Raúl Grijalva

Mr. GRIJALVA

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. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize the Black Women's Task Force of Tucson on the event of its 40th anniversary. The Black Women's Task Force of Tucson organized with the mission of ``educating and empowering women through support and networking for equality and success in the Tucson community.'' Serving as a bedrock of the Tucson community for four decades, it has met its mission statement and more. The Black Women's Task Force of Tucson provides much-needed access to information on healthcare and business, as well as hosting events and providing a space to share stories with the Tucson community. Part of its community support is assisting local students through a variety of programs and scholarships. For example, the Black Women's Task Force donated over one hundred computers to students in the Tucson Unified School District and sponsored student trips to Africa and South America with an academic focus. There have been many changes throughout the last 40 years; and many fights won in the pursuit of social and economic equality for women. However, there is still much work to be done both in Tucson and throughout the nation. I know that the Black Women's Task Force will continue to be a positive force for change. I cannot emphasize enough the impact that this organization has had on the Tucson community. From helping victims of domestic violence to feeding the hungry, the Black Women's Task Force has worked tirelessly to make our city a better place for everyone. I look forward to seeing the impact the Black Women's Task Force has on the next forty years. For that, it would be my honor to ask that the work done for the past forty years by the Black Women's Task Force be known to this Congress as a force for good in the City of Tucson.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, the Tribal Heritage and Grizzly Bear Protection Act will ensure continued respect for both the ecological and cultural values of the grizzly bear. It requires that conservation and management of the species is conducted in close consultation with federally recognized Indian Tribes, as many Tribes value the bear in ways that cannot be accounted for solely under Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections. Eagles have been recognized for their symbolic importance to our country and were protected by Congress under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, even after these species had recovered under the ESA. Similarly, grizzly bears are essential to the culture and history of our nation's Tribes and deserve strong protections. The recent decision by the Department of the Interior to remove Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections from grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) remains controversial and is being challenged in court. While GYE grizzly bears have made significant progress towards recovery over the past forty two years, the population is still at risk of extinction from a suite of impacts, including habitat loss and fragmentation, climate change, decline of food sources, and human caused mortality. The best available science does not support the decision to delist the GYE grizzly bear population without putting in place strong safeguards to prevent population decline and maintain connectivity with other populations of grizzly bears. Removing protections reverses the progress that has been made over the last four decades under the ESA. Over 50 Tribal Nations stand in opposition to delisting and have raised concerns over the Department of the Interior's decision, particularly regarding the science, lack of transparency, and irreparable harm that delisting GYE grizzly bears would cause to Tribal sovereignty, sacred site protections, treaty rights, consultation mandates, and spiritual and religious freedoms. To guarantee continued protection of all grizzly bears, the Tribal Heritage and Grizzly Bear Protection Act sets strong conservation standards for grizzly bears and their habitat. It bans trophy hunting and only permits the take of grizzly bears under a narrow set of circumstances: scientific or exhibition purposes, religious purposes of federally recognized Indian Tribes, and protection of agricultural interests and public safety. Grizzly bears are important top predators and help maintain ecosystems by keeping grazing populations in check, which prevents overgrazing of key habitats. They are a critical component of our landscapes and should not be hunted simply for sport. Additionally, grizzly bears have already lost large expanses of their historic range and existing habitat should be protected against further destruction. Human caused mortalities of grizzly bears are a key threat to the species, including aggressive predator control of grizzly bears. This bill prohibits non-discriminatory predator control measures, such as those used by many states, which may result in the taking of grizzly bears on U.S. public lands. The bill also increases annual funding for livestock loss prevention programs to add prevention of loss from grizzly bears; productive, precautionary measures like these can address human-grizzly interactions much better than indiscriminate measures that kill large numbers of grizzly bears and result in few positive outcomes. Finally, this bill affirms Tribal sovereignty and spiritual and religious rights. The grizzly bear is considered an ancestor by many Native American cultures, celebrated in numerous ceremonies, and is a key part of environments that include sacred and historical sites. This bill recognizes the grizzly bear's significance by requiring consultation with Tribes before permitting grizzly bear take and before major federal actions that may impact bears or their habitat. It also adds Tribal members to the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee and creates a much needed process and management partnership for reintroduction of grizzly bears to suitable land of willing Tribes. Grizzly bears are a core part of Tribal heritage and healthy ecosystems, and it is critical to protect this remarkable species and the culture they embody.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will restore $12 million in cuts to the already underfunded Superfund Enforcement program, with an equivalent cut to Bureau of Land Management's oil and gas leasing program. Superfund Enforcement is the epitome of Federal fiscal responsibility. It ensures that polluters pay for the cleanup and the mess they have caused. For over 35 years, EPA's Superfund Enforcement program has enabled thousands of site investigations at cleanups and has required viable responsible parties to either conduct the work or pay for the cleanups of these Superfund sites, in other words, hold parties accountable for the action and correction of their activities. Any cuts to these funds clearly places corporate interests over that of the health and financial well-being of the American people. According to the EPA, the Superfund Enforcement program's efforts to negotiate settlement agreements and issue order for cleanup work accounts for approximately 69 percent of all the cleanup work currently underway at Superfund sites around this country. For every dollar the Superfund Enforcement program spends, private parties commit $8 toward cleanup work. The enforcement funding is essential in saving taxpayer dollars and the scarce resources of the Superfund trust fund to address truly abandoned and orphaned sites. As of August 1, 2017, there were 1,845 Superfund sites in the country. These sites include dangerous and toxic substances not just in my backyard but in everybody's backyard. Perhaps not surprisingly, Superfund sites tend to be located near lower income communities and around communities of color. Approximately 53 million people live within 3 miles of a Superfund site in this country, and 46 percent of them live in poorer communities and communities of color. Fifteen percent of those residents live below the poverty level. According to a National Association of Clean Air Agencies report: ``Without EPA's enforcement, companies could avoid reporting, or minimize the reported amount of toxic materials released to the environment.'' Following one of the most catastrophic hurricanes to hit Texas, the EPA found that 13 Superfund sites have been flooded or could face damage as a result of Hurricane Harvey. Administrator Pruitt has repeatedly tried to justify his cuts to the agency by claiming that he wants the agency to go ``back to the basics.'' I can't think of anything more fundamental than cleaning up the most toxic sites in the Nation to protect the health of the people who live nearby in those communities. Restoring the ability of the EPA to self-sustain its core mission should be a no-brainer for those on both sides of the aisle. In order to restore the funding, my amendment will make a modest cut to the BLM's oil and gas program. This program is a massive giveaway to the very polluters that have made the existence of the Superfund program a necessity. Currently, 7,950 drilling permits are approved and not being used. There are 14.4 million acres of public land under lease and not producing. There is no justification to dole out more taxpayer money in order to expedite and speed up the permitting or leasing practices when we have that amount not being used and over close to 15 million acres under lease, as we speak. A report by Oil Change International recently found that the U.S. Government provided about $6 billion annually in financial support to the oil, gas, and coal industries between 2013 and 2015. Meanwhile, oil giant ExxonMobil's profits more than doubled in the first quarter of this year, which equaled $4.1 billion in profits for just that one quarter. They certainly did not need more taxpayer money while communities across the United States continue to be exposed to toxic and hazardous pollution. My amendment restores, in part, EPA's core mission to protect the public health of the American people and to hold all polluters responsible and liable for the environmental and health risks they cause. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, this is a prudent, necessary protection of public health and the environment. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McEachin), a member of the Natural Resources Committee, and ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will restore $1 million in cuts to the Environmental Justice program within the EPA, with an equivalent cut to leadership and administration within the DOI Office of the Secretary. In 1992, the program was created and originally called the Environmental Equity Office. It was created after a series of releases of reports that revealed polluter sites were disproportionately located in low-income communities and communities of color. With minimal support, the program has provided communities with leveraged resources to do things like revitalize neighborhoods, build health centers, expand affordable housing, create green space and recreation areas, and, more importantly, raise the awareness of the disproportionate treatment in both affected communities and decisionmakers. Despite this success within the EPA for decades, we are not even close to dealing with the issue of environmental justice. In 2016, the United States Commission on Civil Rights found that racial minorities and low-income communities are still disproportionately affected by the siting of waste disposal facilities, permitted emissions facilities, and that they often lack the political and financial clout to properly bargain with polluters when fighting a decision or seeking redress. A report by the staff of the House Committee on Natural Resources found that clean water access and sanitation infrastructure on numerous reservations across the Nation more closely resemble developing countries than they do the rest of the Nation. Nearly half of all homes on Tribal land lack access to adequate drinking water, sewage, or solid waste disposal facilities. As a result, Native families often end up drinking unclean water that increases disease risks and impairs Tribal economic development. Additionally, low-income communities of color have been on the frontline of Houston's petrochemical industry for decades, and when Harvey struck, they were some of the first to feel the effects as chemical plants caught fire, refineries began flaring toxins, and polluted floodwater went into their neighborhoods. The EPA Office of Environmental Justice helps integrate concerns of these communities within the general activities of the agencies. This is not a program that can afford to be scaled back, especially as concerns of environmental justice continue to arise around Hurricane Harvey and now in Irma's path. It is critical that we protect frontline communities and communities of color from disparate impacts caused by environmental pollution. One million dollars is not a lot of money for this task, but it reaffirms the significance of the office and our sense of equality. Today I ask my colleagues to join in defense of these communities and show them that Congress cares about their public health, their housing, and their importance as people. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Juan, who graduated from Arizona State University and is currently working as a mechanical engineer.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, let me remind, the point of the amendment is that the money, the $37.5 million, and also the decision by the local residents to purchase the hovercraft, that was not mandated by the Federal Government. It was their decision, again with Federal money, $9 million, and so that was all in lieu of construction of the road. This legislation mandates a construction of that road, and I think it is only fair to the taxpayers that if the purpose was in lieu of to deal with the medical evacuation situations that we have heard about here again today, then the American taxpayers should be reimbursed for that. This was not an error caused by, as the levees in New Orleans, faulty design and construction that bore responsibility to the Federal Government. These were local decisions made on the use of that money. Now that the use of that money is moot, then the taxpayers deserve to be reimbursed. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, acknowledging that I am running the risk of being uppity on this particular amendment, but thankfully never smug, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 218, the King Cove Road Land Exchange Act. My amendment simply requires the State of Alaska to repay $20 million appropriated in 1999 to support the town of King Cove before the bill can take effect. The American taxpayer has already provided the town of King Cove with a total of $37.5 million to improve transportation access and medical facilities in the area. That included $20 million to build a road, construct a dock, and purchase marine equipment. Part of this money was used to purchase a $9 million hovercraft. This Federal funding was provided as an alternative to building a road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. The hovercraft worked as it was designed. It carried up to 49 passengers at a time, an ambulance, and even cargo, making the trip between King Cove and Cold Bay in 20 minutes--a trip that would take 2 hours on the proposed road when it is not shut down by extreme weather conditions. After operating for 3 years and performing at least 30 medical evacuations, the local government stopped using the hovercraft. The Aleutians East Borough is now trying to sell the hovercraft on the open market for $5 million. As we speak, House Republicans are seeking massive and dangerous cuts to spending on things like education, assistance to working families, and even Medicaid and Medicare. Before we mandate construction of a road through congressionally designated wilderness, it is only fair that American taxpayers are reimbursed for Federal funding that was intended to avoid the construction required by this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. While it was described as a technical amendment to conform the bill to the Senate version, it does much more than make a simple technical correction. Mr. Young's amendment expands the NEPA waiver in the underlying bill to exempt all permits associated with the construction of the proposed road from environmental review and public input. It is bad enough that the bill waives NEPA for the land exchange, but under this amendment, any and all improvements would be exempt from review. This could include a Clean Water Act permit necessary to move forward with the construction. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes the bill worse. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the rule at the desk.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, we are not saying that the residents of King Cove do not deserve reliable transportation options, and neither did the EIS. The EIS included an analysis of nonroad transportation options that would piggyback off the $37.5 million Congress has already invested in King Cove's infrastructure. The Interior Department also asked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to analyze the nonroad transportation options to connect King Cove with Cold Bay. The Army Corps published a report in 2015 that identified three viable alternatives. These included a new airport that is capable of supporting aircraft that can fly directly to Anchorage, a heliport for emergency evacuations, and an ice-capable marine vessel that is able to make the trip to Cold Bay in weather conditions that the taxpayer-funded hovercraft could not. Options exist, and that is why I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Other than myself, no.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, let me deal with one claim. The claim that people will die if we don't pass H.R. 218 is wrong. The claim is wrong because there is no evidence to back it up, and it is wrong because using this kind of over-the-top rhetoric is irresponsible. We do not oppose this bill because we think animal life is more value than human life, and throwing accusations like that around on the House floor should be beneath all of us. We do not have to rely on one Member's claim that the sky is falling. These concerns have been assessed for years through public process, and the conclusion was that there were viable alternatives that will address any legitimate public safety concerns. People's lives do not hang in the balance. We can protect public health and the refuge if we abandon this bill and work together on a better solution. This is, indeed, a remote area. That is why many of the residents choose to live there in the first place. They are fully accustomed to the challenges that come with living in the last frontier. To address these challenges, the Federal Government has appropriated tens of millions of dollars to this community for better medical and transportation facilities. We have remote communities in Arizona, especially Tribal communities, that would surely appreciate $37.5 million to address their health and safety concerns as well. The local government used some of that money to buy a hovercraft that could make the airport run much faster than this road will ever allow. The local community, not the Federal Government, elected to stop using the hovercraft. Surely, if people's lives were at stake, the local government would not have made that kind of a decision. We have legitimate policy differences on this bill. The EIS has convinced many on our side that this is not a worthwhile proposal. Let's debate these findings calmly and rationally that would serve the public in this debate and look for a solution that both protects people's health and the refuge. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have heard the argument, and we will repeatedly hear the argument that the road connecting King Cove to Cold Bay is needed for health and safety purposes. While it is true that the road will be used for medical emergencies, there is a lot of evidence pointing to another objective. If you look at the decades-long effort to build this road, it becomes clear that there has always been a commercial purpose in mind. King Cove is home to one of the largest fish processing facilities, operated by Peter Pan Seafoods, a subsidiary of a Japanese company that is one of the largest seafood companies in the world. Fishing is the backbone of the King Cove economy, and it has always been one of the reasons for the road. Let's look at the facts. In 1994, the city of King Cove passed a resolution to emphasize the positive socioeconomic impacts of a 20-mile road linking King Cove to the Cold Bay Airport. The resolution did not mention any need to use the road for health or safety or for emergency situations of residents. In 2005, the Aleutians East Borough participated in public scoping meetings and presented their vision for a hub airport for Cold Bay. This plan included cold storage capability for fish from King Cove and other communities awaiting air freight. In 2010, as part of a Fish and Wildlife EIS for the land exchange we are debating today, an Aleutians East Borough assemblyman stated that Peter Pan Seafoods would use the road to transport fresh product. And finally, on May 25 of this year, Alaska Governor Bill Walker sent a request to the Trump administration. He asked for: ``Access for isolated King Cove residents to the airport in Cold Bay in all weather conditions, enabling access to health services and the movement of goods and people between King Cove and Cold Bay.'' When you add all this up, the evidence is pretty convincing. Sure, the road will be used for emergency evacuations, but it will also be used to transport fresh product to Cold Bay to be sold throughout Asia and the rest of the world. Despite language in the bill seeking to prohibit commercial use of the road, once it is built, this prohibition will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. This is an incredibly remote area, and the Fish and Wildlife Service does not have the resources or staff capacity to police the use of the road. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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