Raúl Grijalva

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my grave concern with the constant attacks on women's access to reproductive health care. The women and girls currently under U.S. government custody in shelters, jails, and detention centers across this country who have had to relinquish their right to reproductive health care deserve our immediate attention. I was disheartened to see the mistreatment of women in detention and children at the Office of Refugee Resettlement who are being systematically denied access to their Constitutional rights. The Constitution guarantees all women the right to access abortions and prohibits the government from putting an undue burden on that right. However, the recent case of Jane Doe litigated in Garza v. Hargan, is a stark reminder of just how far this administration will go to deny a young woman her constitutional right to access an abortion. Jane Doe, a 17 year old unaccompanied minor, came to the U.S. and was subsequently detained and placed in a government-funded shelter where she discovered she was pregnant. She immediately sought an abortion. However, she was inhumanely and unconstitutionally denied her right to an abortion. This administration's Office of Refugee Resettlement held Jane Doe hostage and barred her from leaving her shelter to access care, simply because the ORR Director Scott Lloyd and the administration disagreed with her health care choice to have an abortion. Jane Doe's case is a heartbreaking one. While I am glad to see that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals stood up for the rights of Jane Doe in that case and allowed her access to an abortion regardless of her immigration status, we know Jane Doe is not alone, and fear that many other young women's rights are being denied by this administration. I have heard deeply concerning reports that the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services now enforces unconstitutional policies such as systematically counseling young women against accessing abortion. Similarly, there are reports of mistreatment of pregnant women and mothers in incarceration and detention. These reports illustrate that there are pregnant women sitting in solitary confinement without access to needed food and nourishment, women are sometimes shackled during labor, and others are ultimately denied adequate health care services. These policies and the mistreatment of women in incarceration and detention are simply shocking and represent a gross abuse of power by this administration. We need to know why this is happening, how often it is happening, and what can be done to prevent these situations. This is why thirty-one of my colleagues and I have requested a Government Accountability Office report to examine the real situation of pregnant inmates and immigrant detainees in order to better understand efforts taken to protect them and their fetus. This administration must stop denying women their constitutional rights. We must demand that this administration immediately end the cruel practices of intimidation and coercion, and uphold the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. This administration must allow young women currently in government custody access to the health care they need, including abortion.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, this amendment would not resolve the issue that my friend from New Mexico has just brought up. The Statement of Administrative Policy from the executive branch raises the concerns of H.R. 2936 and of the land management reforms, which are in the legislation. It says: ``The administration, however, has concerns about the legislation's revision to the Stafford Act, which would force competition for funding between wildfires on Federal land and other disasters already covered by the Stafford Act, including hurricanes.'' It also says that the legislation doesn't really address the issue of fire borrowing, which is central to dealing effectively and proactively with wildfires, both prevention, and suppression, as the resource is needed. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the Statement of Administrative Policy by the Trump administration. I also include another Statement of Administrative Policy dated July 8, 2015, which is on the same legislation, but by then-President Obama, which mirrors and reflects the same concerns brought up by the executive branch of President Trump. Statement of Administration Policy h.r. 293--resilient federal forests act of 2017--rep. westerman, r-ar, and 18 cosponsors The Administration strongly believes that funding for wildland fire management must be addressed in order to enable the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to better manage the Nation's forests and other public lands. The Administration's second disaster funding request, submitted to Congress on October 4, 2017, underscored this belief. The request also noted the Administration's belief that land management reforms are critical to solving the problem of ``fire borrowing''--taking funds from forest management programs to cover fire costs that exceed appropriations--in a comprehensive manner, rather than through a funding-only approach. The Administration appreciates the intent of H.R. 2936, the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017, and is supportive of land management reforms like those outlined in the legislation. The Administration, however, has concerns about the legislation's revisions to the Stafford Act, which would force competition for funding between wildfires on Federal land and other disasters already covered by the Stafford Act, including hurricanes. Wildland Fire Management Funding Last year, Federal wildfire suppression spending reached $2.9 billion, an amount that signals clearly the need for Congress to address the rising cost of fire suppression operations. The dependence on ``fire borrowing'' to cover funding shortfalls in times of severe wildfire impedes the missions of our land management agencies, including by taking critical funding from programs that help reduce the risk of catastrophic fire, restore and maintain healthy functioning ecosystems, and yield timber production. The Administration, however, has concerns with re-purposing the Stafford Act to address wildfires. The purpose of the Stafford Act is to assist State, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) governments that become overwhelmed when responding to and recovering from natural disasters affecting their jurisdictions. H.R. 2936 would modify the Stafford Act by creating a new type of disaster declaration to address the cost of wildfire suppression on Federal land, thereby changing long-standing principles governing Federal support to SLTT governments. As we have seen in this year's historic Atlantic hurricane season, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) must continue to be focused on its existing mission, and the Stafford Act's Disaster Relief Fund must remain dedicated solely to that mission. Instead of the approach outlined in H.R. 2936, the Administration supports a separate, annual cap adjustment for wildfire suppression operations, which will resolve concerns about the sufficiency of funds for wildfire suppression and avoid unnecessary competition for Stafford Act funds. Improving Forest Management The Administration appreciates H.R. 2936's recognition that fixing the funding component of fire borrowing will not, on its own, stop the worsening trend of catastrophic wildfires. Meaningful forest management reforms to strengthen our ability to restore the Nation's forests and improve their resilience to destructive wildfires must be a part of any permanent solution. H.R. 2936's provisions that expedite environmental approval for proactive forest management, including hazardous fuel reduction and post-fire timber salvage and reforestation actions, are important steps forward. The Administration supports and will continue to work with Congress on the details of the forest management reform proposals. Although the Administration has concerns with H.R. 2936's modifications to the Stafford Act, the Administration will continue working with Congress to enact a sustainable solution to ``fire borrowing'' that does not adversely affect FEMA's critical disaster relief funding and that recognizes the need for a comprehensive solution to the problem of wildfires.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As we have talked about H.R. 2936, this is something that has been before two previous Congresses and went nowhere; and as a consequence, we continue to not confront the issue of appropriate and necessary funding for the Forest Service to conduct wildfire suppression. That is the gap in this. This flawed attempt to try to fix the funding issue does not. In fact, Congress has provided appropriate tools to conduct restoration, reduce hazardous fuels, and restore ecological balance on national forest and public lands. Congress should fix the wildfire budget--that is the issue--not use this as leverage to subsidize the timber industry and also overturn essential environmental laws. This legislation has an attack on NEPA, has an attack on the Endangered Species Act, has an attack on judicial review and access to justice, has an attack on the Antiquities Act, and continues the process of fire borrowing. H.R. 2936 is not about forest health or reducing wildfire risk. It is intended to make it easier to advance commercial logging and sales on our national forests and public lands. A flawed attempt to fix the wildfire funding problem, it does nothing to change the anti-environmental provisions in the underlying bill. We have a serious issue, validated because of all the studies that have been done, including GAO, which found that climate change is a contributor, scientists have found that climate change is a contributor. That is not discussed because that is a hoax, my Republican colleagues say, created by the Chinese. So we will not talk about climate change as a major factor, which it is, to the increasing intensity and length of wildfires across our public lands and across private and State lands as well. This legislation is about undermining environmental law. It does nothing about the funding necessary to fight wildfires in this country. It does nothing about involving the stakeholders in proactive restoration and reducing the threat of wildfire in this country. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 2936, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment doubles down on the bad ideas that are in the underlying bill. The 150,000 acre categorical exclusion to remove timber from Gila, Lincoln, and Cibola National Forests has the potential to do more harm than good, and cuts the American public out of the decisionmaking process. The Forest Service doesn't need this waiver to harvest trees in New Mexico. Last year, the Cibola produced 12,000 metric board feet, and Lincoln and Gila each between 5,000 and 6,000 metric board feet. These are average production numbers across the region. So I am not sure what problem this amendment is trying to address or how exempting 150,000-acre projects from the environmental review helps the Forest Service meet their mandate of protecting habitat, watersheds, and providing recreational opportunities. This amendment also exempts the Forest Service from the consultation requirements and the Endangered Species Act. Logging projects untethered from the bedrock environmental protections could potentially impact several species which depend on these forests for habitat, including the Mexican spotted owl and the Gila trout. Active forest management is not a bad thing if it is done responsibly. If NEPA and the Endangered Species Act are followed, we get good projects, safe habitat restoration--not clear-cutting and loss of critical habitat. Unfortunately, this amendment undermines both of these fundamental laws and should be rejected. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to H.R. 2936, the so-called Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017. Perhaps a better name would be the ``Log America's Forest Act of 2017.'' But before I address the many concerns with the underlying bill, I must commend my colleagues across the aisle for attempting to deal with the biggest barrier to improved management of our national forests: the enormous cost and impact of wildfire suppression on the Forest Service budget. Over 50 percent of the Forest Service budget is eaten up by wildfire, and if things don't change, the agency predicts that it will increase to two-thirds in just 5 years. Unfortunately, the budget fix in this bill falls short. First, it requires Congress to appropriate an amount equal to the 10- year average before emergency funding is available. We know that climate change results in longer and more intense wildfire seasons, making the 10-year average irrelevant to the ever-increasing need for funding. Because the average is too low, the real number will keep growing, meaning the amount of funding that must be taken from the Forest Service accounts will continue to grow. Fighting fires will continue squeezing out money for the active management my Republican colleagues are so eager to prioritize. Second, requiring the President to declare each fire a national emergency before releasing funds is unnecessarily bureaucratic and could delay emergency operations. We need a holistic fix for the wildfire budget that makes money available in advance of a critical emergency, but Republicans would rather play politics with fire to undermine environmental safeguards. This is not the first time we have seen the bill, this piece of legislation. House Republicans sent a version to the Senate in the 113th and the 114th Congresses, where it languished on the shelf because our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol found it too extreme. Rather than view that experience as an opportunity to seek compromise this time around, today we are considering a bill that is even more extreme and polarizing. They doubled the environmental review waivers, added language to undermine the Endangered Species Act, and scaled back protections for national monuments and roadless areas. We are told that this is all in the name of decreasing wildfire risk and protecting communities. The truth is that it is just more of the same from House Republicans who will look for any excuse to advance their extraction-above-all agenda. Wildfires are a huge problem in this country due, in large part, to climate change, something this bill ignores. By the way, they are becoming more frequent and more intense, and they pose a growing threat to public safety and local communities. This bill is not about forest health or wildfire mitigation. It is about increasing the number of trees removed from our forests. Republicans would rather scare us into weakening environmental safeguards than work on a possible bipartisan solution to wildfire management. A serious proposal would recognize the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior have ample authority within current law to conduct fire treatment on our public lands. In fact, the 2009 Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, established the last time Democrats controlled the House, has resulted in the treatment of over 1.45 million acres of national forests to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire and the improvement of over 1.33 million acres of wildlife habitat. In just 5 years, the program generated more than $661 million in local labor income and an average of 4,300 jobs per year. The projects have attracted new partners and strengthened community relationships, leveraging over $76.1 million in partner matching funds. Collaborative programs like this bring people to the table and result in more acres treated, more local jobs, and more successful projects. Again, all of this has taken place within the framework of the current law. Increased funding for programs like Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration should be a priority for Republicans, but this program was zeroed out by the Trump administration budget, and extreme proposals like this bill chip away at the principal pillars of law that make collaboration possible. Our constituents and our forests deserve better. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

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

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you on this day to recognize Mr. Pedro Ramirez Davis for his dedication to organized labor and the progressive political community in Tucson, Arizona and Pima County. Regrettably, he passed away on October 9, 2017 after dedicating over forty years of service to his fellow man. He was a life-long member of the Laborers' International Union Local No. 479 and the Teamsters local in Tucson. Pedro R. Davis exemplified the highest ideals of the labor movement. He worked arduously to further the common goals of the working man to earn better wages, safer working conditions, the right to collective bargaining and the ability to call for a strike when the circumstances warranted it. He fought for benefits and financial aid for workers who were injured or retired. Pedro understood the importance of union organizing as a way of empowering people and changing lives. He understood the need to be proactive in advocating policies and legislation to bring about necessary change. He was a true supporter of the Democratic Party because he believed it championed the interest of the working class. He supported local leaders and candidates he believed advocated for the struggles of the lower and middle classes. He worked tirelessly for those candidates, going door-to-door, encouraging folks to join the cause, putting up signs, collecting signatures, attending rallies and pitching in wherever help was needed. Pedro was born in Nogales, Sonora Mexico in 1928. His parents struggled hard to support their family of twelve children. At an early age, Pedro learned the value of hard work when he had to do his part to help provide for his younger siblings. He would often share stories of his family all huddled around a single kerosene burner and a wood- burning stove trying to keep out the chill of the frigid winters in their hillside Nogales home. In his household, there were times when there was not enough food, blankets and warm beds. His father's work often took him away from home and that would leave Pedro and his brother Samuel to step up, as the men of the house, to provide for the family in their fathers absence. This, no doubt, contributed to Pedro's kind and generous nature throughout his life. On one occasion, a fine gentleman wrote a letter to the editor about a Good Samaritan, who carried him across a flooded street refused to provide his name and rejected any monetary compensation for the rescue. The Good Samaritan was Pedro. At the age of 18, along with his peers, Pedro was drafted into military service. After completing his duty, like his father and grandfather before him, he worked as a carpenter. He moved to California to work for some time and upon his return to Nogales he met Enedina Luque. He fell in love with Enedina, and married her soon thereafter. They moved to Tucson in 1950 and Pedro began working in construction. Throughout the years, his construction job led him to work on many of the major industrial projects that transformed Tucson including the missile silos and copper mines in the surrounding the area. He joined Tucson's Local No. 479 of the International Laborers' Union and the local Teamsters' Union in their formative years and remained actively involved in their collective bargaining efforts throughout his working life. He took part in strikes against unfair labor practices when it became necessary, which was always a difficult thing, since he was unable to collect a wage for his family during those walkouts. Enedina always supported his decisions because they both saw it as a way for construction workers to obtain decent wages, health benefits, safe working conditions and retirement pensions. Pedro stood firm and worked extremely hard to make change possible for labor workers. His efforts were recognized by the leaders he worked to get elected which includes successful candidates such as: President Bill Clinton, Congressman Ed Pastor and myself, among others. Pedro would often receive invitations to dinners and other special events, to the surprise of many, including his family. Those were proud moments for him, indeed. Pedro and Enedina raised six children and he always impressed upon them the value of an education. He felt that an education was the best job security anyone could hope to have. Even though he only had a sixth-grade education himself, Pedro was a learned man, always reading newspapers and magazines in both English and Spanish. He could engage in informed discussions on current events around the world. He knew about world leaders as well as his local representatives and had a profound interest in politics at home and abroad. Pedro and Enedina voted without fail as soon as they became naturalized United States citizens. He also instilled in his children and grandchildren the importance of registering to vote and engaged them in discussions on the important issues of the day. In the early 80's, Pedro was asked to assist in the remodeling of an office building that had been made available to a candidate as the campaign headquarters. He was so inspired by the candidate that soon afterwards, he was out collecting signatures and walking door-to-door registering people to vote. He campaigned tirelessly for human rights and for candidates he respected. Pedro's car was always full of campaign signs and handouts. He eagerly shared his campaign experiences with his family. Pedro loved his country of origin, but he was proud to be an American. He loved and respected what this country stood for and wanted to make it better for the present and future generations. When Enedina passed away in 2007, Pedro seemed to have lost a skip in his step. He found comfort by staying active in the political sphere and through his love for guitar. He was a self-taught guitarist and amassed a collection of Mexican classic songbooks. After retiring from construction, Pedro kept himself busy working as a school crossing guard for the Tucson Unified School District, which is a job that he took very seriously. The safety of the schoolchildren made him happy and he always had a supply of Jolly Ranchers to pass out to them. One of his greatest joys came when he received a large bundle of handmade birthday cards from the kids at Safford Primary School. The students at the school made him feel proud and happy. After retiring as a crossing guard, Pedro could dedicate more time to his first love, the guitar. He would travel across town to meet with his friends in the guitar group. Together, they would polish their versions of the classic Mexican love ballads, even as he modestly repeated that he was not learning anything new. I close by saying that Pedro Ramirez Davis was a hard-working and decent man from very humble origins. Pedro, like so many immigrants, came to this country to work hard and build upon the character and values of our nation. He did so with pride and purpose. He lived a life worthy of recognition, honor and respect. His lifetime of involvement on behalf of the working people and the less fortunate in his community has not gone unnoticed. Pedro Ramirez Davis will be sorely missed.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, the Progressive Caucus budget invests in the American people, invests in America, and still reduces the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu), my friend and a member of the Progressive Caucus.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, Americans in this Congress do have a choice. Our budget is a contrast to what the Republicans are proposing. We can either cut Medicare to pay for more tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires as our Republican budget does, or we can close tax loopholes to protect essential programs that invest in jobs. We chose investment. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In the debate on the Republican budget and how it contrasts with the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget, we heard a lot about needing to control mandatory spending, that that was the real issue here, runaway mandatory spending. Make no mistake, when my Republican colleagues talk about cutting mandatory spending, they mean they want to cut Medicare and Social Security to pay for the trillion-dollar tax scam and creative numbers that are part of their budget for the wealthy and for the corporations in America. The other issue that we heard a lot about is that, by making these major cuts for the wealthiest and the rich, that somehow their net gain and their profit and their break on taxes is going to trickle down to the rest of us. Well, we have seen that movie before in this country. That trickle-down theory doesn't work. The money doesn't trickle down, and the American people won't be fooled about that again. Our budget invests $2 trillion in infrastructure and jobs immediately. Our budget takes bold action to fight climate change, and our budget delivers on the promise for our children, their inheritance of this country, the inheritance of the children that everybody is worried about a deficit. We are worried about their future as well. Our budget delivers on the promise of childcare for all, pre-K for all, and a robust public education system to provide all kids with an opportunity to succeed in this Nation. Our budget is about the future, our budget is about emphasizing the values that make this country special and great, and our budget is a contrast. It offers a contrast about what this country can be if it invests in its people. The road that we have been on for far too long in which we have disinvested in people, shifted wealth and burden onto the middle class and the working class in this country, that time has ended. Our budget represents that end. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the people's budget, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan) to offer the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget amendment.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer this amendment to replace the reckless Republican budget that is being considered before this House. Instead of a doomsday budget that presents a future where everything is bleak and opportunity is nonexistent, the Progressive Caucus is offering a budget that can prove that the future can be bright and prosperous. The Republican budget sacrifices everything from public education to Social Security to Medicare and Medicaid. It does this for one reason and one reason only: to give the wealthiest few and the corporations more tax breaks and increase their standing and concentration of power and wealth in this country more than it is already. It has been said over and over that the budget that we are presenting we feel does deal with the values of this country. It deals very directly with something that is important to this Nation, and that is the American people, the greatest resource that we have as a nation, and we see it day in and day out. This budget invests in the American people. It invests in jobs, it invests in solid education, and it invests in the greater good. This budget is not narrow, tilted to a few: the wealthiest and the corporations in this country. It deals with the totality of who the American people are: those who are struggling and need opportunity, those who are elderly and need the continued support of this Nation through Medicare and Social Security, those who are poor who need Medicaid and a good education system so their opportunity will be better in the future. Our budget speaks to the values of the American people. Our budget speaks to the needs of the American people. Our budget speaks to a future that returns the values, to the American people, of opportunity, of hope, and of chance. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, what the Progressive Caucus budget does, and does very clearly, is that we end the special treatment for Wall Street buddies of the majority of this Congress. Meanwhile, their budget has no problem hitting low- and middle-income families with their tax plan. Under their plan, corporations get a $2 trillion cut, $2.4 trillion, and the richest 1 percent will get a tax cut worth $130,000 next year; and many middle class families will have to pay more. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a valued member of the Progressive Caucus.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a leader in our caucus and a leader here in Congress.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and I thank Mr. Pocan and his office staff for the fine work and time that they put into working on this budget that we are proposing today.