Raúl Grijalva

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Crooked River Ranch Fire Protection Act removes 830 acres from the wilderness study area in central Oregon. The land is adjacent to a rural subdivision, and its removal from WSA will arguably make it easier for the local community and the BLM to plan wildfire mitigation projects. While we take issue with the point that the WSA designation limits mechanical thinning and other necessary forest treatments, the area is not suitable for wilderness designation, and the release from the WSA makes sense. However, we still have concerns with this bill, because it ignores the collaborative process that was trying to develop a comprehensive plan for the entire area. That plan would have led to lasting conservation gains by designating wilderness and would have done even more to protect the community from wildfire by creating special management areas adjacent to Crooked River Ranch. Unfortunately, the collaborative group stalled out after this legislation was introduced. Only Congress can permanently change the status of a wilderness study area. Whenever we choose to make a permanent change, we have a responsibility to consider the whole picture and listen to all stakeholders. While it is disappointing that we are unable to fulfill that commitment with this legislation, we understand the need to prioritize safety of the Crooked River Ranch residents. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2083. This legislation claims to protect salmon in the Columbia River by authorizing an increase in the annual permits to kill California sea lions, Steller sea lions, and harbor seals. It is true that many of our salmon and steelhead runs are not doing well. In 2017, runs of wild salmon and steelhead were the fourth lowest since 1979, and the most recent 3-year trend is steadily downward. It is devastating, I agree, but we should be legislating to address the real threats facing salmon recovery. Impacts to salmon caused by seals and sea lions pale in comparison to the harm caused by so many other threats. Let's take a minute to go over some of the significant threats facing salmon: habitat loss and degradation, pesticides and toxic contaminants polluting tributary habitats, hydropower, invasive species, hatcheries, overfishing, by-catch, human population growth, climate change, and the bill the House Republicans pushed today to block court-mandated water releases from Federal dams to aid in salmon recovery. I cannot support this bill. It does not address the root causes of salmon population decline and, instead, unfairly scapegoats sea lions. Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed to be standing here today to debate a bill that has become quite familiar to the House Natural Resources Committee over the past three Congresses. I must point out the obvious fact, Mr. Chairman, that killing of sea lions is not a silver bullet for a salmon recovery. This bill is a five-cent solution to a $10 problem. The fact is the sea lion predation pales in comparison to the harm caused to endangered salmon runs by habitat loss, dam operation, pesticides, invasive species, and several other human activities. The bill does absolutely nothing to address any of these major causes of salmon decline. For example, NOAA Fisheries has found that the estimated salmon and steelhead production in the Columbia River basin is over 10 million fish below historic levels, with 8 million of that loss attributable to hydropower development and operation. I must also point out the hypocrisy here. The bill before us today is described as a salmon protection act, but it follows a series of House Republican priority bills that would push the West Coast salmon population to the brink of extinction. Just this April, my Republican colleagues pushed through the House H.R. 3144, known in the fishing community as the ``Salmon Extinction Act,'' intended to block protection measures that experts tell us are necessary for salmon survival. Last year, we saw similar attacks on salmon, Tribes, and the salmon fishing industry when House leadership rushed H.R. 23, also known as the GROW Act, through the House. This bill sought to eliminate protections for wild California salmon and put California's native fisheries and the thousands of jobs it supported on the path to extinction, meaning thousands of job losses across California, Oregon, and Washington State. House leadership pushed that bill even though estimates showed that 78 percent of California's native salmon will be extinct this century under current trends. The congressional war on salmon has continued with riders in this year's appropriations bills. For example, the House Energy and Water Appropriations bill, approved by this Chamber earlier this month, will block the restoration of salmon runs in the Columbia River and California's San Joaquin River. As if that were not enough, the Interior and CJS Appropriations bills also include riders that are being supported by the Republican majority. Yet here we are talking about killing hundreds of seals and sea lions because my Republican colleagues claim they want to recover salmon. Let's be clear: The anti-salmon legislation and riders coming out of Congress are far bigger threats to salmon recovery than the sea lions' snacking habits. Restoring wild salmon that are under threat requires a sophisticated response that tackles the most pressing issues impacting salmon populations. Instead, we are here today scapegoating marine mammals that are themselves under threat from this House's effort to roll back the Marine Mammal Protection Act in order to help oil and gas companies. Marine mammals and salmon have coexisted together for millennia. Unfortunately, neither one has enough defenses against the agenda of the Republican Congress. We don't have to pick and choose which creatures are worthy of survival. I would encourage my colleagues to get serious about addressing the whole range of stressors that are driving salmon to extinction: dam operations, pesticides, invasive species, and human activities that are preventing full salmon recovery. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject today's effort to force Congress to pick and choose between wildlife, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I want to indicate that the proponents of the legislation on both sides of the aisle, I understand, are representing not only constituent interests, but what they see is a good piece of legislation. Let me just end by saying that similar legislation has been proposed in previous Congresses, but this bill would allow more killing of seals and sea lions than all of those before it. When this version of the bill was introduced in 2015, it proposed an annual taking of 92 California sea lions. Under this legislation, H.R. 2083, this would increase by tenfold and would include the killing of Stellar sea lions and harbor seals. I am disappointed that the legislation before us today has gone in that direction. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 2083 authorizes the lethal taking of over 1,000 sea lions and an unknown amount of seals annually. Counter to what we have heard, the bill will not significantly aid in the recovery of salmon populations but needlessly targets seals and sea lions. I think we have to put this piece of legislation in context to what this House has done and what the Natural Resources Committee has done: a pattern. It is another example of how my Republican colleagues view wildlife management policy in the 21st century. We have too many attacks on wildlife in this Congress. Last year, Republicans released a bill to overturn a 2016 judicial decision to allow the shooting of cormorants without ever considering nonlethal management. The claimed rationale is to protect sports fishing and aquaculture, although scant science, evidence, or fact exists to prove that the birds significantly impact fish populations. In February of last year, this Chamber voted to allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to shoot bear cubs from a helicopter and gas wolf pups in their dens on Alaska National Wildlife Refuges to artificially inflate populations of moose and caribou prized by trophy hunters. In the 115th Congress, Republicans have introduced dozens of bills and policy riders targeting the Endangered Species Act and species like the gray wolf, grizzly bears, greater sage-grouse, delta smelt, and Chinook salmon. The Trump administration's announcement that the Department of the Interior will now consider trophy imports on a case-by-case basis gave life to harmful bills in Congress that support trophy killing of elephants and lions in African countries for purported conservation purposes. In the midst of all of the mass shootings in the country, committee Republicans tried to disguise an NRA-backed bill as a sportsmen's bill, the SHARE Act, which would deregulate silencers and armor-piercing bullets. All these attacks on wildlife have been constant, they have not been backed in science, and they have not been supported by science or fact. We all would like to see legislation that would tackle the real threats facing imperiled wildlife and, in this particular legislation, to do a study to assess that and then to talk about the kinds of efforts that could be undertaken to protect the salmon. But to merely do that without the science and the study I think is a mistake, and it fits into a pattern that is all too common and puts this legislation within the same context and the same pattern as the other pieces of legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill proposed by Speaker Ryan, a day after the big lie was finally admitted to by President Trump, the Attorney General, Secretary of Homeland Security, and the resident White House sociopath, Stephen Miller, that ripping children from their mothers and fathers and jailing them was solely an administrative decision, not a law, not a loophole, not the fault of Democrats, but, instead, the singular, cynical, and cruel policy of the Trump administration. Yet H.R. 6136 does nothing to remedy the damage of that policy for children, for their parents, and does nothing to soothe the conscience of our Nation. H.R. 6136 has no oversight or public review of for-profit and nonprofit detention centers, nothing to reunite 2,300 children with their families, and eliminates the standards of care for children in detention centers. Today was supposed to be about DACA recipients. This bill does nothing for them either. Their fate is tied to spending 23 billion taxpayer dollars on a political gift to Trump for a wall, a wall that circumvents environmental law, puts our lands, water, and wildlife and border land communities at risk, and a point system that could disqualify over 80 percent of current and previously eligible Dreamers. We had an opportunity to address Dreamers, by the way, another Trump- created crisis, with a vote on the Aguilar-Hurd legislation, a bipartisan compromise that includes some content I opposed, but I would vote for it because it is necessary and a step forward. But this effort was sabotaged by Trump and the Republican leadership of this House. We are now asked to vote on Speaker Ryan's H.R. 6136, the anti-family values bill. It is wasteful, repressive, and meaningless. Regardless of how you paint it, how you sell it or lie about it, this particular pig will never be a silk purse. I urge a ``no'' vote on the legislation.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gomez), my friend.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), my good friend.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, it is difficult to find words after what has unfolded before our eyes and the eyes of the American people these last few days, and it has gotten worse the last few days. So today, I rise in defense of children on this House floor to demand of this House and, more importantly, the Trump administration to end this cruel exploitation of children by separating them from their families, by tearing children from their moms, and what appears to be, no doubt, a very craven political tactic by President Trump to try to hold hostage children to get other draconian items done on his immigration bill. This tactic is fueled by some very ugly things that the American people have to reject. It is fueled by bigotry. It is fueled by hatred. It is fueled by fearmongering and is now being fueled by the endangerment of children. As a father, as a grandpa, I cannot believe how we are debasing our Nation's moral traditions, how we are replacing our sacred values with autocratic comments and rhetoric from the President. Mr. President, no more lies, no more child hostages. End this now. You can, and for our Nation's sake and for the children's sake, this needs to be done.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment and existing authority in the base bill establishes so-called pilot programs on three national forests in New Mexico. The pilot would exempt all logging activity from environmental review and establish an untested arbitration system for anyone who wants to object to an unauthorized project. While we are told that this is necessary to promote forest health and mitigate wildfire, this sets a dangerous precedent, with the potential to do lasting environmental damage to over 3 million acres of national forests. What this amendment calls a pilot program would upend critical environmental safeguards and limit public participation in forest management decisions. This is more like a management reorientation project than a pilot project. The omnibus bill passed less than 2 months ago, included a bipartisan compromise to fix the wildfire budget and update forest management authorities. The Forest Service has the tools it needs to restore our national forests. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would rather use the threat of wildfire to roll back bedrock laws to increase commercial logging. This doesn't make sense in New Mexico, or any other State. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment and the existing authority in the base bill would also give unprecedented power to the Forest Service to shield future final agency actions from any judicial review. This is an extremely dangerous power to give any agency. Allowing an agency to decide when and which actions to shield from oversight gives them power to ignore the laws passed by Congress. Under the language of this amendment, the Forest Service could advance any plan and be relatively sure their internal hand-picked arbitrator would approve it. Review by independent courts provides oversight to ensure agencies are carrying out a statute according to congressional intent. This check and balance ensures good governance and prevents abuse. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment that is being offered by the gentleman. It is unwarranted and undermines one of the bedrock environmental laws, the Endangered Species Act. The first issue at stake is that my colleagues seem to imply that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not already have the authority to consider beneficial conservation actions already in place during the section 7 consultation process under the Endangered Species Act. This is simply not true. The jeopardy analysis already takes into account the beneficial actions that have been implemented when determining if a Federal agency's activities would put a species in danger of extinction. Thus, this part of the amendment is redundant and would only cause uncertainty in the consultation process. But perhaps more problematic is that this amendment includes a requirement to consider future proposed conservation measures. The keyword here is proposed. In no way are these proposals locked in stone. There would be no way to know if these proposals would be part of the final action. The service always considers conservation measures. The service considers proposed actions where they are reasonably certain to occur. The service, however, should not include speculation about proposed actions in the future. This amendment lowers the bar for species protection and should be rejected. Unfortunately for our imperiled wildlife, this amendment is not the only way my colleagues across the aisle are attempting to undermine the Endangered Species Act in this farm bill. If this bill becomes law, a person could spray early spring pesticides directly on endangered wildlife in the field, like the whooping crane, for example, and it would be completely legal even if some were killed. Not to mention, these early spring pesticides are often acutely toxic. Some pesticides are suspected to cause Parkinson's disease in people, and others are likely to cause cancerous tumors. Imagine the damage, not only to human life, but what it would do to our endangered wildlife. This bill also removes the requirement under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for the EPA to consult with expert wildlife agencies on the impact of pesticides to threatened and endangered wildlife. Pesticides have caused the dramatic decline of numerous species of birds, bees, fish, and butterflies. With the very existence of species such as the monarch butterfly and the whooping crane at stake, it is unconscionable to allow the EPA to approve the use of pesticides without properly assessing the effects they have on hundreds of endangered species across the country. I cannot say this strongly or more frequently enough: the ESA does not need to be reformed or modernized to work better. What it needs is congressional support. Instead of rolling back critical safeguards and introducing harmful anti-ESA riders like these, Congress should be implementing measures to fully fund the act and protect species and their habitats from permanent extinction. We have a responsibility to be good stewards of our environment and uphold the strong protections of the ESA. The American people deserve to be able to experience their natural legacy for generations to come. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment exempts all national forests in Alaska from the Forest Service's Roadless Rule, one of the country's most important conservation safeguards. Inventoried roadless areas account for only 2 percent of our Nation's land mass, but they provide invaluable benefits: clean drinking water for over 60 million Americans, wildlife habitats for numerous threatened and endangered species, and they act as critical carbon sinks that mitigate the impacts of climate change. All of these benefits are threatened by this amendment. Nationwide, the Roadless Rule is incredibly popular. Our constituents understand the importance of keeping intact roadless areas and managing our last truly wild places in a manner that protects old-growth forest and other precious resources from the pressures of development and extraction. It is not just people in the lower 48. Alaskans understand the importance of protecting the roadless landscape. That is why hundreds of businesses in southeast Alaska have joined together to oppose overturning the recently adopted Tongass Forest Plan and efforts like this amendment to overturn protection for roadless areas. These businesses rely on clean water and healthy forests to support thriving salmon populations and a robust tourist economy. By rolling back safeguards that protect old-growth forests from harmful development, this amendment threatens fundamental linchpins of the regional economy. The Roadless Rule is not a job killer, as some make it out to be, because the Tongass Forest Plan balances protections of the old-growth forest by allowing public roads, hydropower projects, utility connectors, and access to inholdings, including mines. So its application in Alaska does not adversely affect community access or economic development projects in the legitimate public interest. An exception for Alaska is a major policy change that hasn't had a hearing or any other form of consideration in the House. This controversial provision shouldn't be stuck in this farm bill without any accountability to the American public. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, Alaska recently lost in Federal court on this very issue. The Supreme Court refused to hear the State's appeal of a ruling that struck down the Tongass exemption. This ended the case. This amendment attempts to run around that ruling and would exempt Alaska from protections that are widely supported and intended to protect our pristine public lands. With regard to the Roadless Rule, if the very important and significant issues we confront, whether it is immigration, whether it is employment, whether it is education, the issues of poverty and hunger in this country, I would suggest that the cause for not finding solutions rests in this Chamber, it doesn't rest with the Roadless Rule. Mr. Chairman, I recommend a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, if my colleagues across the aisle are serious about the long-term health of our forests, they should stop and pause and listen to scientists, who tell us climate change threatens in a very factual and scientific way and direct way the health of our forests, wildlife, and the ever-increasing forest fires that we must confront every year. We can use NEPA as a tool to consider these impacts, and if we are smart, we will strengthen the law instead of weakening it piece by piece. The issue of forest health is a serious issue. This amendment does not deal with the complexity of the seriousness of this issue. If, indeed, we are to deal with this issue, then it has to be comprehensive and it has to be looked at, not by eliminating protections and public access, but by truly doing something for the long-term health of these forests, and that is to consider all available information and not deny scientific information in the process of blaming NEPA or any other law that exists for the public and for the protection of our forests as the reason why we are having forest fires. Forest fires are a direct result of climate change, and as such, not to consider that as part and parcel of a solution is a grave mistake that will not solve the problem. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. It should not be tucked into this farm bill. It merits its own proper discussion and debate in this House, and that is the direction we should go. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alaska.

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