Katie Porter

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a 2022 poll citing a 2-1 margin of Minnesotans opposing sulfide-ore copper mining on the edge of the Boundary Waters. [From Impact Research, May 10, 2022] Minnesotans Support Permanent Protections for the Boundary Waters From the Risks of Sulfide-Ore Copper Mining (By: Zac McCrary, Luke Martin) Minnesotans are deeply connected to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and it remains a uniquely popular and loved resource in an age of polarization. Since 2015, polling has consistently shown that due to this deep connection, voters in Minnesota are strongly opposed to sulfide-ore copper mining on the edge of the Boundary Waters and in its watershed. Voters support taconite mining and sulfide-ore copper mining in areas of the state that don't pose a risk to the pristine Boundary Waters. Voters readily reject mining industry arguments that the watershed of the Boundary Waters is specifically needed to fulfill the nation's critical mineral needs. As a result, Minnesotans support several legislative and administrative actions that would increase protections for the Boundary Waters, including permanent protection. The Boundary Waters is uniquely popular and well-regarded in Minnesota. Favorability for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness is near unanimous across the state with 86 percent statewide who are favorable, including 70 percent who are very favorable. More than 2-in-3 Minnesotans (67 percent) say they have personally been to the Boundary Waters including 9 percent who visit every year. By a 2-1 margin, Minnesotans oppose sulfide-ore copper mining on the edge of the Boundary Waters (60 percent oppose vs. 31 percent support). A strong majority of voters have been consistently opposed to sulfide-ore copper mining in the watershed of the Boundary Waters since pollsters began asking this question in 2015. Even among the 31 percent who would currently support sulfide-ore copper mining on the edge of the Boundary Waters, their support is soft--just 12 percent strongly support it, and nearly 2-in-3 supporters (63 percent) say their support is contingent on an environmental analysis that finds that sulfide-ore copper mining in the Boundary Water's watershed could be done without risk to the Boundary Waters. Minnesotans overwhelmingly support a broad array of legislative and administrative actions to protect the Boundary Waters from sulfide-ore copper mining, including legislation to permanently protect the Boundary Waters: Minnesotans support legislation to permanently protect the Boundary Waters from the risks associated with sulfide-ore copper mining by a 35-point margin (63 percent support vs 28 percent oppose). Permanent protections are also a winning issue with undecided voters (58 percent support), Independents who support them by a 7-point margin, and in the new 8th Congressional District (56 percent support). After hearing arguments from both sides of the issue, support for permanent protections increases to 67 percent among all likely Minnesota voters. By a 19-point margin (45 percent support vs 26 percent oppose), Minnesotans agree that the state should update its nonferrous mining rules have not been updated in 30 years, and currently allow for levels of pollution that would contaminate the Boundary Waters. Updating the state's rules would allow for the application of modern science to protect the Boundary Waters. Minnesota voters reject the false choice between mining in the watershed of the Boundary Waters for critical minerals needed for national security or clean energy purposes and protecting the Boundary Waters. In testing responses to statements about mining for critical minerals in the watershed of the Boundary Waters for national security or a green economy, voters agree by double-digit margins that we don't have to choose between critical minerals and protecting the Boundary Waters. By working with our allies such as Canada, Norway, and Australia and increasing recycling in our own country, we can have both critical minerals the nation needs and preserve the legacy of the Boundary Waters. Minnesotans are not anti-mining in general. A majority of voters support taconite mining (61 percent) and sulfide-ore copper mining in areas where it would not pose any danger to the Boundary Waters or its watershed (53 percent). However, there is overwhelming opposition to sulfide-ore copper mining in the watershed of the Boundary Waters due to pollution and contamination risks. Opposition to mining in the Boundary Waters cuts through demographic, geographic, and ideological lines, making their protection a clear political winner for elected leaders in Minnesota.

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, lastly I include testimony in opposition to the legislation from Becky Rom, national chair of The Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters, a coalition of businesses, conservation groups, and outdoor recreation organizations. Mr. Speaker, the link to Becky Rom's testimony can be found here: Https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20230511/115888/ HHRG-118-II06- Wstate-RomR-20230511.pdf. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will start by noting that the Harvard study was, in fact, peer- reviewed. As a former professor, I am very familiar with the peer- review process. It is a reliable study, and what it shows is what is best for the economy of this region and that is to protect these public lands and waters. Let me ask, what is the value of clean water? Water is also a valuable resource. It is also a resource in scarce supply around the country. If this bill moves forward, it will allow for the irreversible pollution of this pristine and incredibly valuable landscape. Remember, the Forest Service concluded after scientific study that there is a virtual certainty of severe and irreparable economic harm. All 100 percent of the sulfide-ore copper mines in this country have had leakages and environmental contamination. That is what will happen here. This will mean the decimation of local economies that depend on visitation. This is the most visited wilderness area in our country. It belongs to the people of the United States. It does not belong and should not belong to a Chilean mining company which, under our outdated mining laws, will pay no royalty at all to the American people. If the U.S. wants to reduce our demand for copper, which is increasing, then we should invest in recycling, in reuse, in manufacturing improvements. That would create jobs domestically and not risk special places like the Boundary Waters. If this mine proceeds, and if this water is contaminated and destroyed, there is no known remediation strategy. It cannot be undone. The U.S. Forest Service has conducted an environmental review. They have consulted with communities, they have consulted with Tribal members, and they have relied on cutting-edge science, and they have concluded that these mines should not go forward. The science is done here. It just doesn't line up with the answer of my colleagues' donors. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, the Boundary Waters is not a bathtub. The water flows from one place into the other, and in this case the watershed flows north, meaning it would flow past the mine and into the protected wilderness. My colleague on the other side of the aisle says there would be no mining in the Boundary Waters, but there would be waste. There would be pollution in those waters because of the watershed. This is exactly why we should rely on the scientific process and the conclusion of the Forest Service that this mining would cause severe and irreparable harm. I have heard no rebuttal from the other side of the aisle to the fact that 100 percent of every sulfide-ore copper mine in our country has had leakages and environmental harm. Mr. Speaker, we have been having hearings, markups, and floor votes on this issue for years. Administrations have canceled and reinstated these leases, and then canceled them again. The Biden administration, unlike the previous administration, took the time and effort to do the process right. They came to the considered decision, based on science, to cancel the wrongly reinstated leases and to protect the Boundary Waters region for the next 20 years. That decision is not just based on sound science. It also is based on community input, robust Tribal consultation, and at the end of the day on the best interests of the American people because that is who these public lands belong to. That is who should benefit from these public lands. However, a foreign company and politicians who bend to their interests don't like it. As I have made clear in this Congress, their priority is not putting science first or protecting communities. Their priority is putting corporate polluters' profits above all else by any means necessary. My Republican colleagues say that the toxic mining industry needs certainty. Well, this is certainty. The Boundary Waters watershed is off limits. I welcome the opportunity to work across the aisle to reform the mining law; for example, to require royalty payments. That way we can build a sustainable future for the industry. Part of that conversation--support of mining--needs to be recognition that some places are too special and too risky, and some types of mining are too risky to do. At the end of the day, what would you choose: your child's health, our lands, wilderness, endangered species, tourism jobs, our local economy, or would you choose a foreign company who wants to mine in a location that would hurt the environment, our economy, and our health? I know what I would choose. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present to cast my vote on Roll Call 142 today. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present to cast my votes on Roll Call No. 141 today. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on Roll Call 141.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, my son Paul broke my heart with a question. He asked: Mom, will you come visit me when I grow up and live outside of California? I asked: Why would you want to live out of State? It wasn't that there is somewhere else he would rather be. He was just a teenager, a teenager already worrying that he wouldn't be able to afford to live where he grew up. He was right to be worried. We all face a big cost-of-living problem. Housing has become too expensive and affordable housing altogether too scarce. The National Low Income Housing Coalition estimates that there is a nationwide shortage of more than 7 million affordable homes. That is not just a problem; it is a full-blown crisis. Washington has bungled this for decades, and nothing is changing. Earlier this year, bipartisan House and Senate leaders promised the biggest investment in housing that Congress has made in 35 years. Until the deal fell apart. We are back to solving yesterday's problems tomorrow maybe. Washington insiders may not have a plan, but I do. Let's start with the easiest step. Let's create a housing committee. We currently lump housing issues into the Financial Services Committee, a body focused on Wall Street, banking, and financial markets. However, housing is about so much more. It is about shelter. It is about well-being. It is about opportunity, not just about Wall Street profits. Housing should have a dedicated committee, and then Republicans and Democrats on that housing committee must work together to do three related things. First, increase the supply of housing; second, make housing easier to build; and, third, make housing more affordable. Believe it or not, the supply part is pretty easy. Republicans and Democrats alike actually want to increase our housing supply. You don't have to take my word for it. Look at the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act, which would enhance tax credits to build 2 million homes over the next decade. It is publicly supported by 111 Democrats and 111 Republicans, so let's pass that. Why stop with tax credits? Let's unleash private capital for home construction by guaranteeing and securitizing the construction of one- to-four-unit starter homes, just like the government already does for big apartment buildings built by Wall Street real estate firms. Those are the steps that we need to take to invest in our housing supply, but actually building those homes is still too challenging, and it shouldn't be. Stick and brick homes are expensive. Manufacturing costs have gone down in virtually every industry except home building. Why aren't we copying and learning from what worked in other industries? Imagine a home built, at least in part, from 3D-printed materials. Congress can invest in this type of technology and reduce building costs by over 30 percent just by thinking creatively. All levels of government should be partners in creative thinking. Congress should reward counties and cities that take steps to make their building and zoning requirements more flexible, and the Federal Government should release some of its unused land so we can build homes on it. With these simple steps, we can build way more affordable homes and get those financed and built. Then we just need to figure out how to make them affordable to own. One problem is that hedge funds have been scooping up all of the affordable homes, especially starter homes. We need to pass the End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act and tax Wall Street investors who purchase hundreds of homes solely for profits. Houses should be for homeowners and mom-and-pop landlords, not Wall Street companies looking to drive up their profits. With the money we make from that bill, we can invest in downpayment assistance for first-time home buyers. Often the biggest thing stopping people from owning a home is not having the cash to pay up front for the downpayment, even if they can afford the regular payments on that mortgage. Downpayment assistance will solve that. This is what a plan looks like. Congress just doesn't have one. The United States did not wind up with a shortage of nearly 7 million affordable homes overnight. Our housing crisis is the gradual consequence of leaders in Washington being asleep at the wheel for over 30 years. Well, Congress needs to wake up. Lowering people's housing costs isn't pie in the sky. We have done it before. We did it through the GI Bill for servicemembers, and we can do it again for all Americans. That is what we need from Washington, and I will keep pushing to get it done.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, our country needs energy to flourish, and Democrats know that this means authorizing energy projects. If we are going to authorize energy projects, then we need to require any energy developer, including Big Oil, to fully cover the cost of cleanup and reclamation of their extraction. H.R. 6009 negates that principle, which I feel strongly about as a single mom, of cleaning up your messes, and instead gives Big Oil carte blanche to drill with little or no regulation. With this bill, Republicans are endeavoring to undo all of my work and the work of my colleagues to hold Big Oil accountable and to protect taxpayers. Last Congress, my bill to protect public lands and recover taxpayer dollars by raising the Federal royalty rate for oil and gas extraction was passed into law. Since 1920, Big Oil had paid the same 12.5 percent royalty rate for the extraction of minerals on public lands, which was considerably lower than rates charged by States. This allowed Big Oil to exploit our public resources and pay the American taxpayers pennies. My bill ended this corporate giveaway to Big Oil and made sure the American people would get fair benefits for our public lands. I also had a bill that would increase, for the first time in 60 years, the amount of money Big Oil would put down to promise to clean up its oil wells. Last year, that reform was included in the Bureau of Land Management's onshore oil and gas proposed rule. Previously, the bond amount that Big Oil paid covered just a fraction of their cleanup costs, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill. Oil and gas companies have abandoned thousands of wells nationwide without undertaking reclamation efforts to make those polluted areas environmentally safe, actions that could now cost all of us, as taxpayers, up to $333 million. My bill, for the first time in decades, put Big Oil on notice: You pollute, you pay. My proposal had popular support, including across the West, which is home to much extraction. Ninety-one percent of western voters want oil and gas companies, not taxpayers, to pay for cleaning up and reclaiming public lands after drilling. However, Republicans don't care about protecting the American people from environmental and economic harm. They would rather prop up Big Oil's profits and exploit the American taxpayer, upending real progress to finally hold Big Oil accountable. H.R. 6009 would prevent the Biden administration from implementing the Bureau of Land Management's oil and gas rule. It would bar current and future administrations from increasing bonding requirements or implementing other fiscal reforms to protect taxpayers. It also prevents any administration from future updates to the Federal royalty rate. It is hypocritical that Republicans, who drape themselves in the mantle of lowering taxes during campaign time, stand here today advocating for a bill that would force taxpayers to pay for sweetheart deals to Big Oil that boost their profits even further. My Republican colleagues have the opportunity to prove me wrong. At the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to the Committee on Natural Resources. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill, and that amendment would prevent H.R. 6009 from going into effect until the Comptroller General of the United States certified that this bill would, in fact, result in reduced energy costs for American consumers and would not result in increased, record profits for the oil and gas industry. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues across the aisle if they have the bravery to show that they are not beholden to Big Oil's bidding and will stand up for consumers and taxpayers to lower costs? This vote will show where your allegiance is.

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, in a time when books and libraries are under attack, I rise to celebrate National Library Week which begins April 7. Libraries bring people together and foster growth and collaboration in our communities. From story time and summer lunches for kids to continuing education and book clubs for adults of all ages, our libraries are truly a place for all. In Orange County alone, our library system served over 3 million people just last year, including my family. Yet, these community institutions are increasingly targets of extremist, hateful attempts. Libraries should be places where all Americans are free to read, learn, and come together without interference from politicians. During National Library Week, I urge my colleagues to recognize the value libraries bring to all our communities and recommit to supporting these important institutions.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present to cast my votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall Nos. 73, 74, 75, and 76; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 77; and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 78.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I was unable to be present to cast my votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 66, ``yea'' on rollcall 67, ``nay'' on rollcall 68, ``nay'' on rollcall 69, ``nay'' on rollcall 70, ``nay'' on rollcall 71, and ``yea'' on rollcall 72. personal explanation

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present to cast my votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 62, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 63, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 64, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 65.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present to cast my votes on rollcall 60 and rollcall 61 today. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on rollcall 60 and yea on rollcall 61. personal explanation

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Madam Speaker, Valentine's Day is a time for us to cherish the loved ones in our lives. I rise to celebrate love in all its forms and to stand in solidarity with the LGBTQI+ communities in California and across the Nation. While we have made progress to protect the rights and safety of queer Americans, there is still more to be done. Last year, a record number of bills restricting LGBTQI+ rights were introduced in legislatures across the country, an extremist Supreme Court effectively legalized discrimination against the queer community, and House Republicans targeted LGBTQI+ in dozens of hearings. These attacks are unacceptable. As a member of the Congressional Equality Caucus, I will always seek to champion and protect LGBTQI+ Californians. May this week serve as a reminder to my colleagues that we must relentlessly celebrate and defend love. Commending United to End Homelessness Milestone

Ms. PORTER. I rise today to commend Orange County's United to End Homelessness initiative for reaching a remarkable milestone. Its WelcomeHomeOC program has housed more than 1,000 people experiencing homelessness, including 103 former foster youth and 242 veterans. This nationally recognized program pairs property owners with those given a voucher to reduce their housing costs. This public-private partnership helps people avoid homelessness and housing insecurity. Its focus on veterans and former foster youth who may lack adequate support systems helps the most vulnerable in our community. Let's be clear: This program is a patch on a massive problem. California's housing crisis is the result of decades of inaction in Washington. I have pushed for expanding the housing choice voucher program. The Federal Government must step up to help local and State governments in preventing homelessness. I am proud to recognize the United to End Homelessness initiative and look forward to its continued success. Recognizing 44th OC Black History Parade

Ms. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Orange County Heritage Council on a wonderfully successful Black History Parade and Unity Festival. Madam Speaker, 44 years ago, the late Helen Shipp, founder of the Orange County Heritage Council, envisioned an event that would bring the community together in celebration of Black excellence. Now run by Helen's son, Dwayne, the Orange County Black History Parade and Unity Festival continues to thrive--just as Helen imagined. The event features interactive Black history lessons, college and scholarship information, health screenings, and business connection opportunities. I applaud how the Unity Festival promotes inclusivity, understanding, and equality. It honors the diverse and resilient history of Black Americans and their historic and ongoing contributions to California. Madam Speaker, I congratulate the Orange County Heritage Council on their successful event. Commending CalOptima's Street Medicine Program

Ms. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend CalOptima Health for their new street medicine program, which offers critical mobile health services to unhoused individuals in Orange County. Logistical barriers make it difficult for people experiencing homelessness to receive the healthcare that they desperately need. CalOptima, which provides health services to low-income Californians, is reducing these barriers by bringing healthcare directly to homeless people, meeting them where they are. The mobile health program includes a fully equipped medical van and an experienced team to administer healthcare and connect individuals to services, including housing assistance. CalOptima's Street Medicine program is just one example of how Californians step up to help our neighbors in crisis. Expanding this program would reduce emergency room visits and first responder interventions and keep our communities healthier. I will continue fighting in Washington to lower housing costs, which is the only way to permanently end homelessness.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the career of my dear friend, Rabbi Arnie Rachlis, who is retiring after 35 years as the spiritual leader of University Synagogue in Irvine. From serving as a White House fellow, to delivering an invocation for President Obama, to growing University Synagogue into a place of worship that now serves over 600 Orange County families, Rabbi Rachlis has created a legacy that will resonate for generations to come. Rabbi Rachlis has been a beacon of wisdom, compassion, and inclusivity, and his teachings foster a spirit of unity and understanding. I am particularly grateful for the Rabbi's dedication to civic engagement and his deep understanding of that as a part of Jewish life. I am honored that Rabbi Rachlis often welcomed me to engage with his congregation in thoughtful dialogue. Mr. Speaker, I thank Rabbi Rachlis so much for his service to University Synagogue and our community. Mazel tov on a well-deserved retirement.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present to cast my votes on December 6, 2023. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 698, NAY on Roll Call No. 699, YEA on Roll Call No. 700, NAY on Roll Call No. 701, YEA on Roll Call No. 702, NAY on Roll Call No. 703 and YEA on Roll Call No. 704.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present to cast my vote today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 705 and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 706.