Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as I begin, I and many others have been outraged by the President's zero-tolerance policy, so it is so therapeutic for me to stand before you today and talk about a program that brings us together rather than divides us. Today I rise to celebrate the successes of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

The LWCF is a highly successful conservation program, and it enjoys great bipartisan support. It was created in 1964. It was a bipartisan commitment to safeguard our natural areas, to safeguard our water resources, and to protect and enhance our cultural heritage. We also wanted to be able to provide for recreational opportunities for all Americans.

It was a simple idea. It said: Use the resources from the depletion of one resource, which was offshore oil and gas, to support the conservation of another precious resource, our land and water.

Over its 50-year history, with no cost to taxpayers, it has provided critical access to public lands for hunting, fishing, biking, hiking, climbing, paddling, and many other outdoor activities that Americans enjoy. It has protected critical watersheds, ecosystems that provide for clean, safe drinking water, and has protected the habitat for our wildlife. Finally, it has provided protection and access for cultural and historic sites across our Nation.

Fifty percent of it goes to local and State grants, which help to build and preserve local and State parks, trails, and wildlife areas. Fifty percent in my State we have used for habitat conservation programs and the Forest Legacy Program. The other 50 percent goes to support access and conservation in and around our U.S. public land.

So, for example, in my district or near my district, really near my district, we have places like the Channel Islands National Park, Joshua Tree National Park, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, and Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge. They all benefit from the Land and Water.

I would like to say that where we are is that we have a bill now. We finally must deal with the reauthorization, and we have a bill, H.R. 502, that reauthorizes the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and it has the support of 35 Republicans and 194 Democrats. Mr. Speaker, it must be reauthorized before September 30. I ask that you bring it to the floor of the House because it will have overwhelming support.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the State of Virginia (Mr. McEachin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of Mr. Beyer to offer an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this 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.

I think we can all agree that we want thriving ocean and coastal ecosystems that promote the economic vitality of our communities. The National Ocean Policy is doing exactly that with the Northeastern region having completed its plan and the West Coast and other regions well on their way.

Prohibiting the allocation of funds to this important program will stifle collaboration among stakeholders on complex issues relating to environmental protection, national security, economic opportunity, and ocean policy.

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 hotspot. Some of the best blue whale watching happens just a few miles from our shore. We have a booming recreational fishing section. 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 shore. My district is also home to the Port of Long Beach, which is the second busiest port in North America.

With so much activity happening, it simply makes sense to have the Navy at the table when NOAA is working on siting of new aquaculture installations. 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 these massive ships in and out of our port safely.

So as we move forward, 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 they must be thoughtfully implemented.

The National Ocean Policy is the tool we have right now to promote smart shared use of our ocean resources. All of our districts benefit from our oceans, whether we represent coastal districts or not. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am a little surprised that someone from Kentucky is sponsoring this amendment, because if this amendment were to become law, who would be the biggest loser? It would be the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

When the Army started developing natural gas under Fort Knox, it did so without notifying the Department of the Interior, which is the agency that is responsible for these resources. Now the Defense Department has admitted that it was a mistake and says that it has taken steps to prevent this from ever happening again. But we still know that they are producing gas, and I am glad that they have taken steps to prevent this in the future.

To my knowledge, that is not the critical issue. The critical issue is that we have a real problem here. That is, the natural gas that is under Fort Knox belongs to the American people, not the military, and royalties are owed to the American people when that gas is sold. As we know, half of those royalties would go to Kentucky.

For example, in 2014, the Army estimated that it effectively cheated Kentucky out of $250,000, and now there are 4 more years of cheating Kentucky and the American people out of their royalties. That number is probably much larger now than the $250,000 a year.

We have no indication that the Army has paid any of these royalties, and until we deal with that issue that they are not paying royalties for the gas that the American people and the people of Kentucky own, we should not be letting them off the hook.

I would ask the sponsor of the amendment to look closely at this issue and what his home State stands to lose because of it and then to reconsider again whether or not he wants this amendment to be adopted.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simply an attempt to waive portions of our environmental laws for all--and I use the word ``all''--new mines by pretending that these mines are essential for national security.

Under this amendment, even sand and gravel--yes, sand and gravel-- would become a critical and strategic mineral. The proponents of this amendment have argued in the past that sand and gravel are extremely important when you need to build roads. I will agree with that; it is. But this is a deliberate distortion of the meaning of what is a critical mineral.

When it comes to minerals, just because something is important does not mean that it is critical. When someone is in critical condition in the hospital, that doesn't simply mean that their condition is important. It has a specific meaning. The same is true for critical minerals.

All reputable definitions of critical minerals make it clear that there must be a risk of losing access to the mineral for it truly to be called critical. Even the definition from an executive order signed by President Trump just 5 months ago says that a critical mineral has to have a supply chain that is vulnerable to disruption.

In the final list of critical minerals identified by the Secretary of the Interior published just last week, the department states that it recognizes the economic significance and indispensable nature of minerals such as sand and gravel. But it also states: `` . . . these minerals do not currently meet the definition of critical'' because we are not reliant on imports and we have access here in the United States to adequate domestic sources.

Simply put, we are not at risk of losing access to our supplies of sand and gravel, and no foreign government is threatening to close down our quarries.

We should not be waiving environmental laws for every single mineral simply because it is important for something.

Supporters of the amendment say a broad definition is needed because what is and isn't critical changes all the

time, so we shouldn't tie our hands. But I point out, it only took 4 months for the Interior Department of this administration to publish their final list of critical minerals, and that is starting from scratch.

Clearly the existing process is already very quick and very flexible. There is no need to define everything as critical and weaken environmental protections for all mines just so a mining company doesn't have to wait 4 months.

Also, if this amendment looks familiar to many of my colleagues, that is because it is language that has come out of the Natural Resources Committee on a party line vote in each of the past four Congresses. In the past three Congresses it passed the House, again on a party line vote, only to go nowhere in the Senate.

The reason why it goes nowhere in the Senate is because that body understands what the definition of a critical and strategic mineral is. This amendment would have similar luck in the Senate, and it has no business being added to a defense authorization bill.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, endangered salmon are not the only species that H.R. 3144 puts at risk. By removing critical protections for salmon runs, this bill would also push one of our most treasured whale species closer to extinction.

As pointed out by Congresswoman Tsongas, the Southern Resident killer whales are critically endangered. In fact, there are only 76 of them that are left. These whales depend upon healthy and abundant salmon populations for survival. More than 50 percent of their diet comes from Chinook salmon in the Columbia River basin. Without access to these wild salmon populations, Southern Resident killer whales are literally starving to death.

In order to save both of these iconic species, we cannot undermine important habitat restoration efforts or improvements in dam operations, both of which are essential to promoting survival in the river systems where these salmon spawn. Unfortunately, H.R. 3144 would do just the opposite.

In addition, the Southern Resident killer whales provide immense economic benefits to the Pacific Northwest. Whale watching is a major tourist attraction in Washington and has contributed an additional $65 million to the State's economy each year.

Losing these killer whales would not only have an irreversible effect on the marine ecosystem, it would be a huge blow to the tourism industry and to the local businesses that rely on their survival.

H.R. 3144 may be known as the Salmon Extinction Act, but, frankly, we should tack on Southern Resident killer whales to that name. Without access to waters beyond the Snake River dams, salmon populations will continue to plummet, and without salmon, the Southern Resident killer whales will die.

The fate of both these species rests in our hands. I urge my colleagues to stand with me and stand with the whales and vote against

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in supporting this bipartisan legislation and urge its adoption by the House.

H.R. 4465 extends the authorization through 2023 of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program.

These two multiagency partnerships bring together local, State, and Federal agencies; water users; utilities; and environmental organizations to help restore four endangered fish species, while also maintaining water delivery, hydropower generation, and protecting economic development along the Colorado and San Juan Rivers.

This legislation will allow for the continued funding of projects that improve habitat, support crucial research and monitoring, and remove non-native species, which will both benefit endangered fish species and protect the many other uses of the rivers.

Healthy rivers are vital to a region's overall environmental and economic well-being. When our rivers are healthy, our communities are healthy. We all share a responsibility to sustain and preserve the integrity of these resources for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the bipartisan cosponsors of this legislation for this leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation and its adoption by the House.

H.R. 1800 authorizes the transfer of 80 acres of Forest Service land to the Utah State University Research Foundation. The land will support ongoing research efforts that support national defense and space programs.

The idea that there should be national public lands that belong to and are managed on behalf of the American people is a value that dates back to the founding of our country and is embedded in our Constitution.

Generation after generation of Americans have endorsed the idea that our public lands should be managed for the benefit of all Americans to support a wide range of activities. As stewards of this land, we must work to find a balance between compelling yet sometimes competing interests and make sure that the Federal Government is a good neighbor to local communities.

Whenever we decide that it is appropriate to sell or convey these shared resources, we must make sure there is adequate compensation to Federal taxpayers or safeguards in place to guarantee that the land is used for public purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Bishop for working across the aisle to ensure that we met these goals in this legislation. I support H.R. 1800 and its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

As we have heard from my colleague, Dean Stone was a fierce champion of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

Mr. Stone spent much of his life promoting the long-term preservation of the park and encouraging others to visit this place that he loved so dearly.

Today, the Great Smoky Mountains are one of our Nation's most visited national parks. In fact, the park set a new record of 11.4 million visitors in 2017 and became a destination for tourists from around the world who wanted to witness last summer's total solar eclipse.

I am sure that many of these visitors directly benefited from the decades of work by Dean Stone on behalf of the park and the entire Smoky Mountains region.

Mr. Stone passed away in 2016 at the age of 92. It is a fitting tribute to rename a bridge section of the Foothills Parkway in his honor.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank both Mr. Poliquin and Ms. Pingree for introducing this legislation to protect a true New England treasure, Acadia National Park.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yea'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1350 is a commonsense, good governance measure, and I want to congratulate Mr. Nolan for his hard work in getting this bill through the legislative process.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, after twenty years of dedicated service to the American people as a staff member with the United States House of Representatives, Ms. Donna Jimenez will officially retire on February 28, 2018.

Ms. Jimenez served with honor and distinction as the longtime District Office Manager for Congressman David Dreier from 1997 to 2012, and as a Senior Constituent Services Representative for my office and the residents of California's 47th District from 2013 until her retirement.

During her time in the Legislative Branch, Ms. Jimenez served thousands of constituents of both Congressional districts, helping solve challenging cases with numerous federal departments and agencies. She demonstrated leadership and dedication in helping people navigate the federal bureaucracy, and derived great joy and satisfaction in serving those in most need of advocacy and assistance, among them including our nation's veterans, seniors, the disabled, and those immigrants seeking a brighter future in America.

In addition to her dedicated service to the American people, Ms. Jimenez further distinguished herself by earning her Master of Public Administration degree with an emphasis in Immigration, from the University of LaVerne in 2002.

It is with great pride and gratitude that I extend my best wishes to Ms. Donna Jimenez upon her retirement from the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, the tax bill passed by the House GOP today embodies everything that Americans dislike about Congress:

It was drafted behind closed doors where the drafters cast aside expert analysis and relied instead on special interests and faulty disproven assumptions.

The plan slashes tax rates for multinational corporations and the superwealthy, but leaves hardworking Americans in the 47th Congressional District to pay the bill.

It penalizes taxpayers in California and other blue States for investing in our schools, in our roads, and in our public services.

It cruelly hits children, seniors, and low-income Americans by putting at risk Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, and Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, I could not, and proudly did not, vote for this disastrous piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote from one of my colleagues from California: ``Eliminating the State and local tax deduction would assure that almost all of the bill's tax cuts would be distributed to other States, leaving California with the bill.''

That was from my Republican colleague, Darrell Issa.

Mr. Speaker, he was right on this. The Republican tax plan is cruel in so many ways. But perhaps the worst provision specifically targets States like California, New York, and New Jersey.

Our States have stepped into the breach left by the Federal Government. We have raised taxes to pay for infrastructure. We have raised taxes to pay for hospitals. We have raised taxes to pay for schools.

Now the Republicans want to punish us?

Mr. Speaker, this is a political game, plain and simple. Californians are smart enough to see through it.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is quite simply a giveaway of mining rights on roughly 5,000 acres of public lands right next to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in northern Minnesota to a Chilean mining conglomerate so that it can develop a copper mine that will, in all likelihood, leach toxic acid waste into the Boundary Waters for decades, if not centuries, to come. In order to do this, this bill overrides multiple laws that are in place to allow priceless natural places to be protected and it vetoes the scientific conclusions of the U.S. Forest Service.

Last year, the Forest Service recommended that two undeveloped 50- year-old mining leases in Minnesota's Superior National Forest be allowed to expire, stating that the development of a copper mine on these leases could lead to potentially extreme contamination of the Boundary Waters wilderness from acid mine drainage and leached materials.

The Boundary Waters isn't just a pristine and unique wilderness, it is also an economic engine for northern Minnesota. Over 1,000 pristine lakes, 1,200 miles of streams, and 2,000 campsites attract more than 150,000 visitors each year to canoe, kayak, fish, bird watch, ski, and simply explore and enjoy the natural beauty and peacefulness that is unlike anywhere else in the United States. These visitors bring in tens of millions of dollars annually, supporting thousands of local jobs.

The ecological and economic value of the Boundary Waters led the Forest Service to conclude: `` . . . development of a regionally untested copper-nickel sulfide-ore mine within the same watershed as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness might cause serious and irreplaceable harm to this unique, iconic, and irreplaceable wilderness area.''

As a result, the leases were not renewed, and the Forest Service began a study to look at whether to protect the area adjacent to the Boundary Waters from mining for the next 20 years. This 2-year study is open. It is a public process designed to gather scientific information and local views on the potential impacts of copper mining, which is immediately adjacent to the Boundary Waters, and it is supported by an overwhelming majority--79 percent--of the voters in Minnesota.

Even this administration here in Washington has said that it intends to allow the study to run its course before making any decisions, but this legislation would make that study meaningless. It would reinstate the leases and make it almost impossible for them to expire. It would block the Forest Service from acting on its study no matter what it found and how the people in the region feel, and it would make it impossible for the President of the United States to protect this area using the Antiquities Act, all so a Chilean mining company can move forward with a dangerous mine next to one of our most pristine and special natural places.

Mr. Chairman, our public lands belong to all Americans, not simply to wealthy mining companies with the connections and the cash to try to overturn decisions they don't like through legislation. The company that we are talking about is challenging this decision to not renew their leases in court. That is the appropriate venue for that debate, not here in the Halls of Congress. We shouldn't rewrite the law to make sure that they get their way.

Even if the company wins the case, we should not be tying the Federal Government's hands to make sure that this mine gets developed, no matter what, instead of listening to the science. That is the wrong thing to do for any project like this, let alone one that sits right next to a unique and delicate wilderness like the Boundary Waters.

This bill is a blatant attempt to reward an individual foreign company at the expense of the American people and the American landscape, and I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

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

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.

Will the gentleman yield?

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. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

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. 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.