Raúl Grijalva

Mr. GRIJALVA

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, last week, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service destroyed a 1-ton stockpile of illegal elephant ivory. Most of it was seized up from a Philadelphia antique dealer named Victor Gordon. For at least 9 years, 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 stolen. How did he get away with this for so long? The ivory was doctored so that it looked old enough to pass through a loophole in the enforcement of the African Elephant Conservation Act, a law that was passed in 1989 to end the commercial import and export of ivory. While a ton of ivory was confiscated, there is no way to know how much Gordon had sold during the previous decade or where it is now. All we know for certain is all of it was illegal, all of it is nearly impossible to distinguish from antique ivory, and anyone who bought it from Gordon, 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. This has got to stop. How many more Victor Gordons are out there? The amount is a question that can't be answered. The amount of ivory seized from his shop represents 100 elephants, roughly the same number killed every day in Africa. The photo we wanted to enlarge was a photo of an Africa elephant that had been killed and its head decapitated and the ivory butchered out of its head. Upon review, it was decided that it was too graphic and disturbing for the Chamber and for the floor, and we didn't bring that one. While much of this poaching is fueled by demand for ivory in Asia, a significant black market exists in the United States, as evidenced by the Gordon case and similar State level investigations in New York City and elsewhere. The only way--and I repeat--the only way to keep U.S. citizens from being involved, whether knowingly or unknowingly, in this elephant poaching and trafficking crisis is to close the enforcement loopholes and eliminate the commercial import, export, and trade of Africa elephant ivory in this country. That is precisely what the Obama administration is trying to do by proposing new rules to limit ivory trade in the United States. Instead of assisting in this important cause, House Republicans have slipped a rider into the appropriations bill to kill the new rule before it is even finalized. My amendment would remove this rider. Ending the commercial ivory trade does not mean taking away people's musical instruments, as some have said, ivory-handled pistols, or family heirlooms. Museum collections, scientific specimens, and sport-hunted trophies will also be allowed to move freely. Further, items containing very small amounts of ivory can be bought and sold. Profiteering off elephant parts will no longer be allowed, nor should it be. As long as ivory has monetary value, people will kill elephants to get it. Eliminating value will eliminate demand and that will reduce wildlife poaching and trafficking. I understand the administration's proposed ivory rule is due out very shortly, and in the interest of giving everyone a chance to review that rule, I will withdraw this amendment today. However, I will not hesitate to return with a similar amendment later if that is what it takes to remove this damaging rider from the bill. I ask, Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I rise in opposition to House Resolution 333. The Interior Appropriations bill is a disaster, not only because it would continue the pattern of underfunding core Department of Interior programs and ignoring climate change, but also because it is littered with partisan legislative riders that don't belong in an appropriations bill. This rule does nothing to improve the bill, and even includes waivers to protect these illegitimate riders. Republicans make the rules, but through this appropriations bill, they seek to break their own rules and sneak significant legislative changes into this spending bill. The riders protected by this rule would make species extinction more likely, close the courthouse door to American citizens, and grease the wheels for Big Business to make private profits from public resources. These are all terrible ideas, but they are terrible ideas that should be considered in the Natural Resources Committee, not snuck into an Interior spending bill. I have the honor of serving as the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee, and I would tell my colleagues: we have hearing rooms and a full staff, and if you support delisting endangered species or prohibiting judicial review of resource decisions or giving away public resources to wealthy companies, you should put your name on a bill and come over to 1324 in the Longworth Building for a hearing. While I cannot speak for the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, as ranking member, I cannot agree to cede jurisdiction over management of our Federal natural resources to appropriators, and I cannot support a rule designed to allow it. Even though the best available science indicates otherwise, section 121 of the underlying bill would direct the Secretary to reissue two final rules removing wolves in Wyoming and the Great Lakes from the endangered species list. Another rider would make it more difficult to protect the habitat of the threatened northern long-eared bat. We aren't the experts. We should not interfere with the species listing and recovery processes at all, let alone interfere through an appropriations bill where the merits of such proposals cannot be given any appropriate consideration. This is why the House rules prohibit these riders, and this rule should not protect them. Another awful rider would block the Fish and Wildlife Service from cracking down on illegal ivory trade within the U.S. Poaching of elephants and trafficking of illegal ivory is currently at an all-time 25-year high here in the U.S., and the U.S. is one of the major markets for the sale of illegal ivory. Section 120 of the underlying bill would restrict our ability to regulate the trade of elephant ivory in the U.S. and will directly contribute to elephant slaughter. House rules prohibit these kinds of sneaky, partisan riders in spending bills for a good reason, and we should not adopt a rule to protect these provisions. If these provisions are so toxic that they can only be passed by waiving House rules, they shouldn't be passed at all. Either way, the question should be considered in the authorizing committee, not in an appropriations bill and not in this rule.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring up H.R. 1031--a bill to protect thousands of American jobs by preventing the Export-Import Bank from being shut down.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize a leader in Tucson's community who dedicated his life to serve others. Mr. Starks was a 1969 graduate of Pueblo High School, a proud Pueblo Warrior. In 1974 he graduated with honors from the University of Arizona where he also played football for the Wildcats. He then earned a Master's degree from Troy University. He was also known for his skills as an actor and singer. He appeared onstage in productions such as ``Driving Miss Daisy'' and ``Look Ma, We're Dancing,'' as well as many others. Mr. Starks also sang with the True Devotion Motown Revue. Mr. Starks was a U.S. Army veteran. He went on active duty as an Army officer and had tours of duty in Georgia, Indiana, Missouri and South Korea. Following his initial active duty tour he returned to Tucson where he hosted a TV talk show called ``Looking Black'' and worked for Tucson Unified School District. He returned to active duty in 1981 and retired from the military service in 1996 at the rank of Major. After leaving active duty he worked for the Tucson Urban League and returned to Tucson Unified School District. Mr. Burney Starks was known as the long time educator at Pueblo High School, a school counselor specializing in dropout prevention. He instilled in the minds of those who didn't believe in themselves that they could accomplish anything they set their minds to, that nothing was out of reach as long as they wanted it enough and were willing to work towards it. Mr. Starks was also known for the many community activities he was a part of and in some cases was the driving force for. Burney served on the boards of the Tucson Arizona Boys Chorus, the Dunbar Coalition, the America Israel Friendship League, the Southern Arizona Academic Decathlon, the Pueblo Warrior Alumni Foundation and as President of the Board of the Tucson Juneteenth Festival Committee. He also served as Lieutenant Governor for Kiwanis International where he had been a member for 35 years; He was past commander in the Military Order of the World Wars and past president in the Reserve Officers Association. He is survived by his wife Ruth M. Starks, 5 children Benjamin S., Burnes O. III, Elizabeth M., Bryan M., and Rebekah R. Burney has 9 Siblings/Gary E., Daryl D., Terry L., Charles G., Donna R., Harry J., Jacqueline B., Larry D., and Timothy B. Burney Starks has left a legacy which he will be remembered for and honored for years to come.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, without the safeguards that are included in the Magnuson-Stevens Act being part of this amendment, we continue to recommend a ``no'' vote on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. The catch share reporting requirements and stock assessment mandates in this amendment would impose significant new costs on NOAA, but the amendment provides no additional funding. The majority already complains that NOAA does not conduct stock assessments frequently or quickly enough. This unfunded mandate would further slow that process. Further, these concepts have not been vetted by the Natural Resources Committee. We have not had an opportunity to get feedback on the legislation from NOAA, the agency that would inevitably be responsible for implementing it. We need to hear from the administration about any potential costs or unintended consequences of this amendment. In particular, the rigid requirements of the guidelines envisioned in this bill would take away the discretion of expert scientists and undermine an ongoing effort NOAA is conducting to improve stock assessments across regions. Further, the mandates, deadlines, and reports would likely cost money that is not authorized to be appropriated. I would like to have additional input on the requirements this bill imposes with respect to developing and following new guidelines on data collection and on cost recovery by the agency. For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains?

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my esteemed colleague from California (Mr. Lowenthal), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone)

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, Congress first enacted the Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 1976, and the primary goals were two: to end the unregulated fishing by foreign fleets in U.S. waters, and to develop our domestic fleets that could reap the economic benefits of all the fishery resources, considerable resources that our Nation had. The law worked. Foreign fishing was phased out and investments in domestic fleets were increased. Unfortunately, this capitalization worked so well that domestic fishing soon replaced foreign fleets in overexploiting U.S. fisheries. In 1996 to 2007, the reauthorizations were enacted to end overfishing, period, promote rebuilding of overfished stocks, protect fish habitats, improve fisheries and habitats, and minimize bycatch. These changes ended overfishing in nearly all fisheries and put overfished stocks on a path to rebuilding. Most important, they insulated fishery management councils from pressure to make politically driven decisions that hurt fishing communities in the long run. Contrary to those previous reauthorizations, H.R. 1335 was developed with very little input from Democrats and was ordered reported on a party line. I should note, at the last reauthorization, the other body made significant changes to the House-passed legislation and created a more bipartisan template that many of us could support. The supporters of this bill will argue that the requirement to rebuild overfished stocks needs more flexibility, but the Magnuson Act has already proven to be plenty flexible. The law allows councils to delay rebuilding when the biology of the stock environmental conditions or international management considerations present challenges. Because of these broad but fair exemptions, more than 50 percent of all overfished stocks have rebuilding plans longer than a 10-year baseline in the act. Further, current law gives councils 2 years to put a rebuilding plan in place and an additional year to reduce, rather than end, overfishing. That is 3 years of lead time before significant harvest restrictions go into effect. What is more, the act only requires a rebuilding plan to have a 50 percent likelihood of success. If a council loses this coin flip, it does not have to shut down the fishery; instead, it has to start over. This is exactly how things have played out over the past few years with Atlantic cod in New England, where many argue the act has been too flexible. History shows us that when councils have an excuse to delay rebuilding overfished stocks, the job will never get done. This bill makes up the following excuses that allow councils to avoid rebuilding: It is too hard to work with other countries that may be impacting the stock of the fish, so we should just catch more, too, and deplete the stock faster; The stock of the fish cannot be rebuilt by only limited fishing, so there is no point to trying to limit fishing if the effort is 99 percent of the problem; It is inconvenient to rebuild the overfished stocks that swim with healthy stocks, so we should just keep catching the weak ones until they are listed under the Endangered Species Act; And my personal favorite, there are unusual events that make rebuilding more difficult. These excuses are each bad enough alone, but together they would render the rebuilding requirements of Magnuson completely meaningless. This bill would not give the Magnuson Act more flexibility; it would break it. With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Graham).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed to see this amendment back again after it failed to pass in committee. I understand that recreational fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico want to be able to keep more of the red snapper they catch, but the solution is not to steal fish from a responsibly managed and accountable commercial sector that provides millions of Americans the opportunity to choose healthy, fresh, sustainable Gulf red snapper at stores and restaurants; nor is it the solution to hand management over to Gulf States before they have developed a plan for managing the resource that consists of more than just ``trust us.'' Simple arithmetic shows that there are too many people putting too much pressure on the red snapper stock just to sustain a recreational fishing season that lasts for more than a few days. To address that problem, private boat anglers will need to present creative solutions such as those that the commercial and charter for hire sectors have developed. NOAA is doing an incredible job rebuilding this stock under Magnuson, and the Gulf Council has the ability to debate and adopt a regional management approach or other alternative management strategies without interference from Washington. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I understand and appreciate the motivation behind the gentleman's amendment. Recreational fisheries are inherently different from commercial fisheries. The language is similar to the alternative rebuilding strategy section in the underlying bill, one of the few parts that does not harm conservation efforts. However, that provision states clearly that the alternative strategies must be in compliance with the requirements of the Magnuson- Stevens Act, including ending overfishing, setting science-based catch limits, and sticking to rebuilding timelines. This amendment does not include those safeguards and, therefore, could be construed as to allow overfishing or delay the rebuilding of overfished stock. We have made too much progress in managing fisheries to backtrack now. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In addition to more than 100 commercial and recreational fishing groups and related businesses that have all opposed this legislation from the Atlantic Coast, Pacific Coast, the Gulf of Mexico, and related fishery and commercial areas, John Sackton, Seafood News, a respected market analyst for seafood, said that this act is a ``recipe for overfishing, unsustainability, and would move U.S. world-class fisheries management backwards.'' I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee for the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the distinguished chairman, Mr. Young, that the Magnuson Act is working and that we should leave it alone and allow it to work. The inclusion of previous reauthorizations of the Alaskan model, science-based, has been a key reason why it continues to work. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), my colleague.

Mr. GRIJALVA. My good friend, Mr. Young, is perpetually trying to move me to New Mexico. I still love Arizona and will remain in Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the reasons of opposition have not changed to the amendment. The unintended consequences, the lack of full information as to what the data collection will be, any impending costs that would be secured that NOAA would have to undertake, and feedback both by the agency that would be responsible, feedback from the Natural Resources Committee, and feedback by the administration to this amendment would be, I think, important additions in order for this House to be able to make an informed decision on the amendment. Lacking that information, I remain urging a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

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