Raúl Grijalva

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman's concerns, I really do. Hostile nations like Russia have shown their true face by interfering in our elections and continuing to attempt to influence the results of an American election. Although it is hard to take my colleague seriously on this concern when members of his own party and the President refuse to acknowledge what the intelligence community and millions upon millions of Americans already know, Russia interfered in the 2016 election. But let's be clear about the true intent of this motion. What the gentleman has put forward will kill this bill, opening a pathway for uranium mining in the Grand Canyon. Instead, they seem to think that the real threat to our national security is that Democrats aren't willing to mine uranium in the Grand Canyon. And make no mistake, this is what they are supporting when they vote against this bill or this procedural motion. This is not theoretical. The Grand Canyon, and I will say it again, the Grand Canyon is under threat from uranium mining, and my colleagues across the aisle are perfectly willing to let it happen. We don't need to open up the Grand Canyon to uranium mining to meet our national security or energy needs. The region that is being designated for permanent withdrawal holds less than 1 percent of known U.S. reserves of uranium. Meanwhile, we get the majority of our uranium from domestic mining or from our closest allies, Australia and Canada. The Department of Defense has testified that we have enough uranium stockpiled to meet national security needs for decades to come. And we stockpile enough uranium to run reactors for years without importing a single pound. I could rattle off the facts all day about how nonsensical this motion is and how ridiculous an argument our colleagues are making. I can share letters from national security experts breaking down their concerns about the need to protect the Grand Canyon from further uranium mining. I could even show you data from the Heritage Foundation, a known friend of our colleagues, showing the Republican arguments about uranium security are, here in Heritage's words, ``a hollow Russian doll.'' But at the end of the day, we can't lose sight of what this is really about. Our colleagues want to see the Grand Canyon, one of the most American of American landscapes open to uranium mining. They want to block this bill. They want to stop this place from being permanently protected, so that a very few wealthy companies can open up mine shafts and pull uranium out of the Grand Canyon and leave the mess to the taxpayers to clean up. We don't need this uranium in the designated area. It is expensive to extract. It risks our clean water and threatens our Tribal communities. On that point, the threat to Tribal communities is based in a legacy of antihistory, a legacy of illness, a legacy of high levels of contamination among Navajo people in the area in the Navajo Nation. It is based on lost land and soil-contaminated land, and it is based upon contaminated water. That is the legacy around the Grand Canyon to the people and the environment around there. It is a legacy that has united Indian Country in support of permanent protection for the Grand Canyon, and we should respect that voice. It is a voice that has been clear about the importance, not only of the Grand Canyon as a cultural resource, but the Grand Canyon as a resource of water for 40 million people in this country. We don't need this uranium. As I said, it is, frankly, hard for me to imagine a more cynical move than to continue to mine in the Grand Canyon. They are willing to use misinformation to ignore the people of Arizona and the United States and to threaten one of the most iconic landmarks just to open up a few acres for extraction. So I ask my colleagues here today, if the Grand Canyon isn't worth protecting, what is? What are we doing here if we are willing to let public lands owned and cherished by all Americans get sold to the highest bidder? This really shouldn't be up for debate. After all, my friends and colleagues, it is the Grand Canyon. We owe it to ourselves, we owe it to generations to come to do our part to permanently protect the Grand Canyon, and in protecting the Grand Canyon respect Native communities that came to us and said we need this, we need it for our lives, and we need it for the generations to come. I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time in opposition to the amendment. As I said earlier, I think we keep forgetting the essence of what we are talking about here today. And the essence is the Grand Canyon, something that is recognized nationally, not only as an environmental icon, but the dependency that 40 million people have on the water of the Grand Canyon. And while we want to minimize this, the reality is that the history tells us and current health studies tell us of the impact that Native communities have suffered because of uranium contamination in their water, in their air, and in their land. Those are reasons enough to put aside a very special place and permanently ban uranium mining. This amendment cuts an exception based on territorial imperative or some provincial thought that we are not all part of one great Nation. This is a national issue and should be treated that way. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Since we are engaging in a little bit of a geology course, I would like to point out, at the Kanab North Uranium Mine that has already been closed, within 400 feet of the mine site where the fence is, after 20 years, levels are as high as 10 times above the naturally occurring level for uranium concentration. This has been open and exposed for 20 years. The mine ceased operations in the 1990s. I use that to say that, as far as I understand, the House of Representatives is a national legislature, and as a national legislature, we have responsibilities to deal with issues, regardless of whether it is in my particular district or in my colleague, Mr. Gosar's particular district. Over the course of the last couple of days, we have heard our Republican colleagues call this bill a number of things: a tired, old retread; a national security threat; a Federal land grab; an attack on science; and even an idle waste of time. I want to assure this Chamber and the American people that protecting the Grand Canyon is none of these characterizations. The truth is, this bill is a critical safeguard for the Grand Canyon, one of the most iconic landscapes in the world, and the vital Colorado River watershed that supplies drinking water for communities throughout the Southwest. Forty million people depend on that source. We just passed, overwhelmingly, the drought contingency plan for five States, including Arizona, because of the imminent threat of drought and the need to protect that river and that water source. Most importantly, this bill is in response to Tribal communities that have experienced firsthand the toxic legacy of uranium mining. When I first got involved in this effort over a decade ago, it was not because of narrow special interests. It was because the Navajo Nation, the Havasupai Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, and other impacted communities were calling for an end to the contamination associated with uranium mining. These communities have lived on the land since time immemorial. Their interests go beyond the handful of jobs associated with the boom and bust cycle of the mining industry. Historically, Tribal communities in the Southwest have borne the brunt of uranium mining's impact, with some estimates placing over 1,000 abandoned uranium mines and four mills on the Navajo Nation alone. In 2008, health officials discovered that nearly 30 water sources in the Navajo Nation contained unsafe levels of uranium, and 27 percent of the residents tested positive for high levels of uranium. The Navajos are not alone. In fact, the Havasupai, who live in the Grand Canyon and depend on the aquifer beneath the Colorado Plateau, are dealing with contaminated groundwater associated with the active discharge by the Canyon Mine. This is why several Havasupai Tribal leaders and members traveled to Washington, D.C., to be present for this vote. This bill is about protecting these communities. It is about providing lasting protection for a sacred landscape. The consequences of uranium mining are not some imagined or unproven threat. We are forcing communities to contemplate the viability of their ancestral homes. The United States has an obligation to protect Tribal communities and ensure that they prosper. We have a moral obligation to protect our most sacred and treasured public lands. We shouldn't need a treaty to remind us to do the right thing. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to stand with the Havasupai and other affiliated Tribes to protect the Grand Canyon for future generations. A ``yes'' vote today on the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act is, overall, a declaration that there are places and communities in which extraction and destruction of a landscape, and jeopardizing people's health and their welfare and generational advancement, that those places should be left alone. The Grand Canyon should be left alone. It is, after all, the Grand Canyon. I urge swift adoption of H.R. 1373, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the impact created by the Speak Up, Stand Up, Save a Life conference and movement. In Arizona, much like the rest of the country, student deaths from suicide have increased substantially, and research has shown, many youth related deaths have been found to be preventable, if only people had the tools to make a difference. Dr. Lily Matos DeBlieux, superintendent of the Pendergast District, and Gina Godbehere, attorney, and Bureau Chief of the Maricopa County Attorney's office, met in Leadership West Class XXII, and worked collaboratively to create the Speak Up, Stand Up, Save a Life Conference in 2017, the only conference of its kind in Arizona. Now in its fourth year, over 5,000 students, counselors, law enforcement, parents and education advocates came together in a January 2019 conference, to eradicate the stigma and consequences of bullying and to prevent teen suicide. Due to their efforts to help Arizona be a better place for this and future generations, police chiefs, and law enforcement officers from agencies throughout the state joined the effort and attended the conference, along with students, counselors, teachers, education advocates, and caring adults. The daylong event inspired attendees to connect and create lasting solutions they can implement at their schools. The conference offered students an opportunity to hear from local and national speakers on the difficult issues they face on a daily basis, both inside and outside of school. The conference is free of charge, thanks to sponsors and in- kind donations. What makes this youth conference unique is the outreach offered to the adults through the conference, implementation at the school sites, and follow-up to family resource nights in the communities. This vital project is now active in 38 school districts in Arizona with a total of 158 schools pa11icipating. The upcoming January 2020 conference will inspire youth and adults to be empowered, and make a difference in their schools, districts and communities. The objective of this vital movement is to create tools for students in schools with diverse populations and community partners to take back to their campuses and communities with the goal to prevent suicide by inspiring over 380,000 students to speak up, stand up, and save lives.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Water, Oceans, and Wildlife Subcommittee for the time and for his longstanding leadership on this issue. And also, I thank the 182 Members of Congress who support H.R. 1146. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strongly support this legislation, H.R. 1146, a bill to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from the irreversible impacts of oil and gas drilling. This bill would undo a particular terrible provision that was slipped into the 2017 Republican tax bill with no debate in this Chamber, no amendments in this Chamber, and no votes in this Chamber. The Republican Party was not content with merely giving trillions of dollars of tax cuts to the wealthiest companies and individuals in this country, tax cuts that have driven us deeper into debt without any of the positives the bill sponsors promised; at the same time they were handing out trillions of dollars to their friends and donors, they threw in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for their oil and gas buddies. They promised that this would be done right, as if destroying a pristine wilderness and threatening the survival of an entire Tribe's way of life can ever be done right. But then the Trump administration took over. Since then, we have had rushed environmental reviews so they could try to get a lease sale done in 1 year, 2 years quicker than the schedule laid out in the tax bill. We have seen evidence of the concerns of career scientists being ignored or overridden, and we have seen the Assistant Secretary in charge of making this lease sale happen jump ship and, after a long 3- day cooling off weekend, start at an oil company that has leases right next to the refuge. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should never have been opened, and even those who want to see it develop should recoil at the idea that this is now in the hands of Donald Trump and his buddies. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has nothing to do with national security, has nothing to do with gas prices, and has nothing to do with energy independence. It has to do with greed, plain and simple. This administration simply can't stand the idea that there are some places that the oil and gas industry shouldn't be allowed to destroy. They can't believe that there are some places that deserve to be protected. They can't imagine there being anything more important than profits. I don't agree. At some point, we have to say: Stop. You have enough. We are the number one producer of oil and gas in the world, and production is going up. The administration is repealing regulations left and right and reduced land or wildlife protections on over 150 million acres of public land. The oil and gas industry has enough. They shouldn't get the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, as a point of reference, the BP oil spill cost the fishing industry at least, at the minimum, $94.7 million and, at the maximum, $1.6 billion in 2010. I mention that because, you know, oil spills are not necessarily good for fisheries in the long haul. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I thought I would close by talking a little bit about, because it relates to the discussion that we are having today, protecting these very valuable coastal areas in this country. My Republican colleagues introduced the American Energy First Act today, and, frankly, it is quite frightening. It is really the ``Earth isn't burning fast enough'' legislation, as I like to call it. America is already the number one producer of oil and gas in the world. This administration is lifting protections on hundreds of millions of acres of public lands for even more drilling. Our Republican colleagues feel that is not enough. It is never enough for them. For them, President Trump's extreme antienvironment, anticlimate agenda needs to be pushed even further. They are rolling out a bill to give even more money away to their oil and gas polluter friends. This Republican bill that was introduced today by the minority would force the Florida Gulf Coast for offshore oil and gas, let States decide where energy development should happen on Federal public lands, gut Federal regulation, shorten environmental review times, give vast amounts of public money to four States in the Gulf of Mexico, and make Americans pay if they wanted to object to a government decision. Think about it. Right now, oil and gas companies get to nominate public lands for leasing without paying a dime. If Republicans had their way, oil and gas companies would keep the free ride, and anyone who wants to protest a lease would have to pay a fee to challenge them. These ideas are destructive, and they couldn't even pass in an all- Republican government. Nearly all of this legislation was introduced in various forms by Republicans in the last Congress when they controlled everything: the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency. But the bills that were introduced today are so pro- polluter, so backwards-looking, they weren't able to pass them in the House under Republican control. If my House colleagues just can't or won't take climate change seriously, then we shouldn't take this bill seriously at all. The American people want us to act on climate. They reject the Trump administration's pro-polluter agenda. That is why we are voting to protect our coasts today, and that is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 205. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, again, the amendment is not necessary, and it is an attempt to delay and to put further risk to the Florida Gulf Coast, and I would urge its defeat. More importantly, I think concrete, real policy initiatives to enhance opportunities for women and people of color in this country are something this Congress should undertake as a whole. But crocodile tears on this particular piece of legislation and this amendment aren't going to do it. I urge opposition. I urge its defeat. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his thoughtful and necessary amendment that will restore offshore drilling regulations and that will reduce the risks the Gulf communities face from offshore development. I thank him for that, and I very much support the amendment.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 205.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 205, the Protecting and Securing Florida's Coastline Act, would permanently protect the eastern Gulf of Mexico from oil and gas drilling. Nearly all of the eastern Gulf remains protected under a leasing moratorium until 2022 under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006. This bill would permanently extend that moratorium and, in doing so, would safeguard Florida's marine resources, environment, and coastal tourism economy. Some of Florida's more valuable assets are tied to its beaches and its coastal ecosystems. These drive a tourism economy in Florida that brings in billions of dollars each year and supports over 1.4 million jobs. Over 2,000 Florida businesses, including restaurants, hotels, and outfitters, have expressed their strong support for permanently protecting the eastern Gulf because they know firsthand the economic consequences of an offshore oil spill. Following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, Florida suffered a $7.6 billion loss in tourism revenue, and bookings for hotels and for- hire fishing trips dropped significantly. Even for places that were left unscathed, the perception of oil-covered shores was enough to redirect vacationing tourists to other coastal States. That is why voters in the Sunshine State, Democrats and Republicans alike, have made clear time and time again that offshore drilling has no place near Florida's shores. The eastern Gulf of Mexico also has incredible value as a military test and training range, and enactment of H.R. 205 is critical for America's national security and military preparedness. In 2015, the Department of Defense determined that offshore oil and gas in the eastern Gulf of Mexico would jeopardize the ability of the military to conduct operations in the region. Even the Trump administration, which bends over backwards to support the oil and gas industry, understands how deeply unpopular offshore drilling is in Florida and has manipulated the offshore leasing process for political reasons. Five days after proposing to offer all of America's oceans to oil and gas companies, former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke rushed down to Tallahassee to meet with then-Florida Governor Rick Scott. Understanding that Governor Scott was facing a tough Senate race but could never oppose anything from the Trump administration, Secretary Zinke tweeted that he was ``removing Florida from the draft offshore plan'' at the Governor's behest. However, Secretary Zinke was contradicted less than 2 weeks later when a top Interior Department official stated that Florida was, in fact, still under consideration for offshore leasing. Then, at one of our hearings in the Natural Resources Committee, Secretary Zinke seemed to say that Florida was both safe yet still being considered. The problem for Secretary Zinke was that the oil and gas industry really wants to drill in the eastern Gulf, and this administration wants to do whatever this industry wants. But the people of Florida do not want the industry near their shores, and this administration needs Florida to vote for it next year. So now the administration has paused the new leasing program because they can't show their true intentions before the next election. With a wink and a nod towards industry, the administration has paused their plans for new leasing. But it is only a sham disguised to convince Florida that it is safe, while also making it clear to the industry that, if they get a second term, the eastern Gulf will be open for drilling. In May, I wrote to Interior Secretary Bernhardt requesting a copy of the leasing program as it currently exists so we could settle the debate over whether Florida was in or out. Unsurprisingly, Secretary Bernhardt has failed to turn over that plan. The fact is that Florida's beaches will not be safe from the threat of offshore drilling until we have passed the two bills we are debating today: this one to protect Florida's Gulf Coast and H.R. 1941 to protect Florida's Atlantic Coast. Florida voters should not have to worry over the next 16 months whether drilling rigs will one day appear on the horizon. H.R. 205 provides Florida's Gulf Coast permanent protection from offshore oil drilling and deserves this body's full support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney), the original sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chairwoman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), an original cosponsor-- along with Mr. Rooney--of this legislation before us, H.R. 205.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. For the record, this bill will not affect LWCF funds at all. All the money for the fund comes from existing oil and gas activities in the central and western Gulf of Mexico. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is credited with the first $900 million in offshore revenues. Last year, those revenues were $4.7 billion, and projections are that existing activity in the Gulf of Mexico is enough to keep the fund going for a long, long time. We don't need to drill in the Atlantic or the Pacific or near Florida to find more money. Revenues are not a problem. The real problem is that only twice in the history of the fund has Congress appropriated the full $900 million that it should get. In fact, over time, we have collected $37.8 billion of revenue that should have been spent on LWCF, but Congress has appropriated less than half, $18.4 billion. Revenue is not the issue. This permanent protection for Florida coastal areas is not going to hurt the fund. It has been stated three times already by my friends on the other side of the aisle, but that is completely false. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, first of all, let's start with the premise here. The premise of protecting jobs for women and people of color is a laudable one. But on the eastern coast, at this point, there are no jobs to lose or protect because there are no jobs. If there was to be any activity, it would be when the moratorium would be lifted in 2022. The point of this amendment has nothing to do with the bill, and it is simply an attempt to block protections for the eastern Gulf based on a fake concern for jobs for women and people of color. I recall the hearing we had yesterday about the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management reorganization and its transfer of central activities to Grand Junction, Colorado. In that, the majority asked the question: What about the retention of senior, female, and of- color staff in this move? How many are we going to lose? Do they need to be protected? At the hearing, the minority Members told us that was not an issue, that we shouldn't worry about it, that nothing was going to be lost and everything was going to be protected. Here we have the issue being raised again, but from another perspective. I believe that enacting this bill and protecting Florida's shore from the dangers of offshore drilling will safeguard jobs in coastal tourism, recreation industries, and many others that are held by the people of Florida, including women and people of color. For example, the Florida Gulf Coast Business Coalition is a diverse coalition of businesses and industries committed to protecting Florida's Gulf Coast, and they have offered strong support for the underlying legislation. The real threat to jobs and economic opportunity in Florida would be failing to extend the existing moratorium. This is why elected officials, including the entire Florida congressional delegation and the Florida Governor, oppose drilling in the eastern Gulf and support H.R. 205. This is not a serious amendment and does nothing to protect jobs belonging to women, to people of color, and, conversely, keeps the Florida Gulf Coast at risk. For these reasons, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, June 18, 2019 I inadvertently switched my recorded vote for Roll call No. 345. The vote was on Amendment No. 24 to H.R. 2740 offered by Reps. Amash and Lofgren. My intended vote should be noted as a ``yea'' on roll call 345.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, my amendment would prevent uranium from being considered as a critical mineral under the Trump Administration's critical mineral strategy. Last year, the Interior Department included uranium on a list of critical minerals required under Executive Order 13817. However, uranium does not meet the definition of a ``critical mineral'' in that executive order. Under the order, the first criteria for a critical mineral is that it must be a ``non-fuel mineral'' or a ``mineral material.'' Uranium is neither. Even the Department of the Interior understands that. Earlier this month at a Natural Resources Committee hearing on my Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act, a senior official from the Department testified that, ``Uranium, like oil and gas, solar, wind, geothermal, and other energy sources, remains a vital component of a responsible and comprehensive energy strategy.'' Clearly, uranium is a fuel mineral, so it fails to meet that part of the critical mineral definition. And a ``mineral material'' is defined by the Minerals Act of 1947 as common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, and other similar items. The Bureau of Land Management also clearly tells people on their website that mineral materials are sold and not subject to the Mining Law of 1872. Uranium, on the other hand, is subject to the Mining Law of 1872, and it is not a ``common variety'' of anything by any stretch of the imagination. So uranium fails that test as well. We don't even have to get into the fact that our supply chain for uranium comes mainly from friendly countries like Canada and Australia, and is not at risk. Uranium very clearly does not meet the definition of a ``critical mineral'' under the executive order. Yet it is on the list of critical minerals published by the Interior Department last year, and subject to all the production enhancements and incentives recommended by the Department of Commerce in its Critical Mineral Strategy. We do not need to make it any easier to mine uranium in this country. Already mining companies in the United States have a sweetheart deal in the form of the Mining Law of 1872, where they pay no royalties and have virtually unfettered access to public lands. The administration has already taken unprecedented steps that help out the uranium industry, such as cutting Bears Ears National Monument by 85 percent at their request. Now the new critical mineral strategy recommends reviewing existing mineral withdrawals with an eye towards eliminating or shrinking them, particularly in areas where they may be critical minerals. Because uranium is incorrectly defined as a critical mineral, this puts the Grand Canyon right in the crosshairs. The Obama administration put a 20-year withdrawal on the sensitive lands around the Grand Canyon so it could study the impacts of uranium mining in the region. We are less than half of the way into that withdrawal, but the uranium companies are salivating at the possibility of ending those protections early and descending on uranium deposits around the Grand Canyon. My Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act would protect this landscape and the residents who have called it home for centuries. Unfortunately, we may never get the chance to do this if President Trump continues to do the bidding of the uranium mining companies. Given the legacy of uranium mining in the West, particularly the terrible health impacts experienced on the Navajo Nation from abandoned uranium mines, we should be holding mining companies accountable, not handing them a blank check to more of our most special public lands. That's why this amendment is so important. It prohibits the administration from treating uranium as a critical mineral and using the actions identified in the Commerce Department's Critical Mineral Strategy in order to grease the skids for new uranium mines. It doesn't affect any of the other minerals on the critical minerals list, and it doesn't prevent companies from staking new uranium claims or opening new uranium mines. It just keeps the government from giving those companies any additional benefits beyond the too many that they already have. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, my amendment would limit the Administration's ability to co-opt important public lands for an unnecessary, hateful, and expensive wall at our Southern border--my home region. This amendment would defund Section 2 of the President's National Emergency Declaration by barring agencies from using the funds appropriated in this bill to turn parks, wildlife refuges, and other public lands into a militarized border zone administered by agencies lacking the expertise to take good care of them. Our border lands are comprised of a diverse array of ecosystems that support over 100 different endangered or threatened species, per a 2016 Fish and Wildlife Service report. The border wall would fragment important habitats, limiting the ability of animals to find food, water, and potential mates across their range. We always need to be conscientious of the ways that any major federal project affects our natural world. But when the project is so hateful and useless, and when it impacts such vulnerable ecological communities, we must do something. I refuse to stand by while our President abuses his powers to remove jurisdiction over our public lands from the agencies best able to take care of them. They are our heritage, not an expendable construction zone. Trump's border wall is unnecessary, harmful and ineffective. Border communities remain some of the safest cities in the country, yet the continued militarization of our borderlands continues hurting border communities, commerce, and wildlife. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is currently exempt from all local, state and federal laws that exist to protect the environment, wildlife, historic and archaeological sites, Native American sacred sites, and religious practices-all of which negatively impact the borderlands. More walls will not affect the flow of drugs into the country; instead we must modernize and invest in our crumbling infrastructure and ensure adequate staffing at our ports of entry. I would like to thank the Chair and the committee for their work on this bill. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this amendment, and I would urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. We must stop the false narrative of a violent and insecure border to justify border wall construction.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Tucson, Arizona's four students who won first place at the National Endowment for the Humanities' National History Day contest. The young history buffs, Sean Choudhry, Elias Rice-Bensch, Zia Rice-Bensch, and Keona Wallen all attend the Accelerated Learning Laboratory in my district. Their website Radium Girls: From Jaw-Dropping Tragedy to Glowing Triumph earned the top prize in the contest that featured more than 3,000 students from across the country. National History Day began in the 1970s and is the culmination of a yearlong academic program for students in grades 6 through 12 to engage in historical research. Students produce essays, exhibitions, films, performances, or websites to enter into local and state competitions. State winners move on to compete in the national finals at the University of Maryland at College Park. The National Endowment for the Humanities has been a sponsor and partner of National History Day for more than 30 years. The theme for this year's competition was ``Triumph and Tragedy in History'' and more than a half million students submitted entries. On their website, Sean, Elias, Zia, and Keona state, ``The radium girls were young factory workers who unknowingly consumed lethal amounts of radium, often resulting in slow, painful deaths. Despite their tragic circumstances, their desire for change and persistence in court caused revolutionary change to workplace safety regulations and sparked monumental scientific advancements regarding radium and radioactivity.'' The students go on to document how radium was commonly used and recommended. At the focus of their website is the story of the women who, at the start of the 20th century, were exposed to high levels of radium in their work as they painted watch dials. Such exposure proved quickly fatal and resulted in physical deformities and cancer. The legal battles that followed were tumultuous and provided minor relief for the women who had been exposed to radium. Their legacy, however, lives on today as workplace protections continue to be a focus on Capitol Hill. These four incredible students have demonstrated truly admirable talent and skill in their deep dive into history. I am moved by their desire to shed light on an overlooked and long-forgotten story that still resonates today. I want to congratulate Sean, Elias, Zia, Keona, their families, and the educators who have helped them get where they are today. I expect great things from each of them in the near future and look forward to the positive impact they will have on our district and abroad.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Melissa Santa Cruz in honor of her day of appreciation as enacted by the City of South Tucson, Arizona. A pillar of the local airwaves, Ms. Santa Cruz has accomplished just as much in her community as she has on the radio. Her driving passion both in her work and activism has endeared her to all of her many listeners. With over 30 years as an on-air personality, Santa Cruz began her career in the town of Globe, Arizona, on the country music station KQSS 98.3 FM. She eventually moved back to the Tucson area, being a featured personality across many broadcast stations, and bringing music of all genres to the listeners of Southern Arizona. In her current role, Santa Cruz now serves as Program Director for Tejano 1600AM, while continuing on as a country and adult contemporary radio DJ on 97.1 The Bull and My 92.9, respectively. A daughter of former South Tucson Councilman Reynaldo Santa Cruz, Melissa has always known the value of community. As a young girl, Santa Cruz saw both her father as well as her mother Lydia volunteer as members of Santa Cruz Church Parish, and has continued their work into her professional life. Santa Cruz has made it a point to keep her community up to date on local benefits and functions, making a point to highlight families and non-profit organizations in need. She not only talks the talk, but walks the walk, and has emceed events for various Latinx organizations such as Chicanos Por La Causa, LULAC, and the League of Mexican American Women. Melissa Santa Cruz has truly indebted herself to the City of South Tucson and to Southern Arizona as a whole. She truly serves as an inspiration to our community, broadcasting the music of the Borderlands across Tejano 1600AM while also being proactive on issues of importance to all Southern Arizonans. I am proud to stand here on the floor today on Melissa Santa Cruz Appreciation Day, in recognition of Melissa Santa Cruz as one of our community's most valuable citizens.