Holocaust. This resolution will allow the use of the rotunda for a ceremony presenting the Gold Medal to his family in honor of Mr. Wallenberg for his noble and selfless actions. I urge all Members to support Senate Concurrent Resolution 36, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

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

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, after speaking with the majority committee staff, and in deference to the wishes of the Chair, I want to be clear that I will be withdrawing this amendment at the conclusion of my control of time. In fiscal year 2010, a number of transportation projects, including critical seismic safety projects, received appropriations from Congress but were unable to receive the funding due to an incorrect account designation in the appropriations act. According to the Department of Transportation, the funds remain unobligated but inaccessible due to the congressional error in the account designation. Mr. Chair, crucial transportation projects needed to ensure public safety that were intended to be funded by Congress have been left without funding due to technical errors. My amendment would ensure that those unobligated funds currently stuck in limbo would be made available for the surface transportation program projects. This shouldn't be controversial. There is already language in the underlying bill before us that does something very similar. It transfers unobligated funds appropriated in previous years from one transportation program to another. I hope that, moving forward, the gentleman from Iowa will work with us to correct these accounting errors that have left crucial transportation projects without funding. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join with thousands of people in my district and millions across the country to celebrate Asian Pacific American Heritage Month this May. This month, we celebrate the innumerable contributions of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders to communities in every corner of our Nation. California's 47th District is a testament to the richness and diversity with which Asian Pacific Americans have added to the fabric of our country, from Little Saigon and the Korean Business District in Westminster and Garden Grove to Cambodia Town and the Filipino and Pacific Islander communities in Long Beach. This year also marks the 35th anniversary of the end of the Cambodian genocide and the 39th anniversary of the fall of Saigon. It reminds us of the courage and the bravery with which millions of Asian Pacific Americans made the journey to the United States to build a better life for themselves and for their children.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Madam Chairman, I join my colleagues tonight in opposition to the irresponsible cuts in this bill to vital climate research. The CJS mark slashes NOAA's climate research program by 24 percent below the fiscal year 2014 levels and 37 percent below the President's fiscal year 2015 request. Does the majority think that with less climate research we can make better informed decisions? Does the majority think that with less climate research we can better prepare our communities for higher storm surges? Does the majority think with less climate research we can better understand why the Western United States has increased wildfires and water shortages? Does the majority think that with less climate research we can improve our predictions and responses in our planning for hurricanes? And, finally, does the majority think that with less climate research we can improve our ability to model regional weather pattern changes, which will affect the productivity of our agricultural sector? Unfortunately, the majority's bill shortchanges our ability to realize all these vital benefits of climate research. If we hide our heads in the sand, the laws of physics will not change. We cannot wish away this problem. Denying a changing climate is not just another political position. It is a denial of reality. I want to make this point to those in Congress who think the verdict is still out on whether human actions contribute to climate change. This is false, it is wrong, and it is misleading. The case is closed: climate change is happening, and humans are contributing. Today, there is not a single scientific body of national or international standing that rejects the findings of human contribution to climate change--not one. To further make this point, let me share the latest work from researcher Dr. James Powell, a geochemist and 12- year member of the National Science Board who was appointed by both President Reagan and President George H.W. Bush. Dr. Powell recently completed an update to his comprehensive study of the peer-reviewed literature on climate change. Dr. Powell found that of the 10,885 peer-reviewed scientific papers that were published on climate change in all of 2013, only two papers reject human contributions to climate change--two out of nearly 11,000. That is less than two-hundredths of 1 percent of all scientific journal papers published in 2013 that are peer reviewed rejected some form of human contribution to climate change. This is not disagreement. This is not a divided scientific community. The reason for this is simple: there is no convincing scientific evidence against a human role in climate change. Period. End of discussion. Those that deny human contributions to climate change offer no compelling evidence to better explain the undeniable rise in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and accompanying rising global temperature. The case is closed. We need to put this illusion of major scientific disagreement behind us and take action. We should be fully funding NOAA's climate research hopefully at the level requested by President Obama in his 2015 budget request.

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

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

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, the United States is currently in negotiations with our P5+1 partners and Iran over the fate of Tehran's illicit nuclear program. I support the President's efforts to negotiate an agreement to end Iran's nuclear weapons question, and I am hopeful, but I am also concerned, that this goal may or may not be achieved. As the initial 6-month period for negotiations comes to an end on July 20 and as we debate the NDAA, it is crucial for Congress to speak out on what a good deal with Iran would look like. Congress must insist that final agreement ensures that Tehran has no pathway to a nuclear weapon. As the President and Secretary Kerry have repeatedly said, no deal is better than a bad deal. Any agreement must include an inspection and verification regime that provides for anytime, anywhere inspections to ensure that Iran is complying with a deal.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida for inviting me. I too was moved by the speech and the talking from my dear friend and colleague from North Carolina. As we know, 66 years ago, with the darkness of the Holocaust still fresh in all of our minds, the State of Israel was born as a shining beacon of freedom and democracy. I was born just as the Second World War was beginning. I remember when the State of Israel was founded. My family, my mother, was an immigrant; my father was the first of his family to be born in the United States from immigrant parents. Now I am so proud to be here as a Member of the House of Representatives and to recognize also that my country was the first nation to recognize Israel. Since 1948, and as I can say, there was such great pride I took when Israel fought its war of independence, when Israel became a state, and Israel has persevered against great threats both large and small while at the same time building a dynamic, thriving, and innovative economy. Today, we are so proud of our unbreakable bonds with Israel, built upon our common foundation of freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Israel is without question the United States' closest ally in the Middle East and most likely our closest ally throughout the world. The people of Israel continue to be a symbol of democratic courage in the Middle East and throughout the world. As I remember and we recall the independence and the founding of the State of Israel 66 years ago, I am reminded of the words of President John F. Kennedy, who said: Israel was not created in order to disappear. Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom. Happy Independence Day--Yom Ha'atzmaut Sameach.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, first, I rise in support of the Costa amendment. I also want to thank Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Bishop and also Representative Costa for the time that they have given me to speak about this. My congressional district is home to the Long Beach VA, which is one of the largest institutions for veterans in southern California. In California, there is currently one congressional affairs analyst to assist 33 congressional offices that have questions about casework. There are delays in responses to congressional caseworkers and an even longer delay in aid and attendance claims, particularly when those claims regard elderly frail veterans with rapidly declining health issues and sometimes, unfortunately, approval comes too late. While it is critically important that we provide overtime pay for workers who are already stretched thin--and I think that is critically important--I also encourage the department to use some of these funds to hire additional staff. I urge my colleagues to support the Costa amendment to H.R. 4486 and encourage the Veterans Benefits Administration to hire more staff to address the VA backlog and to help our Nation's veterans. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we commemorate the 39th anniversary of the fall of Saigon and the collapse of the Republic of Vietnam. This is known in my community as Black April. It has been my honor to join with the Vietnamese American community of Little Saigon, which is in my district, to remember this important event. Thirty-nine years ago, millions of Vietnamese were forced to leave their homeland in search of freedom. Many of them found their way to the United States, where today they comprise a strong, vibrant community that has given invaluable contributions to our Nation. This week we remember the brave sacrifices of so many in the cause of freedom, who fought tirelessly to enable their children to live a better and brighter life. Today, we must ensure that their sacrifices were not in vain by continuing the fight for democracy and human rights in Vietnam.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Madam Speaker, last week in the Natural Resources Committee one of my esteemed colleagues from across the aisle claimed that the scientific evidence regarding human contributions to climate change was inconclusive. Well, Stanford researcher, Dr. James Powell, a geochemist, and a 12- year member of the non-partisan National Science Board, recently completed an update to his survey of peer-reviewed literature on climate change. As it points out, in the year 2013, there were 10,885 peer-reviewed articles and only two rejected human contributions towards climate change. That is less than two hundredths of 1 percent. Madam Speaker, this is not disagreement. This is not a divided scientific community, case closed. Congress must stop denying the science and take action. Future generations are depending upon us.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his work on the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget, the CPC budget, and for just being an all-around good guy. The nondefense discretionary side of the budget has taken a beating in recent years with extreme cuts to its programs. The Ryan budget continues this damage with even deeper cuts to discretionary programs. Now, what do I mean by discretionary programs? We are talking about education, public safety, clean drinking water, food safety, roads, bridges--our transportation system--air traffic controllers, medical research to find cures for diseases, among others. The question I ask is: What is discretionary about any of these basic needs? What is discretionary about making sure that children can read or about making sure that drinking water is safe or that bridges don't collapse? There is nothing discretionary about these programs. I think part of the problem is simply the word ``discretionary.'' We need to stop calling this discretionary, and we need to start calling this beleaguered side of the budget what it is, essential. These are the essential non-defense programs. My dear friend, the main difference between the Ryan budget proposal and the CPC budget proposal is that Mr. Ryan believes that the government funding of these essential programs is a drain on the economy and a drain on taxpayers. The CPC, however, recognizes that the investment in these essential programs is fundamental to the vitality of our country. It moves us forward, and as you pointed out, it creates millions of jobs--over 4.6 million jobs in the year 2014, almost 3 million in the year 2015 and close to 1.3 million in the year 2016. It moves us forward, this investment in essential programs. It drives innovation. It creates jobs. It stimulates the economy. It puts our government and our country on a sustainable path to prosperity. My friend Mr. Ryan's economic model of austerity contrasts sharply with our model of investment and progress in a fiscally responsible way. We believe that educating our workforce, building our infrastructure, ensuring access to a safe and healthy environment, which includes water and food safeguards, is the ticket to a secure future for our country. That is the difference between the Ryan budget and the CPC budget.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. That is exactly right. They think that you can cut these because these are nonessential. These are not nonessential. If you tell a child that his education is nonessential or if you tell a family that public health or health research to those families is discretionary or if you tell those scientists who are trying to find cures for some of the worst diseases that they are just discretionary, we will lose the momentum that this country has, and we will no longer be the world leader in democracy and also no longer in innovation and job creation. No, these are not discretionary programs. These are essential programs that are different than defense programs. To call them discretionary does a great disservice to the great importance and to the centerpiece of our budget that they really occupy and should occupy and that all Americans should understand.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, last week, I signed the discharge petition on H.R. 15, the bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill. Today, I stand with millions of families across our country to call upon Speaker Boehner to simply bring H.R. 15 to the floor of the House for a vote. This bill secures our borders, provides an earned pathway to citizenship, and increases economic opportunity for all Americans. We request a vote--no, we demand a vote. We demand a vote, Mr. Speaker. We demand this vote because the American people are tired of living under a broken immigration system and seeing families broken apart. The American people know that passing this bill will save our country $900 billion over the next two decades. We know that the American people overwhelmingly support immigration reform with a path to citizenship. Mr. Speaker, give the American people that vote.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, as Women's History Month comes to a close for 2014, I think it is appropriate to highlight the life and work of one of the most influential and iconic women from my district: Beverly O'Neill. She was an educator, a mayor, and a leader. She remains a dear friend to me and an icon to a huge portion of Long Beach. Her determined guidance, over an unprecedented three terms as Mayor from 1994 to 2006, led the City of Long Beach through a transformation from ``the smallest big city'' on the West Coast to a thriving international destination and gateway known throughout the world. Born in Long Beach as Beverly Joy Lewis before the city became a World War II Navy boomtown, Beverly attended Polytechnic High School and went on to graduate from California State University, Long Beach. She eventually earned not one, not two, but five different teaching credentials and spent 31 years as an educator at Long Beach City College before becoming the college's President in 1988. Shortly after being elected as mayor of Long Beach in 1994, as only the second directly elected mayor in city history, she and the city faced the closure of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard and the tens of thousands of city jobs connected to it. Her resolute determination and leadership to keep the city on an even keel during this difficult time and her empathy and compassion for those impacted by the job cuts endeared her to many in the city. In her election to a second term in 1998, she received 80 percent of the vote. She continued to guide the city past its reliance on a single industry as the core employer in the city, focusing instead on a diversified economic base. Termed out in 2002, Beverly decided to run for a third term as a write-in candidate. The citizens of Long Beach gave her a third term and made her the first mayor of a major U.S. city to be elected in a write-in campaign. By the time she stepped down in 2006, Long Beach had made the difficult economic transition from Navy town to an international gateway and home to one of the busiest maritime ports in the Western Hemisphere. Still a powerful force for good in the city, Beverly remains busy with numerous civic boards. Her disarming and unshakable positivity for the city she loved, her compassion for the people she served, and the incredible leadership with which she inspired a generation of citizens has left an indelible mark on the history and the future of Long Beach.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to recognize the month of March as Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month. MS is a debilitating, chronic disease that attacks the central nervous system and causes visual problems, overwhelming fatigue, difficulty with balance and coordination, and impaired mobility. One of my most trusted and long-term district staff members, Ms. Robin McCray, who has been with me for many, many years--first, when I was in the California State Legislature and now in Congress--has a son, Ian, who is now 42 years of age, who has MS. Ian was diagnosed at the age of 29, at the most productive time in his life. He was an avid snowboarder, an outdoorsman, and practiced masonry. MS has stolen these things away from him. There is no cure for MS, which is why we need advocates to help fight this terrible disease. I have seen, through Robin and Ian, how MS not only affects the individual, but the entire family. Today I speak for Ian, but I advocate for the 400,000 Americans diagnosed with MS.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

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

Mr. LOWENTHAL. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me this time. I strongly agree with my friend that States must be given the right to implement a stream buffer rule that works for them, given the fact that local conditions will vary from State to State. What we are saying is that States should have the ability to protect their natural resources at a level beyond the requirements of the Federal Government when they see the need. What we are saying is that the Federal Government sets a floor, and the States have a right to protect their citizens from public health crisis and illness by setting their own requirements. H.R. 2824 keeps the States from tailoring stream safeguards and requires the States to waste taxpayer dollars by adopting a rule that has been vacated by a Federal court. Mr. Chairman, for these reasons I urge support of the Cartwright amendment.

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

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

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to respond to one thing that was just said. The 2008 Bush rule is not more protective than the 1983 Reagan rule. I have explained that. The 2008 Bush rule has huge exemptions within it, and that is why it is important that we go back and we adopt my amendment to take us back to the reasonable 1983 Reagan rule. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I my consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is about protecting the health of those Americans who live near mountaintop removal coal mines. It is about keeping surface water from being contaminated; it is about keeping drinking water from being contaminated; and my amendment is about reducing the risk of cancer, birth defects, lung disease, and heart disease for families living near coal mines. Mr. Chairman, all of these health problems have been conclusively linked to the mining practices of dumping the tops of mountains into streambeds. For example, in January 2010, the peer-reviewed journal Science published an article, entitled, ``Mountaintop Mining Consequences.'' And in that article, the authors, who were a dozen scientists from institutions across the country, concluded: Adult hospitalizations for chronic pulmonary disorder and hypertension are elevated as a result of county-level coal production, as are rates of mortality, lung cancer, and chronic heart, lung, and kidney disease. Health problems are for women and men. So the effects are not simply the result of direct occupational exposure of predominantly male coal miners. Mr. Chairman, in 1983, the Ronald Reagan administration completed rules that kept coal mining companies from dumping their overburden directly into streams. The rules required a buffer of 100 feet around waterways. The Reagan rule also allowed States to promulgate more protective rules, effectively creating a Federal floor of protection against stream contamination. Right now, the Reagan rule is the regulation that the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement is operating under, and my amendment would keep the Reagan rule in effect. So what does the majority bill do? It wipes away the Reagan rule and forces all States to adopt the 2008 Bush stream buffer rule. Instead of protecting streams, the Bush rule is a blank check for mining companies to dump their overburden directly into waterways. That's right. The Bush rule referenced in this bill has a gaping loophole that allows mining companies to dump mine waste into streams if avoiding disturbance of the stream is not reasonably possible. And how is ``reasonable'' to be interpreted by the agency? Very loosely. An alternative to dumping mine waste into streams generally may be considered unreasonable, according to the agency, if its cost is substantially greater than the cost normally associated with this type of project. Well, of course it is cheaper to dump mine waste into a nearby streambed than to properly treat and remove it elsewhere. Thus, given the agency's criteria, it will always be found cheaper and reasonable to dump coal mine waste into streams. But it gets even better, Mr. Chairman. This is the same Bush rule that was struck down by the D.C. circuit court just this last month, and it is the same Bush rule that is really against the States' ability to promulgate stronger rules because it creates a ceiling that no State can exceed. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply return to the Reagan rule to protect the health of families living near coal mines. I urge support of my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.