Raúl Grijalva

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. I thank the ranking member. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the underlying legislation and to the Salmon amendment. Once again, we are considering legislation that does nothing to improve equity in our public education system, assuring and ensuring that resources are focused on student populations that have been historically marginalized, primarily children of color, English language learners, children with disabilities, and poor kids. The lessons from No Child Left Behind are plentiful, some good that need improvement and some that need to be eliminated from a reauthorization. This amendment, along with the underlying legislation, continues to dismantle and remove the ESEA's significant mission, to deal with the issue of poverty in this country, marginalized communities, and kids who are not achieving. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose H.R. 5 and this amendment. The current bill fails to provide all of our communities with equitable educations. Portability eliminates a maintenance of effort, block grants don't address charter school accountability, and it eliminates provisions to protect English learners in this country. With this amendment, we eliminate the Nation's responsibility to be accountable and to ensure that all children get an education. I am astounded by the historical amnesia that goes on when we have these discussions. The ESEA was formed for a purpose: to improve and to create equity and opportunity for children who didn't have it. We have not reached a stage in this country when we can say that States can take care of this. We can go back to those vestiges, as the ranking member said, in which there was no equality, there was no opportunity, and tell the States, ``You can do what you want with this Federal money. And, by discretion, if you don't educate all of your children, that is okay. And if, by discretion, we can't hold anybody accountable for his lack of education, that is okay.'' That is the message we are going back to, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, my amendment would allow the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement to continue to develop regulations designed to protect communities and the environment from the devastating effects of mountaintop removal mining. If you have seen a picture of a mountaintop removal mining site, you get an idea of how destructive this process is. Companies literally blast the tops off of mountains, scoop out the coal, and dump what used to be the mountaintop into the valley below. The scars on the landscape are unmistakable, as are the piles of rock filling in what used to be mountain valleys and streams. What you don't see in the picture is the health impacts on the people living nearby, although those are just as real and just as terrible. People who live near mountaintop mining sites have higher rates of lung cancer, heart disease, kidney disease, birth defects, hypertension, and other health related problems. Despite some confusion in the Natural Resources Committee just last month, these results are statistically corrected for rates of smoking, obesity, and other factors. A paper in the journal Science a few years ago, one of the preeminent scientific journals in the world, pointed out that mountaintop removal mining with valley fills ``revealed serious environmental impacts that mitigation practices cannot successfully address,'' that ``water emerges from the base of valley fills containing a variety of solutes toxic and damaging to biota,'' and ``recovery of biodiversity in mining waste-impacted streams has not been documented.'' Under our laws governing surface coal mining, streams are supposed to be protected; but the existing regulations, which are over 30 years old, have done a poor job of doing just that. Over 2,000 miles of streams have been buried by mountaintop removal mining, and countless more have been polluted by toxic mine runoff. Wildlife habitat is destroyed; fish are killed, and the people in the area suffer. That is why the administration has been working for years on a new rule that would do a better job of protecting streams. It has taken longer than I would like for them to propose this rule, and the process has certainly not gone as smoothly as it could have. The majority uses the snags in the process to argue that there shouldn't be a rule at all. Never mind that their own partisan investigation delayed this rule for years without uncovering any evidence of political misconduct. The majority also claims that this rule will cause huge job losses, but the draft rule hasn't even been published yet, so we can't possibly know the impacts, and the Director of the Office of Surface Mining says the job losses will be minor at best. Even if the majority does not believe him--and I suspect they might not--they should wait until the draft rule comes out and there can be independent analysis of the impacts, not just wild exaggerations that the mining industry will produce, but real, independent analysis. If they are still not happy with the rule at that point, we can hold hearings. We can try to pass constructive laws that protect the environment and human health and workers all at the same time. A partisan rider in this bill that completely stops the ability of the administration to work on this stream buffer rule to provide badly needed protections to Appalachian communities is the wrong way to go. It has nothing to do with managing spending. In fact, it would just result in the waste of all the money that was required to get to this very point. The rider is bad policy; it is bad for the environment, and it is bad for public health and the health of the people living near these mines. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment that would allow the stream protection rule to see the light of day. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, at the inception of the debate and discussion regarding this appropriations bill, I indicated I would offer an amendment to prevent language in the bill from driving the extinction of the African elephants. I expect the administration to release its proposed ivory rule this month, and it deserves the support of every Member of this Chamber. This rider that is currently in the language of the bill is another unfounded attack on an endangered species that our Nation's top scientific experts have concluded will go extinct without the protection of the Endangered Species Act, under which this rule is being promulgated. I mentioned in my previous statement the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently destroyed a one-ton stockpile of illegal elephant ivory, most of it seized in Philadelphia from an antique dealer named Victor Gordon. Gordon imported and sold ivory from freshly killed African elephants in violation of U.S. law and the laws of the countries where the elephants were poached, and the ivory was stolen. The ivory was doctored so that it looked old enough to pass through a loophole in the law. All of this ivory is illegal. All of it is nearly impossible to distinguish from antique ivory, and anyone who bought it from Gordon and resells it or buys it from a new owner is contributing to the ongoing slaughter of elephants and the criminal trafficking of ivory that supports organized crime and terrorism. The only way to keep U.S. citizens from being involved in this elephant poaching and trafficking crisis is to eliminate the commercial import, export, and trade of African elephant ivory in our country. Ending the commercial ivory trade will set an example for China and other countries to follow, but they will not act until we do. Ending the trade will not take away personal possessions, nor will it bar the movement of musical instruments or museum pieces; but to save elephants, we have to eliminate the value of ivory. Sadly, this rider is just another example of House Republicans driving the extinction of wildlife one species at a time. Please join me in voting ``yes'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, the redundancy comes from the fact that that flexibility has existed in BLM and Forest Service; it has existed for years. The situations of wildfires have occurred, and they have been handled. It is an unnecessary NEPA waiver. It is a redundant amendment, addition to it. The NEPA waiver in the writing says it is not optional. It says ``shall.'' I urge Members to support my amendment striking section 433. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I offer my amendment to strike section 433 regarding the availability of vacant grazing allotments and waiving one of our key environmental laws. While grazing on our public lands is an important part of our Nation's culture and economy, this section of the appropriations bill is redundant and unnecessary. The BLM and Forest Service already have the authority to transfer permits when grazing lands are deemed unusable. Furthermore, this section would have the effect of waiving section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. NEPA is one of our Nation's bedrock environmental laws, serving to establish policies to protect our air, water, and our natural resources. Section 102 of NEPA contains key provisions to make sure that Federal agencies act according to the spirit and letter of the law. By stating that section 102 shall not apply to agency actions, this bill is, in essence, waiving NEPA and putting our public lands at risk. Our Federal agencies did not ask for a NEPA waiver, and Congress should not be in the business of dictating to professional land managers when they should or should not have the flexibility to use NEPA in making land management decisions. Allowing section 433 to be included in the appropriations bill could have unintended consequences for our public lands and environment, particularly when conditions on the ground change. In this time of climate change, drought, and wildfire, it is vital that agencies have the tools and the flexibility to conduct adequate environmental reviews. In the face of these challenges, why should grazers get to jump to the front of the line for new land? What about land for species and recovery and habitat that are displaced by climate change or recreational demands and interests? Congress has tasked the BLM with managing our public lands for multiple uses. I welcome the belated recognition by my Republican colleagues that climate change is impacting these lands, but this provision would waive the balancing process found in NEPA and mandate that grazing gets to trump other uses when lands are destroyed by fire or drought. Section 433 benefits one special interest above all others, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting to strike this section from the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I offer an amendment to strike section 433.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would ensure that cultural and sacred sites of Indian and Alaska Native tribes are protected by mandating that none of the funds in this bill can be used in contravention of Executive Order 13007. Executive Order 13007, issued by President Clinton in 1996, requires Federal agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites and, more importantly, to avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites. Far too often, Indian sacred sites are an afterthought during the Federal Government land management process. When negotiating land swaps and when constructing other management decisions, the voice of Indian Country with regard to sacred sites is ignored. But this is not just land to the Native people. These are cultural and spiritual areas that are part of the tribe's history and its living legacy. These are places where their ancestors lived, prayed, hunted, gathered, fought, and died. They are part and parcel of tribal identity, and it is our duty to ensure they are preserved and protected.

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

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

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

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that climate change is real. Leaders of the communities of faith, such as His Holiness the Pope, are now urging us to take this issue very seriously. No matter how often the fossil fuel industry whispers that we have nothing to worry about, no matter how much manufactured science they gin up to create doubt, climate change is real. We should have begun assessing the costs of climate change decades ago, but we did not. The legislation before us today would require a report on climate change expenditures. But the purpose of this section is not to assess the impacts of climate change; the purpose is to root out climate funding in the budget, so that next year's Interior bill can prohibit that spending. Madam Chair, the report requirement as written is not only pointless, it is counterproductive. The Obama administration is open about responding to climate change. Most of their climate expenditures are clearly labeled and can be discovered by simply reading their budget request. For the remainder, I would be happy to write the President asking him to list these programs, and I suspect he would be pleased to answer. As written, this reporting requirement is a waste of time. We should be instead asking the administration to report back to us on the costs of climate change to our health, our environment, and our economy. Earlier this week, the White House issued a report showing that its efforts to reduce air pollution and climate change--efforts opposed by House Republicans, I might add--would provide billions of dollars in health benefits and save hundreds of thousands of lives. A report also out this week from the National Park Service showed that $90 billion of National Park resources are at risk from sea level rise caused by global warming, and we all know about the historic drought in California and the lingering costs of recovery from Superstorm Sandy. A full assessment of all the costs of inaction would help inform the Congress and the American people about what steps we must take immediately to ensure that climate change does not bring our country to its knees. Unfortunately, this bill does not ask for that assessment. Instead, Madam Chair, the section my amendment would strike would undertake some kind of witch hunt to root out the meager funding we have in place to respond to this challenge. To support this section is to deny climate change. I would tell my colleagues, all the constituent services you provide, all the money you can raise, the votes you cast, and the laws you pass will amount to nothing if you are on the wrong side of history on climate change. Climate deniers will join a long list of political figures who failed to respond to the most serious challenge of their time and so are labeled as failures for all time. Therefore, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment to strike the reporting language in the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. GRIJALVA

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would place uncalled-for restrictions and undercut any President from using their authority under the Antiquities Act to establish a national monument, an authority, I should add, that has been available to Presidents for 100 years. The Antiquities Act is an important tool that enables the President to protect and strengthen America's heritage. Since Theodore Roosevelt first designated the national monument Devil's Tower in Wyoming, 16 Presidents from both parties have used the Antiquities Act to protect more than 160 of America's best known and loved landscapes. Only three Presidents have not. National monuments tell the story of the American people. Out of 460 national monuments and national parks, 113 reflect the diverse community that makes up our Nation. Nineteen recognize the achievements of the Latino community, twenty-six of the African American community, and eight for women. It should be noted that an important factor in the designation process is the First Americans, the Native Americans, their legacy, their heritage, and their cultural and historic resources on the land. But with the Antiquities Act, the lack of diversity reflected in our public units, whether it is parks or national monuments, is changing. President Obama has been using the Antiquities Act to diversify the story of public lands with new designations such as the Cesar Chavez National Monument in Keene, California, which he recently designated. Since the beginning of his administration, the President used this authority to create national monuments that recognize the contributions of Africa Americans and other diverse voices in this country. The Center for American Progress published a report that found that 33 percent of presidential designations are inclusive of the American people, compared to only 20 percent of the designations done by Congress. America's public places are becoming more inclusive, more representative of all Americans because of the Antiquities Act. This amendment would jeopardize that progress. I urge its defeat. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, let me point out some obvious points. This amendment, as I said earlier, would undermine conservation of public lands and stall efforts to ensure that our public places tell the very important diverse story of America and be representative of all Americans. Development and conservation--to say that this would deny jobs and opportunities to particular regions is not true. Over 9 million acres are available right now under energy leases from the Obama administration compared to--those were added to it--only 4.1 million acres that are now land that is protected. Since its enactment in 1906, 16 Presidents have used it. 160 of America's best known landscapes have been preserved. National monuments designated under the Antiquities Act are comprised of existing Federal lands only. No new lands are added to the Federal estate by these designations. National monument designations have better reflected the complexity-- and Presidents have used that--of our Nation, ensuring that the voices of a changing and diverse community, which is this country, is told as we change and as we go forward. I would urge a ``no'' vote. Undercutting an authority that existed for 100 years that has brought benefit to the Nation, enhanced the cultural, historic, and conservation ethics of this Nation should be preserved. With that, I urge a ``no'' vote amendment. It is unneeded, restrictive, and goes against a tradition and an authority that has existed in this country for 100 years. I hope this effort is not about who is President at this time, but it is an authority that has been with us for 100 years. I yield back the balance of my time.