Raúl Grijalva

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, 1 million species globally are at risk of extinction, and one of the main drivers is climate change. Let's stop picking on these species and instead start addressing the real issue of climate change. E.O. Wilson, the father of modern biodiversity, estimated the world is losing three species per hour. We have a biodiversity crisis on our hands, and we have a climate crisis on our hands, but House Republicans decided this week is a good time to legislate the extinction of a couple of species. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), my good friend.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, with regard to rural America and the important role that they play in this great Nation of ours, I am patiently waiting with, I hope, good expectations that if the agriculture appropriations bill ever gets done that it will reflect that commitment to rural America, that electric co-ops will continue to function, that nutrition will continue to be important in this America, that women and children will receive the nutrition that they need, and that the loan program for rural America's small farmers continues to be intact. Let's see. Sometimes pronouncements that are not followed with action are just that, political banter. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that this resolution and the other resolution to follow will be the last items, as was predicted, that this Congress does before it goes on recess for 6 weeks. The agriculture appropriations legislation is not done yet, and so rural America can hold its breath until the Republican majority satisfies an extreme agenda on the part of their Members, and we all wait. However, we are going to vote on these two resolutions, resolutions that are not necessary, minor, almost petty, while the American people wait for some real solutions and some real actions on the part of the Republican majority. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. To be clear, I agree that the lesser prairie-chicken is important. All threatened and endangered species are important. We are in the midst of a biodiversity crisis, as we speak. What I find patently unimportant is this resolution that doesn't respect the science, doesn't respect our imperative to protect biodiversity and slow down climate change, and certainly doesn't respect the important things that the American people have sent us here to do that are not being done. This resolution is a polluter-requested, partisan attack that my Republican colleagues seem to be able to defend only with opinions, anecdotes, and industry talking points. I will remind us all; it will go nowhere. Good policy is not built solely on opinions. It is built on science, facts, and the needs of the American people. The fact is that climate change, not the chicken, is killing Americans and costing us hundreds of billions of dollars each year. I urge my colleagues to oppose S.J. Res. 9. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, this week in the Rules Committee, we heard one House Republican say: Long-eared bats? I hope the white-nose syndrome wipes them all out and we don't have to worry about it. A vote for this resolution is a vote for the extinction of the northern long-eared bat. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), the ranking member on the Federal Lands Subcommittee of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, supporters of this resolution, my Republican colleagues claim that protecting these species will upend timber industries and forest management and a list of economic activities. That is simply not true. What specifically about forest management practice would be altered by the rule, especially given the preemptive consultations that the southern and eastern forest service regions completed last year. Last year, in anticipation of these new listing statuses, the U.S. Forest Service preemptively completed consultation on thousands of permits to ensure that they faced no delays in ongoing or previously approved projects with the new listing status. In addition, my colleagues and I secured over $1 billion in funding last year for Federal agencies to hire staff and expedite Federal permitting, but Republicans voted against that effort and are now pushing extreme CRAs to worsen the dire state of America's wildlife. It should be noted that bats are critically important to U.S. agriculture and timber industries. Bats have provided up to $53 billion yearly in pest control services to the U.S. agricultural industry. The northern long-eared bat provides these services throughout the 37 States that it inhabits. We keep seeing the signs about modernizing the Endangered Species Act. Republicans keep saying that they just want to modernize the Endangered Species Act, but this giveaway to dirty oil and gas looks like they want to monetize the Endangered Species Act. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, a comprehensive review of all 88,000- plus ESA consultations from 2008 to 2015 found that no project was stopped or extensively altered as a result of Fish and Wildlife finding jeopardy or adverse modification during this period, and that the medium consultation duration is far lower than the maximum allowed by the Act. Setting the record straight on that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, as we end this debate on this particular issue, I had mentioned in the previous debate that let's not forget the underlying issue here. It is about energy policy. It is about energy development policy, and it is about a transition of dealing with the climate crisis and making the transition to renewable and clean energy across this country that is cheaper and is provided equitably. That is the goal. That is where we need to be. The effort on the part of Republican majority is to continue to grow the dependency on fossil fuels and polluting industries that have contributed significantly to this climate crisis that we are involved with. We see it around us every day. We are all going to go home to our States and our districts to deal with the issues of heat, drought, wildfires, et cetera, lack of water availability and nutrition availability. To continue to go on a path where we reinforce the past practice by picking at and beginning to dismantle fundamental issues like clean air, clean water laws, Endangered Species Act that deals with preserving biodiversity that is critical to our lives, and the public's right to know and to participate with the National Environmental Policy Act, that is the agenda. To reward Big Oil and big industry one more time, to build a dependency, maximize their profits, and then somewhere down the line, when the crisis of the climate is so untenable for the American people, we will deal with it. At that point it will be expensive, it will be painful, and people will suffer while we get to that point. At the Rules Committee hearing earlier this week, one of my Republican colleagues admitted that he hoped the white-nose syndrome wipes out all the northern long-eared bats so that we won't have to worry about it. It was a pretty bold thing to admit out loud, and a little shortsighted, I might add. The northern long-eared bat, like every species of bat we are fortunate that we have left, is critical to our ecosystem and the agricultural industry. So if these bats are wiped out, I want to point out that we actually do have to worry about it. I also can't help but be struck by the similarities between my Republican colleagues' let's call it unique wildlife conservation strategy and the approach they are taking on many of the other issues facing the American people right now, ignoring the facts, ignoring the science, and just letting the damage ensue that has become an all-too- common GOP policy plan. Climate change, of course, is one of the most pressing issues where the GOP plan is all too clear. So as we wrap up here and head back to our districts, I leave my colleagues with some final thoughts. If the northern long-eared bat goes extinct, we need to worry about it. If the lesser prairie-chicken goes extinct, we need to worry about it. If the climate crisis keeps barreling forward over these next 2 years, while our Republican colleagues refuse to do a single thing to protect communities, local businesses, and our health, we most certainly need to worry about that. The issue for me is not singular to these two CRAs. It is about a very coordinated and deliberate effort to undo protections for the American people and for species, and to deny and to avoid dealing with the monumental crisis that we have before us, which is climate. If we prepare in transition now, we can make it an equitable and less painful process. If we continue to pass resolutions like this and continue to follow a Big Oil, Big Gas agenda that the GOP presses upon this Congress and the American people, then that climate crisis is going to be painful, expensive, and costly to both humans and to our economy. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work of Graciela Garcia Candia. Graciela Garcia Candia is an esteemed educator and leader who has dedicated 41 years of her life to Jobs for Arizona's Graduates, a program that empowers youth to achieve academic, personal, and professional success in Arizona. Raised in Arizona after her family immigrated from Mexico when she was only three years old, Graciela's personal journey fuels her passion for championing the educational needs of the state's youth. Graciela's connection with Jobs for Arizona's Graduates began in 1982 when she joined as the Program Coordinator at Tolleson Union High School. Her exceptional performance garnered numerous local and national awards, highlighting her commitment and effectiveness in helping students succeed. In 1999, Graciela took on the role of Program Manager, where she played a pivotal role in enhancing program management and services for the organization. In 2003, Graciela's unwavering dedication and desire to make a lasting impact led her to assume the position of president of Jobs for Arizona's Graduates. It was under her leadership the program flourished. Graciela has been instrumental in securing millions of dollars in financial support, establishing valuable partnerships, expanding program sites, and forging strong relationships with key stakeholders such as businesses, government entities, educational institutions, and community leaders. Graciela's genuine ``students come first'' attitude has been a guiding principle throughout her career. Her unwavering commitment to serving and providing quality services to underrepresented students in Arizona has been the driving force behind Jobs for Arizona's Graduates' success. Her leadership has propelled Jobs for Arizona's Graduates to receive the highest honor awarded by Jobs for America's Graduates for the past 21 years. As Graciela Garcia Candia enters a well-deserved retirement, her profound impact on the lives of countless young individuals in Arizona will forever be remembered. Her legacy as an educator and leader will serve as an inspiration for future generations, and her dedication to empowering underserved youth will continue to shape the future of education in Arizona.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for yielding. I happen to represent every border community and every port of entry along the Arizona-Mexico border. It is my home, where I grew up, and that is where I live. That is where I have lived, in those borderlands. I don't need a photo op tour for me to understand, to feel, and to respect the fact that these communities and this area of our Nation have been left behind not just by policy but by intent. H.R. 2 is not serious legislation to address our urgent need to fix our broken immigration system, to respond to the pending humanitarian crisis on our border, and to combat the deadly flow of fentanyl and human exploitation by organized crime syndicates. It won't do that. What H.R. 2 will do? It will devastate our affordable food supply by eliminating up to half the workforce in agriculture, farming, and ranching. It will dramatically increase the economic hardship of border communities and the borderlands. It will fund the Trump memorial wall, a piece of useless government waste. It will demonize children and unaccompanied youth. It will provide Republicans with fundraising tools, and it will also provide them with the means to create division, fear, and chaos in preparation for the 2024 elections. My Republican colleagues hope that voters will overlook the growing extremism and their failure to deal with real issues in this Congress, one of them being immigration. The lifting of title 42 challenges Republicans in this House to do more than political posturing. Indeed, it challenges the Biden administration not to allow the pending humanitarian crisis to become desperate and punitive. I want to also take a little historic look and remind the body of the schizophrenic, anti-immigrant underpinnings of H.R. 2. The echoes of past immigration debates in this Chamber are with us today, and let me quote from the Congressional Record. In 1884, Congressman Henley of California spoke on the floor of the need to preserve a White man's government from dark and yellow-skinned people. In 1924, Congressman Wilson of Louisiana said: ``Two things are certain. One is that America cannot exist with a large percentage of mongrel communities with discordant views and aspirations.'' That same year, Representative Robsion of Kentucky said: ``Let us send out the slackers and undesirables. Let us clean up America and keep America clean,'' for the real Americans and for the real country. I mention those historical realities and facts from previous debates to underline the point that H.R. 2 must not be a means to grow the worst nativist impulses that we might have in this Congress or to accept ethnic and racial prejudices.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Thompson for yielding me time. All to further hardship and accept ethnic and racial prejudices as criteria in our immigration laws and policies, bringing to life those echoes of the past. The values and the common ground that must be found in order to effectively deal with the issue of immigration, with the issue of asylum seekers and refuge seekers, requires real solutions. It requires humanitarian relief, but it also requires an enforcement focus that deals with the issues that have been talked about by the other side: fentanyl, drug running, and human exploitation. It also requires that all of us in Congress, and particularly those who represent the borderlands, be included in those discussions to the point that we can bring the real voices, the real impulses, and the real needs of those communities. H.R. 2 must be defeated because it is against our values, and it promotes a mythology that everything that happens on that southern border is bad, unhealthy, criminal, and un-American. That is wrong. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 2.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, the default on America act is foolish. It is harmful. It is a harmful piece of legislation offered to appease the Republican Party's most extreme fringe. The Republicans' plan to handle the debt limit is not a plan at all. It is a ransom note that threatens aggressively to take our country backward, and everybody loses. Either Republicans force default, which results in skyrocketing student loans, veterans losing out on hard-earned benefits, and countless other incomprehensible effects that will hit the most vulnerable the hardest but will hit working-class folks and middle- class folks hard, as well. Republicans can enact their tone-deaf economic agenda, giving a huge windfall to billionaires and oil barons, while cutting food assistance to poor families, children, and older people. If Republicans had their way, they would strip our communities of the right to fight back against polluting industries while padding Big Oil's pockets. They cut funding for climate science while reversing the progress the Democrats have made on clean energy. They do absolutely nothing to address emissions. In fact, they give companies free passes to pollute while cutting funding to fight wildfires and provide drought relief. They say they will help American families, but it slashes already underfunded Tribal education programs and Indian child welfare programs. Their budget would make it harder to tackle wildfires and drought in the West. This bill is not what the American people want. Our communities want clean air and clean water. They want to be able to put food on the table. They want good, stable jobs, and they want the Federal Government to face climate change head on. I urge my colleagues to stand up against the default on America act. Vote ``no.''

Mr. GRIJALVA

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who is our leader in the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. GRIJALVA

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

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, the underlying legislation would already roll back all the positive reforms Democrats have made to the oil and gas leasing program in the Inflation Reduction Act. For too long, Big Oil paid the taxpayers a pittance for publicly owned gas and oil they extracted and sold for an enormous profit. In the IRA, Democrats fixed our outdated royalty rates, bringing them in line with the royalty rates charged by States. Studies have shown that this will have no impact on gas prices, but it will bring a fair return to the taxpayers. Republicans want to repeal our reforms and lower royalty rates-- again, a giveaway to an industry that clearly doesn't need it. These low royalty rates are part of the reason this bill increases the deficit. So much for that fiscal responsibility and restraint. Big Oil doesn't need the giveaway. The rich are getting richer. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, let me remind everyone that Big Oil giants reported their largest profits in history in 2022, together making over a trillion dollars in sales, all while American families were struggling. We can't continue to rely on the decades-old Republican ``drill, baby, drill'' mantra to lower prices for Americans. Policies that make us more dependent on fossil fuels will keep subjecting Americans to the whims of dictators and global market shifts, which always means higher energy prices. Instead, we can invest in clean energy here at home. We can reach our true energy independence, bring stability to the American family, and fight climate change all at the same time. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I would like to, once again, remind everyone that H.R. 1 is the pinnacle piece of legislation for the Republican majority. This bill, as the debates have shown throughout these last few days, is a boondoggle. It is a giveaway. H.R. 1 puts us back into the position of less protection for the American people and less protection for our environment, and it sets us back in the struggle with the ticking time bomb of the climate crisis. H.R. 1 and this amendment continue that pattern. I urge a ``no'' vote. As far as H.R. 1, the polluters over people act, if this is the pinnacle of legislative effort on the part of the Republican majority, one can only wonder why we are not concentrating on giving time to the gun violence that is all around us in this country and the recent deaths of children and adults at the Christian church. That is not an issue with this Republican majority. In fact, they have said they can't do anything about it, that the sacrosanctity of the Second Amendment prevents them from doing anything. Yet, H.R. 1, the pinnacle, the zenith of their legislative effort, undercuts basic protections for the American people, fundamental, core environmental laws that have protected the American people since the 1970s. H.R. 1 and this amendment deserve to be defeated. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. During our markup of this bill in the committee, Representative Gosar offered a similar amendment to this one, though it applied only to oil and gas, not mining. I asked if he would consider adding mining to that ban, but that was declined. I also had an amendment to this bill to include mining in this ban, which was not made in order. However, this Republican amendment, which is very similar to my own, was made in order. I am glad to see that at least some Republicans have come around to the point of including mining as part of the ban. If we don't want the Chinese Communist Party developing oil and gas leases on Federal land and water, then we shouldn't be supportive of the CCP mining our publicly owned minerals. It isn't hard to find that many foreign-owned parent companies have terrible records of human rights abuses, environmental degradation, harming indigenous communities, and destroying sacred sites. Some foreign companies, specifically several owned by the Government of China, are known to have horrible records on all of these fronts, yet they can operate freely on our Federal land, including in my home State of Arizona, through their subsidiaries. I have repeatedly heard from my colleagues that we agree that human rights and environmental abuses are wrong, but so far, they have refused to address the problem. As the demand for these minerals increases, let's not rush to open our lands to just anyone who wants to mine. Let's take a closer look at who is operating on our Federal lands and work to raise the global standard. Let me remind Members that under our outdated 150-year-old mining law, mining claimants do not pay a cent, not one penny, for the public's valuable resources that they extract and turn around and sell--nothing. That is a better deal than even oil and gas get. We absolutely should not be handing our public mineral resources over to the CCP with no fair return to the American people, no return to the American people at all, where the result would be simply just to destroy our lands. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, let me just give one important example of what this amendment addresses. In my home State of Arizona, at Oak Flat, an area sacred to the Apache people and other indigenous Tribes in Arizona and in New Mexico, there was a deal made to give Federal land to a foreign-owned mining company, Rio Tinto. It is a domestic, local subsidiary but owned by Rio Tinto, which is also partially owned by the Chinese Government. This company has a horrible track record around the globe. In 2020, it demolished a 46,000-year-old Australian aboriginal site, an irreplaceable cultural site, an artifact and sacred site, to expand an iron mine. This amendment stops rolling out the welcome mat for these mining companies. Mr. Chair, I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. Environmental reviews are how we learn about a project's potential impacts on our lands, water, and public health. They are a critical safeguard against harmful industry practices. The section of the bill this amendment amends says that project sponsors can fund their own environmental reviews. The entire section is wrong, and this amendment begins to recognize that. It would ban the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior from accepting funds for environmental review from the Chinese Communist Party. But my question is: Why stop there? What about other foreign adversaries? What about the entities that have committed human rights abuses? What about the entities that have lobbied the Federal Government? How do we ensure that any outside funding will be clear of conflicts of interest? From my view, we can't. The Federal Government should have the sole responsibility to conduct unbiased environmental review, because the Federal Government is responsible for protecting its citizens. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.