Raúl Grijalva

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Washington (Ms. DelBene), the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the 2014 Mayors Day of Recognition for National Service. The service to others is a hallmark of the American character, and central to how we meet our challenges. The nation's Mayors are increasingly turning to national service and volunteerism as a cost-effective strategy to meet city needs. They address the most pressing challenges facing our cities and nation, from educating students for jobs of the 21st century and supporting veterans and military families to providing health services and helping communities recover from natural disasters. National service expands economic opportunity by creating more sustainable, resilient communities and providing education, career skills, and leadership abilities for those who serve. National service participants serve in more than 60,000 locations across the country, including ninety service locations in Tucson bolstering the civic, neighborhood, and faith-based organizations that are so vital to our city's economic and social well-being. More than five hundred national service participants of all ages and backgrounds serve in Tucson, providing vital support to city residents and improving the quality of life in our city. National service represents a unique public-private partnership that invests in community solutions and leverages non-federal resources to strengthen community impact and increase the return on taxpayer dollars; including more than $3,439,824 in Tucson. They demonstrate commitment, dedication, and patriotism by making an intensive commitment to service, a commitment that remains with them in their future endeavors. The Corporation for National and Community Service shares a priority with mayors nationwide to engage citizens, improve lives, and strengthen communities. They are joining with the National League of Cities, City of Service, and mayors across the country to recognize the impact of service on the Mayors Day of Recognition for National Service on April 1, 2014. We commend all of those who participate in national service for their dedication to the betterment of their communities.

Mr. GRIJALVA

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me just say that at the direction of the Republican leadership, this House has approved a remarkable series of anti-environmental bills in this Congress. While conservation bills languish and are stalled in Congress, we have seen time and time again House Republicans vote to deregulate mining, make drilling on public lands less safe, prevent Federal regulation of fracking, open virtually the entire coast of the United States to unsafe drilling offshore, give away precious public lands, override State and local water laws, and just yesterday, weaken existing limits on dumping coal mining waste in streams and rivers. In the last 6 years, 7.4 million acres of public lands have been leased for oil and gas drilling; only 2.9 million protected for the future legacy and conservation, for the future use of the public and this Nation. That imbalance is directly the responsibility of a lack of action by this Congress. Each of these measures were not only poor public policy, but also poor use of our time. They were, thankfully, dead on arrival in the Senate. This bill, H.R. 1459, is simply another bill in this series of deeply flawed proposals, and it will rightly suffer an identical fate. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, we are not really sure what this amendment is trying to achieve. If the underlying goal of the bill is to make sure that every national monument designation goes through a NEPA process or is approved by Congress, this amendment makes things more confusing. The amendment states that all monuments established through the use of the Antiquities Act shall expire after 3 years. It goes on to say that they may become permanent if the President follows the review process under NEPA. Does this mean the President could declare the designation a categorical exclusion? If so, what is the point of the amendment? Does that mean the administration has to file an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement? Can they just issue a finding of no significant impact? Again, the amendment does nothing to fix or clarify the underlying bill. I oppose the legislation and the adoption of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. I have one more speaker, and then I will close.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Carney).

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member.

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield the gentleman from California an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this week, the majority advanced a bill that would block the administration from implementing a stream buffer zone rule intended to protect waterways from the impacts of mountaintop removal coal mining, adding to the list of their attacks on the environment. House Republicans ignore the fact that Americans want clean water, clean skies, and more--not less--national parks and national monuments because, now, they are forcing a vote on H.R. 1459, a bill that will make it harder for Presidents to create new national monuments, adding layers upon layers of duplicative oversight and unnecessary congressional review. This is not what our constituents are asking Congress to do. It is simply another attempt by the majority to stall the protection of Federal land. In its 100-year history, the Antiquities Act has been used by 16 out of 19 Presidents. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt used it to protect the Grand Canyon, and over half our national parks started out as national monuments. Congress should not be diluting this popular tool or making it more difficult for future Presidents to set land aside and honor our shared history, but that is exactly what this legislation is trying to do. There are two ways to create a new national monument. Congress can pass a law, or the President can use the Antiquities Act. As we all know, it is becoming increasingly difficult to pass a law, even for popular bipartisan conservation measures. Bills languish in Congress for years, and the Antiquities Act is often the only way to move some of these projects across the goal line. The majority will refute this by pointing the finger at the Senate, blaming the other side of the Hill for inaction, and highlighting their own track record of passing bills out of the House. That is a smokescreen. They have only moved a fraction of the conservation bills sitting before the House. Many do not even get a subcommittee hearing, and some of these proposals have been around for 10 years. As Democrats, we are very pleased to create new wilderness in the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. Don't get me wrong. This is a good legislation; but passing one standalone wilderness bill, one national monument, and one new national park bill in 3 years is not proof that Congress can do the work of conserving land and creating national monuments. For example, I introduced a bill to establish a national monument in my district that would honor and recognize land considered sacred by Native American communities in the Southwest. It is an area full of ancient petroglyphs increasingly under threat for looting and vandalism. A national monument designation will ensure that these cultural treasures receive the level of protection that they deserve. This proposal is supported by the National Congress of American Indians and every tribe in Arizona. Like many of my colleagues with similar national monument proposals, I am unable to get even a hearing on that particular bill. If the majority is truly concerned about public input or congressional review of national monuments and conservation of Federal land, why don't they consider bills to establish new monuments, parks, heritage areas, or wilderness? Nearly 100 conservation designation bills have been introduced in the last two Congresses. Four have become law. This track record doesn't prove that we need more Congressional review. On the contrary. If the majority is so eager to apply NEPA to the Antiquities Act, why are they trying to limit its scope for other activities on public lands? In the Natural Resources Committee alone, the majority has considered and advanced measures to limit public review for timber operations, mining activity, and oil and gas leasing. Following this logic, there is too much review when foreign corporations want to extract American taxpayer-owned natural resources, but not enough when we set aside land for future generations. House Republicans have attempted to rewrite California water law, undermine the Endangered Species Act, blow up the Stream Buffer Rule, and encourage State and private takeover of Federal lands, a trust owned by all of the American people. Putting up barriers to Presidential proclamations of national monuments, as envisioned by H.R. 1459, is just another feather in the antienvironmental cap. H.R. 1459 will set up arbitrary per-State limits on Presidential monument designations and require congressional review of any monument under 5,000 acres. Monuments over 5,000 acres won't have to be approved by Congress, but they will be delayed by a process intended to evaluate the environmental impact on major Federal actions. I hate to break it to the majority, but conservation and the establishment of national monuments don't have the same footprint as open-pit mines and oil wells. Republicans want us to believe that this bill is about protecting private property. The Antiquities Act only applies to Federal land--let me repeat, only applies to Federal land. If there are some concerned about people who have inholdings within that Federal land, why are they standing in the way of Federal land acquisition and depriving those property owners who are willing sellers of the right to sell? H.R. 1459 is a wasteful and duplicative piece of legislation that will, like most bills passed out of this House, have no chance of ever becoming law. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1459, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. I thank my colleague from New Jersey for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, it is our singular responsibility, as Members of Congress, to protect the health and well-being of the American people. Voting ``yes'' to this legislation would do just the opposite. H.R. 2824 is not only poisonous to our pristine rivers and waterways, but harmful to the health and well- being of the American people. H.R. 2824 is wrong at many levels. First, it seeks to lock in a 2008 Bush administration rule that virtually eliminates the buffer zone protecting streams from mine waste. Just last month, a Federal court ruled that the 2008 rule that this legislation seeks to lock in was unlawful because it risked the federally protected endangered and threatened species. But the problem with this bill isn't limited to just endangered and threatened species. The bill would also violate the purposes and objectives of the Clean Water Act and those of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act to minimize harm from surface mining. These are a few laws and regulations to protect rivers and waterways in our communities and ultimately ensuring public health and well-being. H.R. 2824 is about eliminating our environmental safeguards and deteriorating our public health to provide legal loopholes for private mining companies. The effect of polluted waterways to our communities is catastrophic and costly. This year, we have already witnessed a few incidents. First, the chemical spill in Elk River in West Virginia in January. Then the coal spill in Dan River in North Carolina in February. While both these incidents remain unsolved and are being investigated, they have forced tens of thousands of residents to go without clean and safe water for weeks--and this legislation seeks to grant immunity to those violations. The bill will not only pollute more rivers and waterways and risk millions of Americans being without clean and safe water, but worse, it will poison millions of Americans. The question I want to ask my colleagues in this Chamber is: What kind of government poisons its own people? Is that the government we are? So with that, I urge Members who care about its people to oppose this poisoned legislation.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have heard our colleagues on the other side of the aisle make fun of the fact that the United States Congress has to be involved in such unimportant matters as the conveyance of Federal land, this great Nation defeated that the Soviet Union, and we allude to the fact that we have a Soviet-style centralized government with regard to land management in this country. I think that my colleagues need to take that up with the Framers of the Constitution. Article IV of that document states: The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. So I am sorry if the majority finds this burdensome, but the Framers apparently felt that Federal property was valuable and that Congress should play a role in determining what to do with it. Let's be clear: we are talking here about Federal property, that is, property owned by all Americans. The land in question in Escambia County, Florida; Anchorage, Alaska; Fernley, Nevada; Cape Hatteras, North Carolina; Yellowstone and Grand Teton and the land on which Federal grazing occurs, the land impacted by this package is Federal land, owned by each and every American taxpayer. In the case of these land transfers, the Federal Government gave the land, gave it to a local community as a means of Federal support, and the only requirement, in most cases, was that the land always be used for public purposes. As long as it is a park or a school or a fire station, it is yours, for free. What these bills do is end those public purpose requirements. The communities want to use these lands for private profit. They want to close them to the public, in many cases. This is not a land grab by Uncle Sam. This is not some silly scheme by the Feds to harm local communities and to use their power to hold down the taxpayers and keep the public out. This is a community asking to make money off land that was owned by all Americans, and it is the job of Congress to decide if that is a good idea or not. Let's put one other misleading claim to rest. While Republicans claim the Federal Government owns too much land, the historic trend has been one of divestiture and fragmentation. As recently as the late 1860s, the Federal Government owned 1.8 billion of the 2.3 billion acres in the contiguous United States. Grants to States, homesteaders, land-grant colleges, railroads and others settling in the Alaska and the West have reduced Federal land ownership by roughly 640 million acres to date. We have been giving land away for centuries, not buying it up. Today we have a whole series of bills seeking more Federal land, and we owe it to the American people--the American people require that we consider this carefully, and the Constitution requires that Congress be empowered to consider these carefully. These mischaracterizations are not helpful in the discussions. These bills are not in the best interest of the American people, on the merits alone, and using misinformation to claim otherwise is wrong. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. I want to respect the chairman. The chairman is correct. The Natural Resources Committee, of which I am a proud member, appears to be very busy passing bills. But let's be clear: the Republican majority, time and time again, acts unilaterally, alone, without meaningful cooperation with the minority in this legislation, in the House, and with the Senate and with the administration. On suspensions, the majority insists on ridiculous limitations that prevent consideration of many measures designed to conserve lands, and, of course, they insist on a more than 3:1 ratio of their legislation to the minority's legislation, to ours. No wonder the number of suspensions is lagging behind what we have done in the past. As to the bills we have considered under a rule, most of them are almost identical repeats of the bills that were passed in the House last Congress, but because they were opposed by the Senate and the administration, they went nowhere. To keep passing the same, dead-on-arrival bills over and over again to make the committee look busy should not be mistaken for legislating. The idea is to work on legislation that can bring bills of a bipartisan nature, that the Senate will deal with and, more importantly, that the administration will sign. That is the legislation my side of the aisle looks forward to working on and, in a very serious manner, improving the operation of Interior, improving the operation of our public lands, and creating transparency at all levels. We want to do that, and we look forward to working with the majority and with our esteemed chairman in that direction. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, the Forest Service, as we speak, is preparing to authorize salvage operations on 30,000 of the 154,000 burned acres, and a decision is due as early as August. As I said earlier, salvage logging is not without controversy, and the decisions to authorize these activities need to be fully analyzed and fully transparent. Many ecologists believe that post-fire landscapes are an essential component of forest lifecycles that provide critical habitat for wildlife and other essential ecological services. Rushing to allow indiscriminate salvage operations, as this bill intends, threatens the overall health of the forest. The planning process is ongoing under expedited emergency provisions set out by CEQ. Our national forests are more than timber factories, and we have a public planning process that ensures all uses and benefits are considered. This bill ignores that process, and that is why I repeat opposition to it. I yield back the balance of my time.