Raúl Grijalva

Mr. GRIJALVA

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

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I oppose the farm bill. It would hurt low- and middle-income families, take breakfast and lunch from children across this country, and fail hardworking farmers. It also undermines one of the Nation's most successful and popular conservation laws, the Endangered Species Act, by removing the requirement for EPA to consult with expert wildlife agencies on the impact of pesticides to imperiled wildlife. Pesticides are known to have been the cause of the dramatic decline of many species and a threat to public health. It should not be dispensed with in this legislation. The provisions in this legislation that are anti-environment, anti- public health, anti-nutrition, and anti-working families are cause for opposition. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield the gentleman from Oregon an additional 1 minute.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal), the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill we are debating today, I am sorry to say, is yet another attempt by my Republican colleagues to accelerate the extinction of our Nation's fisheries. H.R. 3144 weakens protections for several runs of wild salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest, which are extremely important to commercial, recreational, and tribal fishing interests. This is the worst possible time for such an extreme approach. Last year, for the first time, Federal scientists surveying the Pacific Northwest salmon population came up with empty nets, and yet here we are moving a bill that will only worsen the salmon crisis. While disappointing, I can't say today's bill is entirely surprising. In fact, this bill is just the latest attack by my Republican colleagues in their broader war on salmon and the salmon fishing industry. We saw these same attacks on salmon when House Republicans jammed H.R. 23, also known as the GROW Act, through the House recently. This bill sought to eliminate protection for California salmon and put California's native fisheries on the path to extinction, meaning thousands of job losses across California, Oregon, and Washington State. House Republicans pushed the bill through even though estimates show that 78 percent of California's native salmon will be extinct this century under current trends. Instead of trying to counter these trends, House Republicans decided it was more important to help some of their big business buddies who would rather drain our public rivers even further for private profit. Now we are here today with another bill that harms our wild salmon and the businesses that depend on their existence. It is no surprise that our committee received numerous letters from businesses and fishing industry groups opposed to H.R. 3144. The committee also received several letters from guiding and outdoor retail businesses, the food industry, and from many other businesses that depend on functioning ecosystems and the Columbia Basin salmon. Aside from being bad for many businesses, this bill also represents a troubling attack on our Nation's bedrock environmental laws and the legal process. Since the early 1990s, Federal courts have found the Federal dam operations at the Federal Columbia River Power System endanger the existence of the Pacific Northwest salmon runs and violate our Nation's laws, including the Endangered Species Act. As a result, Federal agents have been ordered several times to develop a new dam operation plan to recover the region's dwindling salmon populations. Instead of requiring Federal dam operations to finally come into compliance with the law and develop a salmon recovery plan that works, H.R. 3144 locks in an outdated, illegal plan until at least 2022 that will cause great harm to wild salmon and struggling fishing communities. Furthermore, this bill blocks recent court orders requiring additional salmon protection measures at Federal dams. It also bans Federal agencies from even studying the possible changes to dam operations that can improve salmon survival, such as increased spill. In short, this bill causes great harm to wild salmon and many businesses, Tribes, and communities that depend on it. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), vice ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of opposition from Governor Kate Brown of Oregon, a letter of opposition to the legislation from Governor Inslee of Washington, 140 undersigned businesses from the region in opposition, the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee in opposition to the legislation, and over 22 environmental and outdoor organizations in opposition to the legislation. January 22, 2018. As Governor of the State of Oregon, I write expressing deep concerns with H.R. 3144. I am concerned this legislation would thwart federal court direction to provide additional spill at dams on the lower Columbia and Snake rivers and the collaborative state, tribal and federal process that has worked effectively to develop spill provisions for 2018. These court-ordered collaborative efforts resulted in consensus recommendations from all sovereigns, representing a positive, and unprecedented, step forward in building stronger consensus for recovery actions. H.R. 3144 would negate this progress and our ability to implement and learn from these consensus recommendations. H.R. 3144 would also derail ongoing collaborative efforts to examine a range of potential future dam operations and salmon management options required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The State of Oregon has engaged in good faith as cooperating agencies with federal agency leads for this Columbia Snake River Operations study. This process is vital to secure a sustainable path forward optimizing power, commerce, agriculture and fish recovery within a changing social and environmental landscape. Through NEPA and the Endangered Species Act, Congress established processes for federal decision-making that are grounded in a robust analysis of alternatives in a systematic and science-based manner. H.R. 3144 contravenes these important principles and would disrupt the regional efforts to engage in a full, accurate and transparent analysis of salmon and dam management. Washington Governor Inslee has expressed similar opposition to H.R. 3144. Oregonians and Washingtonians share decades of investment in recovering Columbia River salmon, and I join my colleague in asking you to oppose H.R. 3144. Sincerely, Kate Brown, Governor.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to another problem and issue with this bill that one of my colleagues brought up in his statement, and that is the great harm it will cause to the Tribal interests in the Pacific Northwest. Native people of the Pacific Northwest ceded most of their ancestral homeland to the United States in exchange for the right to catch salmon and steelhead at accustomed places. The Federal Government has a long history of failing to protect these fishing rights. If enacted, H.R. 3144 would further harm Tribal fisheries which are a critically important source of food. They are of great cultural and religious significance to the Tribes. Just this week, the Nez Perce Tribe contacted our committee to urge us to reject H.R. 3144. I think Congress should heed this call and reject this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, the concerns have been laid out by the people who have spoken against this legislation. Essentially, this legislation, H.R. 3144, violates bedrock environmental laws. Those concerns have been stated by Members who have spoken against the legislation. It harms businesses. It hurts the Tribes in the Northwest. It is an attack on the legal process, and, in the long term, it will hurt ratepayers. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 3144, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Arizona State Museum on its 125th year anniversary. For 125 years, the Arizona State Museum has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to educating the public through guarding, preserving, and studying the State of Arizona's archaeological resources. Founded in 1893, the Arizona State Museum was one of the nation's three original university-based museums of archaeology established in the late 19th century. The museum's researchers are leaders in the field of Southwest archaeology and are sought after internationally for their expertise and groundbreaking research. This gives our desert community a unique opportunity to gain insight about the diverse cultural heritage of Arizona and have meaningful experiences. The Arizona State Museum has been a leading voice advocating for the preservation of cultural artifacts not just in Arizona, but at the national level as well. In July of 1990, Dr. Raymond H. Thompson, former Director of the Arizona State Museum, testified before the United States Congress as the American Association of Museum's representative in support of the proposed Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). NAGPRA was adopted in November 1990, and continues to be a significant piece of legislation to preserve Native American cultural items. I am especially grateful for the Museum's dedication to gathering a comprehensive collection that represents the diverse cultural heritage of the Southwest, including the region's Native American roots. The Arizona State Museum holds the world's largest and most comprehensive collections of Southwest Tribal cultures from 13,000 years ago to present, and is home to two large collections of Native American pottery and basketry that are federally designated American Treasures. I congratulate the Arizona State Museum on their 125th anniversary and look forward to supporting their continued efforts to preserve and document the cultural artifacts of our great State of Arizona.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate Daniel Contreras, the owner of the famed El Guero Canelo restaurant for receiving a James Beard Award for his world-famous Sonoran hot dog. El Guero Canelo won this prestigious award in a special category called ``American Classics,'' which honors restaurants that are ``cherished for quality food that reflects the character of the community.'' I cannot think of a better choice that reflects the cuisine and culture of Tucson. Contreras' restaurant, El Guero Canelo, is emblematic of the merging of Mexican and American culture that makes Tucson so special. The restaurant has a storied history in the region and is representative of how one immigrant from Mexico with hard work, dedication, and drive can achieve the American Dream. Born in Magdalena, Sonora, Mexico, Contreras experienced the trials of economic hardship, spending his days playing baseball while dreaming of a professional career. Like so many before him, Contreras left his native Mexico for Tucson, Arizona in search of a better life and lured by the promise of the American Dream. He worked long hours as a dishwasher in local restaurants until he decided to take a risk and open up a hot dog stand in 1993, which became the birthplace of the legendary El Guero Canelo. From that tiny hot dog stand, his business has grown to include three restaurants in Tucson and one in Phoenix. In addition to his immeasurable contributions to the gastronomy of Tucson, Contreras is an upstanding member of the community, dedicated to serving others. He is an active member of his church and frequently visits state prisons to speak with incarcerated individuals on how to prevent alcoholism. Contreras' story demonstrates the power of the American Dream and the persistent, entrepreneurial spirit of our immigrant community. Thank you Daniel Contreras for your contributions to Tucson, and I look forward to enjoying a James Beard award-winning Sonoran hotdog.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, given that each day that Congress delays action on the Dream Act, 122 people lose their DACA protected status-- since September 5, when Trump eliminated DACA, close to 16,000 young people have lost their protected status and face daily risk of deportation; given the fact that we have pleaded with Republican leadership on the urgency of finding a permanent legislative solution that will protect DREAMers; given the fact that the contradictions and confusion in the negotiations going on to craft a legislative fix continue to abound; and given the fact that this House has the opportunity to vote on a clean Dream Act, we must act now on a permanent solution that will protect DREAMers.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, and I ask unanimous consent that he may control that time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, we are debating a bill package that follows a very familiar playbook for House Republican leadership. This bill package is just the latest attempt by my Republican colleagues to push a highly partisan agenda by combining that divisive proposal with noncontroversial items. Today's bill includes two bills that passed Senate and House Natural Resources Committee by unanimous consent. One of these bills would make a technical correction to a previously passed Tribal water settlement, and the other would clarify that two pueblos in New Mexico should receive equal treatment when leasing their lands. Unfortunately, instead of quickly passing these bills and suspensions and sending them to the President to be signed into law, House Republican leadership has decided to take those two bills hostage and combine them with a highly divisive bill that is likely not going anywhere--H.R. 986, section 3 of this legislation--which I do not support. This political stunt seems doomed to fail. The only thing it will accomplish is wasting everyone's time. Meanwhile, a list of bills that are critical to Tribes across the country sit in the Natural Resources Committee and are just ignored by the majority. For example, we could be moving legislation that would protect and preserve Native American cultural artifacts, or legislation that would address issues at Indian Health Service, or legislation to codify meaningful and robust Tribal consultation process; or we could be here today passing the bipartisan bill known as the ``clean'' Carcieri fix. These bills deserve attention. They are promoted by not only Indian Country, but many, many Members in a bipartisan fashion in this House. I hope we can move past these petty political games soon, which people are, rightfully, sick of having to see. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues across the aisle to change course and stop blocking consensus bills from moving through this body by conjoining them with divisive, contentious proposals. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize and celebrate Fire Chief, Jim Critchley, on his retirement from the Tucson Fire Department. Fire Chief Critchley began his Emergency Service career in 1982 with an EMT class. He worked in a few private agencies as an instructor, firefighter, EMT and security guard. He joined the Tucson Fire Department in 1988 and was promoted through the ranks first as a Paramedic, Captain, Training Captain, Operations Battalion Chief, Training Chief, Operations Deputy Chief, Assistant Chief of Training and Emergency Management and then, in 2011, became the Fire Chief. Since 1992, Mr. Critchley has been an active representative on the State Fire Training Association and the Arizona Fire Chiefs Association. He served on the Western Fire Chiefs Association board as State Director, Vice President and President from 2003 through 2012. He also served on the International Association of Fire Chiefs board until 2014. Fire Chief Critchley received a MBA from the University of Arizona, a Bachelor's degree in Fire Service Management from the Arizona State University, and an AAS in Fire Science from Pima Community College. In 2008, he was selected as Chief Fire Officer of the Year by the Arizona Fire Chiefs Association. Most recently in September 2017, Jim was inducted into the Arizona Fire Service Hall of Fame. Jim is married and has three children. We would like to thank Fire Chief Jim Critchley for his service and dedication to the city of Tucson and the state of Arizona.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, on November 14, 2017, I missed a recorded vote for Roll Call vote 631. I was called away from the floor for a phone call pertaining to the health of my mother. The vote was on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted nay on Roll Call 631.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, each day that Congress delays action on the Dream Act, 122 people lose their temporary protected status granted by DACA. Since the Trump September 5 announcement, 11,182 young people have lost their DACA status and face the daily threat of being detained and deported. Time and time again, House Democrats have pleaded to Republicans and their leadership the urgency of finding a legislative solution that would permanently protect DREAMers. We have pleaded and explained the economic benefit, $23 billion yearly contributed by DREAMers to the GDP of this Nation. We have pleaded with the Republican leadership to bring a Dream Act to the House floor that is just and fair without the trappings of xenophobia, division, or hate. We have pleaded that the DREAMers have not committed a crime. It was not an act of volition on their part as children. We must move beyond the political calculations about race, us-versus- them divisions in this country, and scapegoating. The House has an opportunity and the authority to vote on a clean Dream Act and embrace the shared values and humanity of this Nation, while rejecting the politically manufactured hysteria. Mr. Speaker, I ask a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that H.R. 3440, the Dream Act, can come to the House floor.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, the American people are getting ripped off in this bill. The Chilean mining conglomerate behind this bill makes out like a bandit. They get two expired leases back, as well as exemptions from several key environmental laws that could be used to stop any of their dreams of massive profits from a giant copper mine. The American people are the ones that are getting ripped off. This land is being given away for next to nothing. For the past 50 years, the leaseholder has been paying rent of $1 an acre per year. Think about that, $1 an acre per year, unchanged for 50 years. The American people are the landlords here. They are charging the Chilean company about $420 per month for 5,000 acres of prime land right next to the most visited wilderness area in the country. I can only imagine how many hardworking Americans would desperately love to be guaranteed having only to pay $420 a month for their homes for as long as they want, particularly if their home was over 2 million square feet, as these leases are. But we are not talking about someone building a house here. We are talking about a giant, destructive copper-sulfide mine that threatens one of the greatest unspoiled natural spaces in the country, the Boundary Waters Wilderness. Don't be fooled by the claims that the Boundary Waters are protected in this bill. They are not even remotely protected. Copper-sulfide mining results in acid mine drainage, the same kind of pollution that comes from abandoned coal mines and has destroyed thousands of miles of streams and rivers throughout Appalachia. Acid mine drainage from these leases would flow into the Boundary Waters into a neighboring Canadian wilderness and into Voyageurs National Park. This would permanently impact millions of acres of lakes, rivers, fish and wildlife habitat, and risk the entire tourism and recreation economy of the region. The majority says it is all worth it because of all the money that will flow into the State's coffers and be used for education. Give me a break. The only education benefit from this legislation would be children learning the chemistry of how acidic water flows out of mines, the biology of dead fish, and the economics of a shattered tourism and recreation industry. But if the majority is truly concerned about the amount of money that a destroyed wilderness can bring to the State, they should be embarrassed by the sweetheart deals in these leases: $1 per acre per year and a royalty of 4\1/2\ percent on production. These numbers are absurd. These rock-bottom prices effectively subsidize a foreign company to mine on public lands right next to an irreplaceable wilderness. My amendment would make sure that the company would pay a royalty rate of just over 60 percent because that is the same rate that Senator Murkowski has determined that companies should pay for oil that would come from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. If that is the cost of destroyed wilderness in the Arctic, then it should be no cheaper to destroy wilderness in Minnesota. With the extra billions of dollars the State receives from the more reasonable royalty rate, perhaps they could fund education and also help all the owners and employees of tourism and recreation companies that would be put out of business by a giant copper mine. To be clear, I will not support H.R. 3905 even if this amendment is adopted. But Members should be given the opportunity to demonstrate that they don't believe that a foreign mining company should be allowed to get public land and public resources at rock-bottom rates and out in the West for free. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the taxpayers, support my amendment, and oppose the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just close by saying that this precedent being set here with H.R. 3905 is a precedent that I think every Member of Congress needs to consider. The backdrop is a mining law of 1872 that has not been changed one iota since then that basically provides the public resources, the extraction of our public lands for free to any company and more prevalent now are foreign mining companies. No return to the taxpayer and no consequences considered on the environmental damage that these mines have caused, the abandoned mines that haven't been cleaned up. This is a backdrop to a deeper and more serious problem that this Congress has to grapple with, which is the mining law of 1872, and on this piece of legislation a precedent that establishes a template that can be destructive for the future and cut the public and the processes out that involve the public and safeguard the environment at the same time. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, a ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.