Alan Lowenthal

Mr. LOWENTHAL

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

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I think that we have made a very strong case that economically this does not make sense. It could potentially destroy the tourist industry. What makes Minnesota unique is the wilderness areas, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. There is a tremendous risk because there has never been this type of mining in Minnesota before. As was pointed out by the Forest Service, there is a very high risk of acidic discharge, and that the mine will drain into the Boundary Waters. This is the wrong project at this time, and I urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about jobs. Jobs, this is going to be great job creator, this mine. I just want to highlight, though, some of the very inaccurate numbers that have been tossed around today. The sponsor of the bill earlier today said that 10,000 jobs would be created. The majority's legislative analysis says that the bill will create 17,000 jobs, but that is not correct. That is not correct. Even the company behind the project doesn't claim that many jobs. In their May 2017 fact sheet, and this is the fact sheet for Twin Metals of Minnesota, they report that once operational, they will directly employ 650 people and ``will create an estimated 1,300 spinoff jobs in other industries.'' That is 1,950 jobs. That is good, but that is a long way and a far cry from 10,000 or 17,000 jobs. Let's also look at the down side. An economic study of the tourism industry in the region has shown that putting in a copper mine could result in the loss of nearly 5,000 direct jobs and up to 22,000 indirect jobs. That is a terrible tradeoff, and that means that this mine is potentially a net job destroyer, not a creator. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to protect jobs and to oppose H.R. 3905. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make sure that my friends on the other side are aware of a simple fact, and that fact is very important in this debate: water flows downhill. They make a big deal about the fact that no mining would take place in the Boundary Waters, but how happy would you be if someone dumped millions of gallons of toxic waste just uphill from your home and said not to worry because they didn't dump anything in your house? These leases that we are talking about are right on the border of the Boundary Waters wilderness area. Take a look at this map. These red parts are the leases we are talking about. There is no gap. There is no buffer. Any acid mine waste from these leases will flow right into the Boundary Waters. There is no protection in this bill for the Boundary Waters. There is only terrible risk. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight the overwhelming local opposition to a copper-sulfide mine right next to the Boundary Waters. A poll done earlier this year found that 59 percent of Minnesotans oppose copper-sulfide mining near the Boundary Waters. Seventy-nine percent support the existing 2-year study that the Forest Service is doing on this type of mining. Included in that 79 percent, 67 percent of Republicans support the existing 2-year study that the Forest Service is doing. We are not talking about a bunch of antimining activists. This is not them. The same poll found that, overall, Minnesotans support copper-sulfide mining in the State 43 percent to 33 percent. The people in the State of Minnesota know that there are right places to have these kinds of mines and there are wrong places to have these kinds of mines. The Boundary Waters are the wrong place. The people of Minnesota know it, the Forest Service knows it, and I hope that the Congress realizes it and knows it, too. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would like the chairman to answer a question. That pit that the gentleman just showed us, is that a taconite pit or is that a sulfide pit in Minnesota?

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

Mr. LOWENTHAL. We are not talking about taconite. We are talking about sulfide.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to talk about that because of what type of mine this is. As has been pointed out, northern Minnesota has had a long history of mining, but the mine that we are talking about here is not like any other mine in the State. This is a copper-sulfide mine. These types of mines are notorious for generating acid mine drainage. As the Forest Service puts it: These mines are known worldwide for producing acid mine drainage that requires continuous management and perpetual water treatment. Even in the absence of a major spill, having this acidic waste chronically leaking into the environment will create a problem that will last for generations and may never be fixed. A study of 14 similar copper mines found that all but one had significant water quality impacts due to failures of the water collection and treatment systems from keeping the contamination from seeping out. As was pointed out by the opposition, the majority, most of these mines are in dry areas of the American Southwest where there is far less water that needs to be treated than in a very wet environment like northern Minnesota. The Forest Service also describes the specific threat that the Boundary Waters are under. They point out that there is ``a direct flow of water from these leases to the Boundary Waters, and that there is a high likelihood of acid mine drainage from these ores, and that the drainage from the mine is likely to be highly acidic.'' Mr. Speaker, once the problem starts, it is nearly impossible to make it stop. This is a perfect storm for destroying the Boundary Waters, and it is not worth the risk. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I am here to say that there are many mines in the State of Minnesota that I do support, that are ecologically--that are protected, but this is a different mine. We are only talking about one type of mine.

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

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues tell me that this tax plan will grow the economy and make American workers more competitive, but, in reality, the plan would bankrupt our future. It threatens provisions that directly support our schools and our students. By eliminating the State and local tax deductions, it penalizes States and school districts that have chosen to invest in our young people. In my home State of California, that threatens over $750 in State funding per public school student each and every year. For Americans with student loan debt, this plan eliminates the student loan interest deduction. In my district, over 21,000 people claim this deduction each year. As a former college professor, I know the sacrifices that many of our students have to make to pursue an education. This tax plan asks them to pay even more. These priorities are out of sync. This is not tax reform that puts middle class families first. We can do better.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join the chorus of Americans across the country who are gravely concerned about the reckless Republican tax plan. Middle class families in my district know that this plan won't help to get them ahead, and it is not because they are doing the math wrong. The plan throws a buffet full of enormous tax cuts for multinational corporations and billionaire real estate investors, and it leaves hardworking families to fight for table scraps. Tens of millions of middle class families will ultimately face a tax hike, and the repeal of the State and local deduction raises taxes on many families in my district in California. For example, in Orange County, my constituents deduct an average of $6,500 a year using the SALT provision. This proposal sends them a bill. Republicans are asking my constituents to pay more, only to let companies that expand overseas pay less. That simply doesn't make sense. I urge all of my colleagues, especially my neighbors in California, to reject this tax hike on middle class families.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, on roll call 580, I was unavoidably detained as a result of a death in the family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On roll call 588, I was unavoidably detained as a result of a death in the family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago today, 43 students from Ayotzinapa, Mexico, disappeared. I recently traveled to Mexico where I spoke with many of their parents and the family members of the students who disappeared. I was humbled by the strength that they show. After a 3-year struggle, they have asked for answers to two simple questions: What happened that night when their children were taken; and where are they now? On this third anniversary of their loss, I am repeating my past calls for the Mexican Government to prioritize their search for the students, to bring justice to those responsible for their disappearance, and to investigate any obstruction of justice. If the Mexican Government cannot do this, I urge them to allow the independent panel of experts to expand on their initial investigation. The students, their parents, and the Mexican people deserve answers.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Madam Speaker, last week, people across the Nation and around the world heard the heart-wrenching story of my constituent, Helen Huynh. Helen is bravely fighting leukemia. She desperately needs a stem cell transplant, which requires a compatible match. Helen's sister, Thuy, is a 100 percent match, but she lives in Vietnam. She has been denied a visa to come to the United States for this potentially lifesaving procedure. She has been denied now three times. This is outrageous, and I am doing everything I can to make sure this wrong is corrected. Mark my words: it will be corrected. I am working with Helen's family, the State Department, and the Department of Homeland Security to make sure that we are successful in bringing Thuy to Helen as soon as possible.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, too often we hear about our country being divided, and yet when it comes to the Dream Act, the message is clear: our country is united. A wide majority of Americans and nearly 70 percent of Republicans want us to pass this legislation. They want us to provide permanent legal status to DREAMers--800,000 people who are working hard, studying in our universities, contributing to our economy, and serving in our military. Mr. Speaker, I demand that we bring up the Dream Act for a vote. We cannot force these young people, who have received DACA, to wait any longer to know that America wants them to live here.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

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

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment preserves the National Ocean Policy. The National Ocean Policy is a commonsense way to facilitate multistakeholder collaboration on complex ocean issues, and it promotes economic opportunity, national security, and environmental protection. Mr. Chairman, I represent a coastal district in southern California, and I know firsthand that we can have a thriving ocean economy and, at the same time, protect and conserve our precious ocean resources. Off the coast of my district, there are marine protected areas, State waters, Federal waters, and Department of Defense installations. We are a marine life hot spot--some of the best blue whale watching happens a few miles from our shore. We have a booming recreational fishing sector. We have a large shellfish aquaculture ranch that is now operating. We have beautiful beaches. We also have oil and gas activity with some rigs right near our shores. My district is also home to the Port of Long Beach, which is the second busiest port in the United States. With so much activity happening, it simply makes sense to have the Navy at the table when NOAA is working on siting for a new aquaculture installation. It makes sense to have the fishery management council weigh in when oil rigs are being decommissioned, and it is a no-brainer that NOAA, the Coast Guard, and the ports all work together to get those massive ships in and out of port safely. We want these collaborations to happen because we want to have a sustainable ocean economy, and by developing regional plans and having a framework for multistakeholder involvement, we can streamline this process and promote a robust ocean economy that also conserves our precious ocean resources. Mr. Chairman, as we look to the future, the need for an overarching policy only grows. Issues like sea level rise and ocean acidification are too big and too serious for any one community or agency to tackle alone. Increased aquaculture development and new technologies for clean, local energy are creating economic opportunities but must be thoughtfully implemented. Prohibiting the allocation of funds to this important program would stifle collaboration among all the stakeholders on these complex issues, as I pointed out before, relating to environmental protection, national security, economic opportunity, and ocean policy. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, we just heard a very interesting argument that said that we should not support or fund the National Ocean Policy because, instead of by executive action, it should have been done through congressional legislation. But I would remind everyone watching this that, prior to the beginning of the National Ocean Policy by the previous administration, over the 4 years before that, four bills were introduced. Each one--two by a Republican leader, two by Democratic leaders--did what was just asked of us: to introduce it by the Congress. It was never taken up by the Congress in the administration prior to President Obama. What was called the Oceans Conservation, Education, and National Strategy for the 21st Century Act was never heard. That is why it was done through executive action. That is why we need to continue this. Without having coordinated ocean policy, we will have tremendous problems as we move forward, as I pointed out, both in terms of economic opportunity, national security, and also environmental protection. 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, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Eduardo, a UCLA student and an anti-bullying activist.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan amendment that I am leading on with Representative Comstock, along with many of our colleagues on the STARBASE Caucus. I appreciate it being included in the en bloc package of amendments. This amendment would simply increase funding for the Department of Defense's STARBASE program from 25 to $30 million for the fiscal year 2018, bringing funding back to the fiscal year 2017 enacted level. Providing science, technology, engineering, and math, STEM education, to America's youth is critical to the global competitiveness of our Nation. The STARBASE program engages local fifth grade elementary students by exposing them to STEM subjects through an inquiry-based curriculum. Serving communities from Los Alamitos, California, to Winchester, Virginia, and across the Nation, there are now 59 programs in congressional districts throughout 30 States, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Close to 1 million fifth graders across the Nation have now had the opportunity to participate in hands-on STEM classes on military bases thanks to STARBASE. Moreover, the Department of Defense's STARBASE program is one of the most cost-effective programs across the Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, ``irresponsible, reckless, duplicitous,'' all words used to describe Iran during the JCPOA negotiations. Soon, if this administration abrogates the JCPOA, those words would apply to us: ``irresponsible'' for shredding an agreement that makes the world a safer place, ``reckless'' in giving Iran an excuse to immediately restart the nuclear program, and ``duplicitous'' in breaking an international agreement for no legitimate reason but to fulfill a campaign promise. Make no mistake, Iran is still a bad actor. It destabilizes the region. It funds terrorist activities. That is why we voted to increase nonnuclear sanctions on Iran yesterday. But the Iran nuclear agreement is being adhered to, and it is working. Under this administration, are we, as a nation, no longer as good as our word?