Raúl Grijalva

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, instead of using energy development on Indian land as an excuse to weaken NEPA and judicial review, we should be concentrating our efforts on real reform that would achieve tribal self-determination and energy development. We should be dealing with the disparities in the Tax Code that stymie investments in Indian Country and create an unfair playing field. Tax credits and incentives for energy development that cities and communities have long used to their benefit, these need to be available to tribes as well. We should be encouraging investment in the future of renewable energy on tribal lands. According to the Department of Energy Office of Indian Energy, Indian land contains an estimated 5 percent of all renewable energy resources, and the total energy potential from these resources is almost 14 percent of the total U.S. potential. In my home State of Arizona, there is a great potential for solar, wind, and geothermal energy on Indian land. We just need to fix the real issues that prohibit the investment in these projects. But this bill doesn't do that. Instead, the majority is here today to once again attack NEPA and judicial review, this time attempting to use this as a wedge issue, attempting to drive a wedge between people that care about tribal self-determination as well as environmental stewardship. Picking between tribal sovereignty and responsible energy development is a false choice. We can have both. We can have successful energy development in Indian Country while retaining the environmental protections that will ensure future generations of Native Americans that they, too, can enjoy the benefits of that economic development. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to abandon this irresponsible proposal in favor of a real tribal energy bill. In the meantime, I would plead with my colleagues to bring legislation to the floor addressing Indian health care, Indian education programs, a codified process for tribal consultation with Federal agencies that respects sovereignty and upholds the trust responsibility that we have to Indian Country, and a fix--finally, a fix--for the current cloud hanging over the status of so many trust lands. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, frankly, we are still not addressing the most pressing needs in Indian Country. Six years later, the Carcieri decision still has not been fixed, despite much lipservice that has been given to it from the majority. Our colleague Mr. Cole and our colleague Ms. McCollum both have legislation, bipartisan legislation, that would deal with that immediately. We should call that up. We should have a hearing, and we should deal with this decision that has left so much doubt and confusion in Indian Country. Sacred sites are in need of identification and protection rather than midnight riders attached to unrelated legislation that violates tribal sacred site protections, as has happened already. Lack of funding from this body coupled with sequestration has left Indian health and education really with no relief in site. Yes, barriers to energy development on Indian land are among the most pressing needs, both as an economic driver for tribes and for the energy needs of the United States. But this bill does not address the real energy needs on tribal lands, and while we are wasting time on it, these other, and even more pressing needs, just continue to grow more urgent. The legislation claims to facilitate energy development, but, instead, it short-circuits the review process set up by the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, and limits judicial review of development decisions. Instead of helping tribes develop energy resources on their lands, this approach will lead to less environmental protection on Indian lands and less judicial recourse to those affected. These proposals are not new. We have seen and debated them before as part of the failed Republican energy bills last Congress, and here they are again. The legislation would amend NEPA, one of the Nation's bedrock environmental laws, to limit review of and comment on proposed projects to members of the affected Indian tribe and other individuals residing within an undetermined affected area. This limitation severely restricts public involvement in proposed Federal projects that may affect the environment, a central tenet of NEPA. Arbitrarily limiting such review and comment would prevent even other Indian tribes with cultural ties in the so- called affected area from commenting on a proposed project. Limiting the universe of members of the public who can participate in the NEPA process but then failing to actually define that universe is not reform. It is not reform at all. Additionally, this restriction is not just applicable to energy projects; it applies to any major project on Indian lands. This could mean proposed mining contracts, proposed water development projects, construction of solid waste facilities, and even construction of tribal class III gaming facilities all would slip through this undefined loophole. Nontribal partners would also reap this benefit as well, as long as the project is located on Indian lands. The legislation also throws up insurmountable barriers to those seeking to hold the Federal Government accountable for its actions in court. It prevents the recovery of attorney's fees in cases challenging energy projects, and it makes a claimant who fails to succeed on the merits of a suit potentially liable to the defendant for attorneys' fees and costs. This makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for members of the public--even tribal members whose homelands may be impacted by a major Federal action of any kind--to seek judicial review. The other side will say this is in response to frivolous lawsuits that have been filed in these cases in the past, but according to the Department of the Interior Solicitor's Office, very few approved energy-related projects have ever been challenged in court. This is truly a solution in search of a problem. It is clear the real intent of this provision is to chill legitimate litigation and to undermine the real teeth of NEPA by making the availability of injunctive relief all but disappear. Furthermore, this applies even to non-Indian land. If an energy company is developing natural resources anywhere in the United States and they get a tribal partner, they can fall under this provision. This could incentivize energy companies to partner with tribes simply for the benefit of skirting NEPA and profiting from restricted judicial review. The legislation is opposed by the administration, as well as many environmental and conservation groups. I enter the following letter of opposition to this legislation into the Record, which has been signed by the Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Green Latinos, The Lands Council, League of Conservation Voters, National Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Sierra Club, Western Environmental Law Center, and The Wilderness Society. Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Green Latinos, The Lands Council, League of Conservation Voters, National Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Sierra Club, Western Environmental Law Center, The Wilderness Society, September 9, 2015. Chairman Rob Bishop, Ranking Member Raul Grijalva, House Natural Resources Committee, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva: On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, we write to express our strong concerns with H.R. 538, the ``Native American Energy Act.'' The bill purports to promote and encourage increased energy production on tribal lands by reducing government barriers and streamlining burdensome procedures. While we are not opposed to the development of energy projects on tribal lands under the law, this bill goes far beyond that by severely limiting public involvement in the development of any major project on tribal lands, as well as by insulating potentially environmentally devastating energy projects on tribal lands (or even projects done in partnership with an Indian tribe on non-tribal lands) from judicial review. It further erodes the public interest by diminishing its full authority to conduct appraisals, especially in the context of land exchanges between the federal government and an Alaska Native Corporation. Given the problems with these provisions, we ask that you oppose

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The GAO report has mentioned many times about the rationale behind and the catalyst behind this particular legislation; yet, the conclusion, which I agree with, is that we are not living up to our responsibilities as it applies to energy development on Indian land. But reading the recommendations, nowhere does it say that the solution to the problem is to gut NEPA or to stifle judicial recourse. Instead, the recommendations talk about resources that are needed by Indian Country to successfully fulfill their obligations and responsibilities to their members. It talks about staffing shortages, outdated mapping systems, and the need to ensure that the BIA can provide support to the tribes on energy programs. These are things the BIA has asked for in their budget and that the President's budget sent over has requested time and time again. Funding these requests go unheeded by this majority. So it is disingenuous, as the majority does time and time again, to starve an agency or a program of needed funding and then to complain that that agency program is ineffective. It is also disingenuous to say that the responsibility to work with and honor our trust responsibility to Indian Country is down to the choice in this legislation whether you vote ``yes'' or ``no.'' As I stated in my opening statement, there is a litany of pressing issues that face Indian Country and Native Americans in our Nation, a litany of benign neglect for many, many years, of which all bear responsibility. But with that responsibility comes also the opportunity to act. The fix is necessary so that fact is quelled on a bad Supreme Court decision. We need the adequate funding so that the trust responsibility that we inherit as Members of Congress is upheld. We need programs of infrastructure in Indian Country. We need many, many issues to address not only the human need, but the economic needs of Indian Country. To say that this bill is the watershed moment that is going to turn all that benign neglect and irresponsibility backwards is disingenuous at best. I would suggest let's talk about a real comprehensive approach to the issue of Indian Country and the support this Congress needs to give to our trust responsibility. If we do that, I am sure all of us collectively can come to the same conclusion, that we need to do something and that there is before us legislation from both sides of the aisle that begin to address it. This legislation is not it. It is not a panacea. And to pit the trust responsibility this Congress has and to question whether sovereignty is supported or not by Members that oppose this is not fair. The fairness in this would have been an energy bill that is comprehensive. The fairness would have been not to gut NEPA, judicial review, and present a bill that is clean and upholds bedrock environmental laws and--and it is not complicated--uphold the trust responsibility that we have when we swear an oath of office to serve in this Congress. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize and congratulate the Omega Delta Phi Fraternity, Inc., (Gamma Chapter) from the University of Arizona on the occasion of their 25th Anniversary. After gaining chapter status on September 28th, 1990 at the University of Arizona, Omega Delta Phi Fraternity, Inc., has set out to be an organization that prides itself with hands on community service. Its members have set out to become role models at the collegiate level for many as members are representative of first generation college students. ODPhi has been a prime example of seeking to put an end to the stereotypical images of fraternity men. As Men of Vision, members have undertaken a responsibility to think outside of the box and become committed to the constructive development of themselves and their communities. As a service and social organization, The Gamma Chapter of Omega Delta Phi Fraternity, Inc., has continuously lent a helping hand to the Tucson community by hosting and working several community events, namely their Annual Easter Egg Hunt and Annual Haunted House. These two signature events which have been hosted by the chapter every year since the early 1990s, provide a fun and safe environment for local children and families and has been replicated at other chapter locations since. Members invest an average of 40-50 service hours (per member) back into the Tucson community and have done so every semester for the past 25 years. The chapter at the UA was one of the original organizations in recent years to begin as a Hispanic-Founded organization and paved the way for other Multicultural Greek-Lettered Organizations to begin on campus. The chapter has seen a diverse group of men carry on a tradition of excellence as members have been of Hispanic, Native American, African American, Asian, Indian, and Caucasian descent. As a true multicultural fraternity, ODPhi has a priority of graduating members from the University of Arizona and has seen hundreds of alumni go on to see successful diverse careers in government, public services, medical, higher education, and the private sector. What began as an idea by four founding individuals: David Gil, Carlos Contreras, Jeff Martin, and Kurt Rex Cooper, to create an organization that gives back to our local area, has now flourished into a thriving brotherhood that has taken on a continued responsibility in social and public affairs. With a rich history, ODPhi has been both humbled and honored to remain a part of Tucson's community and plans to remain an advocate for higher education and service. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize and honor the Omega Delta Phi-Gamma Fraternity on the celebration of their 25th anniversary and commend the fraternity and its members for its service and achievements over the years.

Mr. GRIJALVA

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

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, is a 45-year-old law which stands, basically, for two things: that the Federal Government should consider alternatives before taking action that can impact people's lives and that the public should have the opportunity to comment on those alternatives before a final decision is made. House Republicans oppose both of these simple principles and so they attack NEPA time after time, year after year. The bill before us today is just a rerun of those attacks. My amendment, unfortunately, cannot fix this bill. In fact, my amendment is really just proof of what is so dangerous about the RAPID Act. Among the critical issues that can be addressed through our existing NEPA process is ensuring environmental justice. Bills like the one we are considering today seek to short-circuit that process; so, they seek to short-circuit environmental justice concerns. My amendment would put environmental justice considerations back in the process created by this legislation; but we would not even need this amendment if Republicans would just leave NEPA alone. Twenty-one years ago President Bill Clinton issued his executive order on environmental justice. After decades of hard work, struggle, some victories along the way, the promise of environmental justice for all communities remains unfulfilled. While environmental toxins and pollution know no class or race, low- income communities and communities of color bear a disproportionate share of adverse environmental consequences. Low-income communities and communities of color are routinely targeted to host facilities that have negative environmental impacts, such as landfills, refineries, chemical plants, freeways, and ports. Seventy-eight percent of African Americans live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant. Nearly one out of every two Latinos lives in the country's top 25 most ozone-polluted cities. For decades, these communities have been battling environmental injustices and have been seeking to build healthy, livable, and sustainable communities. NEPA recognizes that, when the public and Federal experts work together, better decisions are made. We have not solved the problem yet, but the solution is a more inclusive, more rigorous use of the NEPA process, not these constant, industry-friendly attacks on the law. Every person has the right to live, work, and play in a healthy and safe environment; yet, too often, the health of too many Americans is determined by their race, class, ZIP code, and street address. It is unfortunate and inefficient to have to come down here to protect these issues one by one for each and every Republican bill that is presented. The adoption of my amendment would keep H.R. 348 from destroying the progress we have made on issues for communities of color, but it doesn't solve the problem. A far better approach would be to drop H.R. 348 and to instead invest in making NEPA stronger and more inclusive than ever. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment has been categorized as a technical amendment. We are told the amendment is designed to clarify the bill, which is being sold as the answer to our Nation's economic woes. The bill is supposed to streamline government environmental reviews, and this amendment is supposed to streamline the underlying bill. Unfortunately, the only thing that is being streamlined here are the facts about NEPA. Mr. Chairman, the facts are not in the Republicans' favor. For more than 40 years, NEPA has ensured that federally funded projects are carried out in a transparent and cost-effective manner, while fostering public participation in the decisionmaking process and minimizing impacts to the environment. In fact, NEPA often provides the only forum for citizens to engage in major Federal actions that affect our health, well-being, and the environment. NEPA saves millions of dollars and is a tool for environmental justice. NEPA gave the confederated Salish and Kootenai tribal governments and citizen groups an opportunity to engage in the design of U.S. 93 in western Montana, resulting in a project that successfully addressed safety, environmental, family farming, and cultural concerns. NEPA's success stories, where the process saves money and improves the quality of life for people impacted by Federal decisions, go on and on. My Republican colleagues tend to streamline these stories so we never get a chance to hear them. Here are some facts my Republican colleagues might have missed during their streamlining: 95 percent of all NEPA analyses are completed through categorical exclusion, which generally requires only a few days. Less than 5 percent of NEPA actions require an environmental assessment, and less than 1 percent require a full EIS. Those projects that do require an EIS tend to be the largest, most complex. The delays that do occur are more likely the result of local opposition, a lack of funding, or changes in the project's scope. Agency data, interviews with agency officials, and available studies show that most NEPA analyses do not result in litigation; yet, the underlying bill seeks to restrict judicial review, and the manager's amendment would create a judicial bar to the courthouse doors before a party could seek judicial review. Typically, there have been fewer than 100 cases per year nationwide in the last decade even though the NEPA review process is applied to tens of thousands of government actions each year and tens of thousands more that are classified as exempt from review based on categorical exclusions. NEPA is not a barrier to development. It is a tool for better decision-making. The only reason to avoid NEPA or to weaken it is so that you can make decisions less carefully. This is the purpose of the legislation. Apparently, the bill itself was not drafted very carefully; so, we have a manager's amendment to fix all the errors. This manager's amendment is just more proof that my Republican colleagues should leave NEPA alone because their understanding of how it works and what it does is, unfortunately, too streamlined. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, after September 30, the authorization for the Land and Water Conservation Fund expires. That date is a looming date for the Republican leadership of this House. With it comes the talk and potential of a government shutdown. Other critical programs that face reauthorization are also ending on September 30. Part of the issue of leadership is to allow the House to work its will. Until this House has the opportunity to deal with this issue of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, we will continue to not know its status and we will watch the agonizingly slow and painful dismantling and end of this program. The reauthorization has, in its history, been bipartisan and bicameral. This legislation enjoys bipartisan and bicameral support. Both Republican and Democratic colleagues are part of the 165 sponsors of the legislation in the House. The compromise in that committee was between the ranking member and the chair of that committee in the Senate. So I think it behooves us to look at this fund, for every day past the 30th of September $2.5 million will be lost to that fund, money that we cannot afford to lose. Mr. Speaker, to wait for the ashes of the Land and Water Conservation Fund after the 30th and then to develop it without bipartisan input, without the Democrats playing any role at all in legislation that redefines the Fund and that includes purposes for which the Fund was never established and redirect its funds into areas which are far from the mission of the Fund when it was established 50 years ago, is effectively killing the Fund. The cuts in our Federal land agencies and land management agencies that have endured in the last four or five budgets point to the fact that the Land and Water Conservation Fund has become an essential supplemental support to many of our public lands and the projects and outdoor activities and wildlife protections that the American people expect. I suggest to the House that this reauthorization should be devoid of controversy and should be devoid of partisan bickering and political grandstanding. This is a routine item that requires action by the House. Mr. Speaker, before the time runs out, fully funding and fully authorizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund on a permanent basis is what the public is asking for and is what 165 Members of this House are asking for. I believe that the Republican leadership of this House has to act and allow the House of Representatives, the elected Representatives of the people of this Nation, to work its will and take that vote. My colleagues have mentioned the economic benefit and priorities of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Let me just add that a bipartisan poll found that 88 percent of the voters support continuing to set aside offshore oil and gas drilling fees that should go into the Land and Water Conservation Fund and 85 percent of Americans want the fund to be fully funded. For every dollar that is spent on Land and Water Conservation Funds and that is invested, it results in a return of $4 in economic value from the natural resources goods and services alone. I think it is worth noting that $900 million comes from those offshore oil and gas resources and $17 billion that is collected from those fees and resources that are collected from offshore drilling and gas and oil development goes for other purposes elsewhere in the government. So we are talking essentially about a very small sum of money that many of us felt should have been raised a long time ago. We are jeopardizing this sum of money. In jeopardizing this sum of money, we are further dismantling and further hurting the public's use of our public lands and, more importantly, the protections and cultural resource activities that occur as a result of the fund. It is a simple matter. Bring it to a hearing. Bring it to a vote. I would urge the leadership of this House that it is way past time. To agonizingly wait for September 30 is not a function of government. It is cynical. It is wrong. When you have a bill before you that enjoys the bipartisan support that H.R. 1814 enjoys, it is time to bring it to the floor and allow this Congress to vote and allow this bill to be reauthorized on a permanent level, on a permanent basis. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington's First District (Ms. DelBene).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about the Land and Water Conservation Fund, our Nation's most important conservation and outdoor recreation program. For more than 50 years, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has conserved our Nation's most cherished natural spaces and historic landmarks. This groundbreaking program, created and reauthorized on a strong bipartisan basis, has protected and expanded iconic landscapes in every State and is responsible for more than 40,000 State and local outdoor recreation projects, from playgrounds and baseball fields to urban parks and nature refuges. By reinvesting revenues from offshore oil and gas development in communities across America, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has become ``America's best parks program.'' In my home State of Arizona, the fund has provided approximately $223 million in funding to help preserve iconic places like the Grand Canyon, Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, and the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. Recently, I had the pleasure of joining National Park staff and students from Cholla High School, Desert View High School, and Pueblo High School for a day of appreciation at Saguaro National Park West. For many of the students that joined us on this visit, this was their first visit to Saguaro, despite it being a 15-minute drive from Tucson. Saguaro officials have leveraged the Land and Water Conservation Fund funding to benefit Arizonans, the desert tortoise, Gila monsters, and other desert wildlife that call Saguaro home. Without it, our students would have had a smaller national park to experience, less to learn, and less to enjoy. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has preserved iconic sites like this all over the country. Our trip to Saguaro was hardly unique. These stories of discovery happen every day thanks to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Unfortunately, the fund's authorizing legislation expires on September 30, 2015. Six legislative days remain before the clock runs out. The stakes are high. If the Land and Water Conservation Fund is not renewed, special wild areas will be at greater risk of overdevelopment, and our Nation's ability to conserve lands for future generations will be severely undercut. Congress should build on the Land and Water Conservation Fund's legacy. We should stop playing political games and do what the public clearly wants us to do. We should permanently reauthorize and fully fund the program. It is that simple. The House Republican leadership has not acted to extend the Land and Water Conservation Fund. They seem perfectly content to let it expire. Rather than meeting with their fellow legislators and reaching a compromise, as Senate Republicans have done, the House Republican leadership, once again, has shown an inability to do what is best for sportsmen, the outdoor industry, recreation enthusiasts, and wildlife. By allowing the fund to expire, they serve no one's interest and create a deficit in our legacy as protectors of public land and public resources in this country. This is not a controversial program. It protects public land for future use. There is no more an American goal than that, but it is held up by a leadership team that would rather do nothing. Past Congresses have reauthorized the Land and Water Conservation Fund with support from both parties. It shouldn't be any different this time. The support is there. On April 15, as the chart illustrates, a bill to permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund was introduced. To date, the bill boasts support from over 165 Members of Congress, both Republican and Democrats. I have made a request--as the sequence of time that we have been waiting--asking for a full hearing, a markup, and an eventual vote on this floor. We asked for a hearing on H.R. 1814. I made a request to hold a vote on H.R. 1814. These requests have fallen on deaf ears. The clock is running out. House Republican leaders must act. It won't take much to get the Land and Water Conservation Fund back on track, but they have to say yes to moving forward and to doing a bipartisan legislation, which is what the colleagues of this Chamber are asking for. It is time for action. We are calling, in a bipartisan way, on our colleagues to permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund. To not do so is not carrying out our full responsibilities as stewards of the public lands, but also, more importantly, when you have before you a request by over 165 Members on a bipartisan manner on a bill that has compromises within it that were reached at the Senate level as well, it appears to me that not to do this fund is to set up this fund for failure, to set up this fund for dismantling, and to set up this fund to redirect the purpose for which this fund was created 50 years ago. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas), the ranking member for the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California's Second District (Mr. Huffman), the ranking member on the Water, Power, and Oceans Subcommittee of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California's 47th District (Mr. Lowenthal), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Rather than repeat what the chairman of the subcommittee just indicated on H.R. 2223, let me just say that the exchange eliminates a large private inholding in the National Forest and removes the need for the Federal land management of the Emerald Valley Ranch. The Forest Service testified in support of the legislation. I want to thank my colleagues, Congressman Polis and Congressman Lamborn, for their hard and constructive work on this legislation. This is a good, bipartisan piece of legislation, and I congratulate its two sponsors. I urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 75th Anniversary of the City of South Tucson, a community known for the resiliency, determination, and independence of its residents. As a native of Tucson, Arizona, I am privileged to represent the City of South Tucson in the United States Congress. The support and loyalty I have received from the residents of South Tucson during my entire public life is a great honor for me personally. Over 6,000 people and 300 businesses call the City of South Tucson home. This square mile city incorporated by its residents, rather than losing its identity to the City of Tucson, continues after 75 years to assert its independence and be the unique and proud community it has always been through its history. South Tucson is about family and community, offering to the much larger metropolis of Tucson a view of our past and a dynamic view of what a community can do to retain its character while looking forward. South Tucson boasts the best Mexican cuisine found anywhere; Las Artes, a model for integrating public art and education; and public services from the state of the art Sam Lena library to excellent public schools Ochoa and Mission View. South Tucson has a sophisticated network of social service providers and City of South Tucson first responders who place the safety of their residents first. The greatest asset that the City of South Tucson has is its people, a diverse group representing Native-Americans, African-Americans, and Anglos, and families that have contributed so much to the region. From South Tucson have come generations of political leaders, tradesmen, educators, decorated war veterans, business leaders, civil leaders, and so many hardworking people whose dignity and determination better us all. Like all small towns and cities in America, the City of South Tucson faces challenges, but the drive to meet those challenges and prosper for the next 75 years is without a doubt the city's future. I wish to congratulate the Mayor and Council of the City of South Tucson and the residents of the city on its 75th anniversary. The commemoration ceremony on September 19, 2015 at the Music and Arts Festival will be a day in which we pause and acknowledge the history, achievements, and the future of the City of South Tucson. Congratulations to South Tucson.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 75th Anniversary of the City of South Tucson, a community known for the resiliency, determination, and independence of its residents. As a native of Tucson, Arizona, I am privileged to represent the City of South Tucson in the United States Congress. The support and loyalty I have received from the residents of South Tucson during my entire public life is a great honor for me personally. Over 6,000 people and 300 businesses call the City of South Tucson home. This square mile city incorporated by its residents, rather than losing its identity to the City of Tucson, continues after 75 years to assert its independence and be the unique and proud community it has always been through its history. South Tucson is about family and community, offering to the much larger metropolis of Tucson a view of our past and a dynamic view of what a community can do to retain its character while looking forward. South Tucson boasts the best Mexican cuisine found anywhere; Las Artes, a model for integrating public art and education; and public services from the state of the art San Lena library to excellent public schools Ochoa and Mission View. South Tucson has a sophisticated network of social service providers and City of South Tucson first responders who place the safety of their residents first. The greatest asset that the City of South Tucson has is its people, a diverse group representing Native-Americans, African-Americans, and Anglos, and families that have contributed so much to the region. From South Tucson have come generations of political leaders, tradesmen, educators, decorated war veterans, business leaders, civil leaders, and so many hardworking people whose dignity and determination better us all. Like all small towns and cities in America, the City of South Tucson faces challenges, but the drive to meet those challenges and prosper for the next 75 years is without a doubt the city's future. I wish to congratulate the Mayor and Council of the City of South Tucson and the residents of the city on its 75th anniversary. The commemoration ceremony on September 19, 2015 at the Music and Arts Festival will be a day in which we pause and acknowledge the history, achievements, and the future of the City of South Tucson. Congratulations to South Tucson.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule on H.R. 427, and I thank my friend for yielding. This bill is the very definition of political legislation and serves absolutely no purpose in ensuring better rules. This legislation accomplishes nothing, aside from slowing down the administrative rulemaking process and giving Congress the power to shoot down any action that this majority doesn't like. By requiring a joint resolution of congressional approval prior to enactment, the only surefire achievement of this legislation is a longer rulemaking process, not a better one. Let me humor my Republican colleagues and try to give them the benefit of the doubt. They claim that this bill is about requiring Federal agencies to be more transparent in their actions. They want reports on how rules impact the Federal budget. But why should transparency only be limited to the budget? If transparency is the gold standard, why aren't we demanding reports on how these rules impact our most vulnerable and at-risk citizens? If we are striving for transparency, let's be transparent about all things. Yesterday, I submitted an amendment to address this point. But unsurprisingly, this rule does not allow my amendment to be considered. This proves yet again that this Republican majority cares more about protecting industry than protecting our people or our planet. My amendment was simple. It would have required the administration to report to Congress on the greenhouse gas emission impacts associated with any proposed rule and what any proposed rule's impacts are on low- income communities in this country. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that climate change is real. No matter how often industry and many of my Republican colleagues try convince us that we have nothing to worry about, no matter how much manufactured science they gin up to create doubt, climate change is real. If the administration is going to be forced to justify their rulemaking to Congress, let's make sure they include climate impacts in their justifications. The same goes for how the rules impact our poor communities. Why are people less important than Big Business? My amendment aimed to remedy the negative impacts felt by these populations by changing the definition of what constitutes a major rule to include any rule that increases the health risks among low-income communities, period. But apparently those concerns don't warrant a vote on the House floor. The majority's decision to block my amendment on climate change and environmental justice says more about the underlying legislation than any speech you will hear today. This is not about good government. This is about House Republicans wanting to put their finger on the scale to benefit corporations at the expense of the health and safety of the American people and, yes, our planet. This is a bad rule and it is protecting a bad bill, and both should be defeated.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to recognize the hard work of Judge Michael Pollard and his tremendous impact on the Tucson community. His selfless work for the American people started when he was drafted into the United States Marine Corps in 1967. He was assigned to the Echo Company 2nd Battalion 4th Marines, proudly serving his country in Vietnam. Following his time in the military, Judge Pollard graduated from the University of Arizona, College of Law in 1972. He then worked tirelessly in private practice as a prosecutor and public defender for 20 years before being appointed as a Tucson City Court magistrate in 1994. Since that appointment, Judge Pollard has worked relentlessly to improve his community through his service on various committees, including as chair of the Arizona Supreme Court Committee on the Impact of Domestic Violence in the Courts, as the state judicial representative to the Arizona Full Faith and Credit Team, and as co- chair of the Tucson/Pima County Homeless Plan Implementation Task Force, continuing to direct homeless courts in the region. Judge Pollard's most recent contribution to Tucson can be found in his honorable and dedicated work with his fellow veterans. In 2009, along with a handful of other judges, he developed the Regional Municipalities Veterans Treatment Court. This organization works to provide veterans an opportunity to avoid jail time and clear any misdemeanor charges they may have on their record. In return, the veteran must complete court-mandated rehabilitation and support courses, many times working with the Southern Arizona VA Health Care System and other local organizations that provide those services. Since its inception, this program has allowed over 600 veterans to work towards a healthy, clean lifestyle without the difficulties of possessing a criminal record. Thanks to Judge Pollard and his team, countless veterans have been able to move past their misdemeanors and progress to non-violent, healthy lives. He sees these misdemeanors not as permanent hardships, but as potential turning points for those who accept them. He provides a second chance for those who have fought for our country, and for this I am grateful. Judge Pollard demonstrates an individual who truly works for the betterment of his community, both among Tucsonans and his fellow veterans.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me the time and for the good work he has done on the water issues in our committee and for the rational thought he brings to the discussion. Mr. Chairman, the Endangered Species Act is not causing the California drought, period. It is wrong to mislead the people living through the drought by telling them that the answer is to abolish environmental laws. It isn't. But here come the House Republicans again with another unfounded attack on endangered species that will go extinct without ESA protection. Here they come again, claiming ``power grab'' and ``overreach'' every time that they don't get their way. Here they come again, using a serious water challenge as an excuse to chip away at a law they don't support, even if it is unrelated to the problem at hand. Millions of Californians need Congress to take this drought seriously. But my friends across the aisle have decided their opposition to the Endangered Species Act is more important, and the drought in California is a convenient excuse to dismantle ESA. We recently finished debating the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill that now includes language that would jeopardize the survival of the African elephant, greater sage-grouse, gray wolf, northern long-eared bat, Sonoran desert tortoise, and many other endangered species. H.R. 2898 will add the delta smelt and several salmon and steelhead runs to the list of species that the House Republicans have decided we can do without. I guess we shouldn't be surprised. After all, the sponsor of this legislation said last month on live television that he would ``hopefully someday repeal the Endangered Species Act.'' That kind of rhetoric is not constructive, but is a useful glimpse into the real Republican agenda. By showing what this bill is actually about, these comments tell us Republicans know that this is a distraction from the real problem. California faces a crippling drought and global warming that will continue to make the State drier and hotter, and the demand for water far outstrips supply. Californians will have to make some tough choices in this drought, but they do not need to choose to exterminate fish and wildlife resources that belong to the American people. Congress should not choose to do so either. People and wildlife can coexist, and the ESA is proving it. Since 1973, 99 percent of protected species have survived, and the U.S. economy has tripled from just over 5 trillion to more than 16 trillion. Restoring delta smelt, salmon, and steelheads will have additional economic benefit for commercial and recreational fishermen. If that isn't enough, Americans are telling us that we have to protect species. Recent polling shows 90 percent of voters support ESA. Sadly, this bill is just another example of House Republicans ignoring the will of the American people and driving the extinction of American fish and wildlife one species at a time. I ask for a ``no'' vote on H.R. 2898.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Los Angeles Times had an article entitled, ``Editorial: GOP Water Bill in Congress Should Be Rejected.'' It compared the two pieces of legislation, Jared Huffman's H.R. 2983 and the bill that is on the floor today, H.R. 2898. The conclusion was that we needed a commonsense, comprehensive approach. The article says, ``the Huffman bill is starkly different and frankly much smarter, focusing on updating Federal water policies and practices that today are firmly rooted in outdated, mid-20th century knowledge and technology.'' It is a comprehensive approach that my side of the aisle seeks, and this legislation before us today does nothing. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to another important aspect of the legislation, which is the issue of relief. Providing a near-term relief, I think, is essential--that is not to stall a long-term solution, but to provide the relief that everybody has talked about that California and the Central Valley needs. The Central Valley has been described as the ``Salad Bowl'' of America. The delicious crops that are grown there are consumed by Americans at a low cost. There is an occasional reference to the people that day in and day out labor to pick those crops and put them on the tables of the American people--the farmworkers. Referencing their dire economic and living conditions that they find themselves in right now, the conclusion is that we need to proceed to pass H.R. 2898 to help these farmworkers and their families. I agree; farmworkers and their families must be a priority for relief. H.R. 2898 doesn't provide any relief to farmworkers and their families. Mr. Chairman, farmworkers need an investment. They need an investment in education; they need an investment in housing; they need an investment in livable incomes, and they need to work on the concentrated poverty that we find. Those areas of farmworker communities had one of the highest poverty rates in California before the drought; they are at a high poverty rate now with the drought; and if we want to change the course of history, we need to deal with that issue. We need to continue to restrict pesticide use that harms humans, and we need to have working conditions and opportunity available to farmworkers. Farmworkers don't need crocodile tears. They need relief; they need attention, and they need investment. They need a relief that is near term and not one dominated by technology and outmoded strategies that will not bring that relief to them. We should be about creating opportunity, creating immediate relief, and helping those families not only in the near term, but in the long term. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, before I speak to my amendment, I want to acknowledge the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) for her input on this amendment and for her long advocacy for water reuse, recycling, and conservation, and for emphasizing that we need a near- term water-creation strategy, along with a long-term sustainable strategy. H.R. 2898 is not that long-term sustainable strategy. Californians and others across the west need drought relief now. The proponents of this legislation know that it will not provide that immediate relief. They also know their bill will never become law. So why are we here today, wasting everybody's time? It is simply because House Republicans are not going to miss an opportunity to attack the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The allegation that environmental laws have restricted dam construction is patently false. In fact, it was President Reagan who first sought to help curb the deficit by turning off the tap of easy Federal money that had funded multi-billion-dollar boondoggles and pork barrel dam projects. Building new dams takes forever because it doesn't make economic sense without heavy government subsidies. Instead of flushing taxpayers' dollars, we should be investing in projects that recycle wastewater, create reuse, and provide immediate water supplies. Eight-seven percent of California's wastewater, hundreds of billions of gallons of water that could supply the needs of agriculture and people, is lost to the Pacific Ocean each year because we do not have enough water recycling projects in place. This is literally an ocean of missed opportunity. Mr. Chairman, my amendment creates new water for the people of California. If Republicans were serious about solving this drought problem, they would have written a bill that creates new water. Sadly, they have not. Instead, they have written a bill that uses a very real crisis to attack the ESA and NEPA. This bill insults people who are suffering through this historic drought, and it is just the latest example of House Republicans blocking public participation in government and driving the extinction of American fish and wildlife one species at a time. I agree with my colleagues; this is a manmade drought. It is manmade because we are not conserving and recycling water that we have and because we are wasting time on this bill instead of planning to increase water supplies in the short term and in long-term sustainable strategies. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, the people of Tucson lost a tremendous presence in our community with the recent passing of Bill Altaffer. An attorney by trade and a humanitarian at heart, Bill was deeply committed to improving the quality of life in Arizona, across the country and around the world. After graduating with honors from Pitzer College and earning his law degree from the University of Arizona, he served as associate general counsel to three Indian nations, assisting their governments in the interpretation of their constitutions and the enactment of environmental protection legislation. Bill's affiliations speak volumes about his commitment to helping others. He was a member of the Muscular Dystrophy Association's (MDA) National Task Force Steering Committee, and a member and past chairman of the Southern Arizona Task Force on Public Awareness. In 1995, he received the MDA's National Personal Achievement Award, and in 2002, received the Tucson Human Relations Commission's Rabbi Albert T. Bilgray Make a Difference Award for his lifelong activism for human rights and social change based on the rule of law. Bill and his wife, Colette, led the groundbreaking effort to enact the Inclusive Home Design Ordinance in Pima County, Arizona. This visitability ordinance requires new single-family houses to meet minimum accessibility standards, thereby promoting the independence of people with disabilities. It remains the most progressive legislation of its type in the country today. It was through this visitability ordinance effort that I first came to know both Bill and Colette. I immediately admired their commitment to their cause, and equally as important, their commitment to each other. The love they shared for each other was an inspiration to anyone who met them. They truly were soul mates, meant to be partners in their lives and in their vision for helping others. Together they spent countless hours educating elected officials and their staffs, home builders, and community members alike about the incredibly positive impact that simple alterations to home designs can have for individuals with disabilities. Their efforts will benefit our community for decades to come. Bill and Colette guided the committee's efforts in creating and passing a visitability ordinance that propelled Pima County to the forefront of ensuring home accessibility for everyone. Their efforts helped many people remain in their homes, and access the homes of friends and family with little significant costs added to the price of a new home. Bill may be gone from our material world, but he will remain in the hearts and minds of anyone who was lucky enough to meet him. His life together with Colette is an inspiration to everyone sharing their lifelong commitment to fighting injustice.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2647, the so-called Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015. Before I address the many concerns with the underlying bill, I must commend my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They have finally taken a step toward addressing the 600-pound gorilla, that is, the enormous cost and impact of fire borrowing under the Forest Service budget. I offered an amendment at a committee markup that would have required Congress to address the issue of fire borrowing before this bill could take effect, and we have been calling on House Republicans to address the issue for years. My amendment was rejected, but I am glad it encouraged the sponsors of this legislation to address the cost of wildfires. The newly added title IX is not a perfect solution, however. By amending the Stafford Act to include wildfires under the definition of natural disasters, this section creates a mechanism to address the very disastrous practice of fire borrowing. There is a small hitch, nevertheless. Congress would still have to fund this new disaster relief fund, similar to the process for funding recovery from Superstorm Sandy, which did not go smoothly, to say the least. While this might be a positive step, it does not make H.R. 2647 a good bill. With regard to title IX, the additional disaster relief fund, hopefully the majority will not rob Peter to pay Paul within the Forest budget in order to fund this disaster relief fund or leave title IX just as an empty hollow and useless gesture that never gets funded. In the name of forest resiliency and health, H.R. 2647 undermines the NEPA process, discourages collaboration, distorts the intent of the Secure Rural Schools program, creates an extraordinary burden on citizens' access to the courts, and transforms the judicial review process. This bill, quite frankly, is not about forest health. It is about increasing the numbers of trees removed from the forest. The White House just communicated its strenuous opposition to H.R. 2647, and let me quote from that communication: The administration strongly opposes H.R. 2647. The most important step Congress can take to increase the pace and scale of forest restoration and management of our national forests and the Department of the Interior lands is to fix the fire suppression funding and provide additional capacity for the Forest Service and Department of the Interior to manage the Nation's forests and other public lands. H.R. 2647 falls short of fixing the fire budget problem and contains other provisions that will undermine collaborative forest restoration, environmental safeguards, and public participation across the National Forest System and public lands. Categorical inclusions that are part of title I are not the product of thoughtful consideration of the legislation. Instead, they pave the way for up to 8 square miles of clear cuts of old-growth trees with little or no environmental review. Title II reduces to 3 months the time for environmental assessments and environmental impact statements for reforestation or salvage operations following a large-scale fire. The Forest Service testified that this time limit is unrealistic, encouraging snap judgments that can have horrible long-term consequences. Title III strips away access to the courts that other speakers will speak to as well. You know, think about the group that would dominate the collaborative decisionmaking without any judicial review. The bill also eliminates the Equal Access to Justice Act for successful litigants and forces them to do a prebond, a one-sided bond requirement to limit, if not eliminate, citizen activism and public participation in a problem that they can help solve rather looking at this as a threat. I urge a ``no'' vote on the legislation.