Raúl Grijalva

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. GRIJALVA. The Back to Work budget sets a level of 2006 for defense. Pentagon spending has doubled over the last decade; 2006 was the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terrorism. We just celebrated the 10th anniversary of Iraq. There has been $2.2 trillion spent on that war--a war, I might say, that was not paid for at all. This does not cripple defense; this merely brings it to a realistic level so as to share in the reconstruction of this economy of ours. With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Later today, we're going to begin consideration of the Republican budget, a plan that not only voucherizes Medicare but retains $40 billion in subsidies to the oil industry and requires approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. At a time when climate change is affecting more and more people throughout the country, the majority is committed to keeping our economy dependent on fossil fuels and ignoring the serious challenge that it represents. The $75 billion in damages from Superstorm Sandy, the ongoing drought in much of the West, including my home State of Arizona, don't seem to be enough evidence that it's time for serious action. Climate change is global. A United Nations report indicates that because of climate change, 3.1 billion people will be in extreme poverty by 2050. If we want to make a sizable dent in the human contributions to climate change, we have to start making those responsible for pollution accountable and pay for it. This is the sort of leadership the American people are looking for from Congress. Climate change is real. It is not a problem that will go away. We cannot ignore it. We have to face it head on and not bury our heads in Canadian tar sands.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the Senate-approved Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill known as S. 47 and to explain my concerns about its counterpart in the House. Since it was first authorized in 1994, VAWA has supported countless victims of domestic violence, stalking, dating violence and sexual assault. VAWA-funded programs have provided housing and legal services to survivors across the country. The law has provided police and nonprofit organizations the resources they need to investigate more cases and prosecute those responsible. Over time, VAWA has progressively protected more Americans, including seniors and Americans with disabilities. VAWA has meant tangible successes in the fight against domestic and other forms of violence. Reporting of these incidents has increased by 51 percent since 1994, when we first passed the law. S. 47 builds on these successes by adding protections for immigrants, Native Americans, and LGBT Americans. Under this measure, Native Americans will be able to effectively address sexual violence in their own communities. U-Visa holders will receive new legal protections against stalking. LGBT Americans will be added to the measure's non- discrimination clause. More funding will be given to college campus programs that combat human trafficking and sexual assault. I applaud my colleagues in the Senate for passing this strong measure 78 to 22 with bipartisan support. Unfortunately, my colleagues introduced a weaker and unacceptable House version of S. 47 last week. It removes the necessary protections for Native Americans, immigrants, and LGBT Americans and weakens the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and the SAFER Act. As lawmakers, we must cement protections for every American harmed by sexual violence--regardless of race, sexual orientation, or country of origin. As discussions of VAWA conclude this week, I urge my colleagues to support the Senate bill, and to accept no substitute for a strong, inclusive final product.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, we do not object to the Senate amendment to H.R. 443, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The bill designates an unnamed mountain peak at the northern border of the Ansel Adams Wilderness and Yosemite National Park in California as Mt. Andrea Lawrence. Andrea Lawrence, a former Olympic skier and inductee into the U.S. National Ski Hall of Fame, was a community leader in northern California who worked to protect these special places and communities in the eastern Sierras. We applaud Senator Boxer and Congressman McKeon for this legislation, and we support its passage. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. We have no objection to the Senate amendments to H.R. 2606. As amended, this bill allows for the delivery of natural gas into an underserved area while also providing a revenue stream that will allow the National Park Service to rehabilitate important historic structures at Gateway National Recreation Area. We support enactment of H.R. 2606, as amended. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. GRIJALVA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I, along with Representative Hinojosa submit the following: Educational success depends on well-prepared, qualified, and effective teachers, leaders and other support professionals. We believe that establishing and continuing to improve programs that train, develop, and support these professions must be integral in elementary and secondary education. Unfortunately, we know that in too many states and districts across the country, students with the greatest needs are being taught by teachers with little or no training, including those enrolled in alternative route teacher preparation programs. That is why we are glad H.J. Res. 117 requires the Department of Education to provide to Congress--and the Nation--comprehensive information on the extent to which our highest-need students, including students with disabilities, English learners, students from rural communities, and low-income students, are being taught by teachers-in-training who are enrolled in alternative route programs, disaggregated by state and district, as well as by student subgroups. The data that will be included in this report should be made public and disseminated to parents and other interested parties so that it is understandable and actionable. Specifically, the provision requires the Secretary of Education to submit a report to Congress by 12/31/13 that provides a comprehensive picture, with state-level and LEA data, on the extent to which the following categories of students are taught by alternative route teachers-in-training who are deemed ``highly qualified'' pursuant to 34 CFR 200.56(a)(2)(ii): students with disabilities; English learners; students in rural areas; and students from low-income families. 34 CFR 200.56(a)(2)(ii) is the regulation that allows individuals participating in alternative route programs but who have not yet completed their full state certification to be labeled ``highly qualified.'' This regulation was struck down by the Ninth Circuit in the Renee v. Duncan lawsuit but written into statute in the December 2010 CR. To produce the report required by this legislation, states and LEAs will be required to compile the data that they are already required to have under Section 1111(h)(6)(A) of NCLB regarding the professional qualifications of all their teachers, including: whether the teacher has met State qualification and licensing criteria for the grade levels and subject areas in which the teacher provides instruction; whether the teacher is teaching under emergency or other provisional status through which State qualification or licensing criteria have been waived; and the baccalaureate degree major of the teacher and any other graduate certification or degree held by the teacher, and the field of discipline of the certification or degree. This data will provide essential information to parents, to educators and to policy makers so that informed decisions can be made to strengthen one of our Nation's most valuable assets, our public schools. We will be in a much better position to look at our neediest students and our neediest rural and urban school districts and determine the extent to which well-prepared teachers are or are not equitably distributed. Mr. Speaker, we look forward to receiving this important report from the Secretary on December 31, 2013.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mental Illness Awareness Week. Every year the American Psychiatric Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the National Mental Health Association designate one week in October to put the spotlight on mental illness and the associated policy issues. This year we recognize this important time on October 7th through 13th. Mental illness doesn't discriminate. One in five Americans bear mental illness, ranging from mild depression to severe disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. One in five children endures a diagnosable disorder and one in ten children suffers from a serious disorder which, if unaddressed, can lead to poor school performance, social anxiety and seclusion and even violence against themselves and other people. Unfortunately, less than one-third of adults and less than half of children receive treatment for diagnosed serious disorders, leading to an average lifespan 25 years less than the general population. Organizations like the American Psychiatric Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the National Mental Health Association and their field partners work with municipal and state governments to make sure those who need care have access to it. In my district and around the country, local governments such as the Pima County Board of Supervisors are working diligently to ensure high-quality, cost- efficient community mental healthcare is available. However, there is still much work to be done. When there is a lack of mental healthcare in a community, we see more lost jobs, more people out on the streets and more broken families. Often these communities see more emergency room visits, larger prison populations and higher social services costs all around. We must stay diligent in addressing mental illness and always stay focused on the individual. Again, I want to recognize these organizations for their important work, and I urge those who need help to ask for it.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, this week marks the United States Constitution's 225th anniversary. Our Constitution is a product of realistic compromise and intelligent consensus--a trait, I might add, sorely missing in this Chamber. It lays out the central principles for a democratic government and the rights that citizens can expect to enjoy in that government. With the inclusion of six voting rights amendments, we have formed a more solid democracy. The voting rights amendments fundamentally changed our system of government--outlawing poll taxes in Federal elections, giving ordinary Americans the right to elect their Senators, allowing the citizens of our Nation's Capital to vote for President, and guaranteeing that all Americans--regardless of race, religion, gender, or age--would enjoy these protections. With these protections and these amendments, we affirmed the inherent values of our Constitution and our democracy. The right to vote is still, to this day, the essential piece of our democracy. Think about it. To deny an eligible voter the opportunity to vote is to undermine the very freedom that defines us as a Nation. The right to vote is essential to our democracy. However, while the marches of student demonstrators and religious leaders once drove electoral reform in the United States, a new and dark movement is sweeping across the country. State lawmakers have been pushed by corporate interests and driven by a cynical point of view that says: We must deny other people the right to vote in order to continue to keep our power, and we must target those groups and individuals who may not agree with our point of view. With this cynical selective process, we keep power and we only concentrate on the people and extend the privileges to those that agree with our point of view. New voter laws that are now being proposed and have passed in State legislatures make voter registration more difficult and cumbersome, cut the availability of early voting, and require voters to present current government-issued identifications as a prerequisite to casting a ballot. These efforts threaten the integrity of our democratic system and are very clearly targeted. The new restrictions on voting would disproportionately burden African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, young voters, and Americans new to the political process. Plain and simple, these restrictive voter laws threaten to disenfranchise young, poor, minority, and elderly voters who lack formal government-issued IDs despite the fact that it is more likely that an American will be struck and killed by lightning than he would impersonate another voter at the polls. We know exactly what these voter suppression laws mean. In Texas, a Federal court recently found that the Texas voter ID law violated the Voting Rights Act because it made it harder for African Americans and Latinos to vote. The court stated that evidence conclusively shows that the cost of obtaining a qualified ID will fall more heavily on the poor, and a disproportionate number of African Americans and Latinos in Texas live in poverty. In Pennsylvania, a July 5 Philadelphia Inquirer article reported that 758,000 registered voters in Pennsylvania do not have an ID, a new State law requirement for voting. That figure represents 9.2 percent of the State's voters that could be stopped from voting. A report by the Brennan Center for Justice found that allegations of widespread voter fraud often proved greatly exaggerated. Moreover, these claims of voter fraud are frequently used to justify policies that do not solve the alleged wrongs but could well disenfranchise legitimate voters. In some States, veterans' ID cards won't be sufficient as a photo ID to vote. In the last 12 months in my State of Arizona, there has been an accelerated effort to suppress the vote. These new efforts represent a coordinated effort clearly designed to suppress the vote of those people who need to make sure that their government is paying attention to their needs. People of color, women, young people literally risked, and some lost, their lives to gain the right to vote in this Nation of ours. Throughout its history, our country has tried to remove obstacles to voter participation, making the right to vote accessible to all eligible citizens. We cannot turn our back on that fundamental right. Our legacy as a Nation demands better of us.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 6060 authorizes the use of power revenues to fund two recovery programs in the Upper Colorado and San Juan Rivers. Since 2011, Reclamation has continued to fund these programs at a cost of about $3 million annually, using its existing authority. We support the intent of H.R. 6060 to recover listed species while allowing water and power operations to continue. We share the administration's commitment to this program. We also welcome the majority's recognition that compliance with the Endangered Species Act does not mean that water and power projects in the West go dry or go dark. This program provides ESA compliance for 2,320 water projects. These projects deliver more than 3.7 million acre-feet of water per year to Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico. We are concerned, however, that the Republican rules only allow for the reauthorization of this program to 2019 versus the original goal of 2023. While we agree this legislation should move, it should be clear that, at least on our side of the aisle, our commitment to this program through 2023 has not changed. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate Chairman Bishop's indulgence at this point. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3319, a bill that would authorize the Pascua Yaqui Tribe to set its own membership criteria by replacing congressionally mandated criteria that artificially limited enrollment to certain Yaqui people based on application deadlines and other requirements that do not reflect tribal input. H.R. 3319 reflects the modern congressional policy of allowing federally recognized tribes to set their own membership criteria. The bill eliminates current membership requirements imposed by statute and replaces them with a requirement that members possess any degree of Indian blood as determined by the tribe. The Pascua Yaqui Tribe, like all federally recognized tribes, has the inherent right to determine its own membership without restrictions imposed by the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 3319, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. No, I don't, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1461, legislation that would authorize the Mescalero Apache Tribe of New Mexico to lease its adjudicated and quantified water rights for up to 99 years, pursuant to State law. There is a tremendous need for water in south central New Mexico among the Mescalero Apache Tribe's non-Indian neighbors. The tribe has approximately 2,300 acre-feet of water to meet this need, which it is ready to lease to the surrounding communities. Revenue generated by such leasing would be used to fund basic tribal government services such as a senior care center, infrastructure development, and academic scholarships. Because the tribe's water rights were quantified by adjudication, legislation is necessary to authorize the tribe to lease its water. H.R. 1416 provides this simple authorization that would not only make the tribe's valuable resource available to those in need, but also give the tribe a much-needed source of additional government revenue. During the subcommittee hearing on the bill the administration expressed concern that H.R. 1461 did not limit tribal authority for leasing water to off-reservation locations and that such a clarification was needed to prevent possible application of State law to on-reservation water leases. Committee staff worked together to amend H.R. 1461 to clarify that the tribe's authorities are limited to off-reservation water leases. The tribe can now be assured that State law will never apply to on- reservation water leases, pursuant to H.R. 1461. Mr. Speaker, we support H.R. 1461, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, part of the argument is that the Forest Service is dragging its feet and will not allow this process to continue. I would suggest that the Minnesota Legislature came to the realization it was something they needed to do. That process was initiated, legislation was passed, and that process continues. The role of the Federal Government in hindering that does not exist. This was a volition and a decision that Minnesota and its representatives had to take. On June 22, 1948, President Truman signed legislation into law to authorize the acquisition of private lands within what is now known as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. The legislation was promoted as a way to protect important natural resource values from commercialization and to compensate Cook, Lake, and St. Louis Counties for the loss of private tax revenue. During the legislative process, Congressman Blatnik argued that counties should receive 12 cents per acre of Federal land for compensation of lost property tax revenues. The Truman administration, arguing that the 12 cents per acre figure was excessive, negotiated compensation to three-quarters of 1 percent of fair market value, which is the way the law was enacted and stands today. Each year since, these counties have received mandatory payments, adjusted periodically to reflect increased property values. Last year, these payments totaled over $6 million. Under the funding formula, more Federal lands mean more Federal money. Absent the Hastings amendment, Lake, Cook, and St. Louis Counties, all within the sponsor of this legislation's district, stood to receive another $1 million annually. We raised questions regarding this payment from the time the bill was heard in subcommittee until the bill was reported from full committee. In fact, I sent letters to each county commissioner in these counties trying to learn more about how these funds were used. I received two responses. Both indicated they support the current Thye-Blatnik formula and relied on these payments to compensate for lost property tax revenue. Surprisingly, no one wants to talk about these payments because they would be considered earmarks--earmarks which the sponsor voted against supporting, along with many other members of his caucus. I represent a district with a lot of Federal lands. My counties get payments through PILT and through Secure Rural Schools. We have to fight like crazy to extend payments every time these bills come for reauthorization. Yet today, we have a bill that purports to be about education funding for Minnesota kids. What kind of role models are we if we can't even have an educated conversation about what Federal money is currently going to Minnesota? Let's just look at the arithmetic. Minnesota State Representative Denise Dittrich testified before the committee that the State was losing $650,000 annually from foregone revenues because the State trust lands were within the wilderness area. She supports the enactment of this legislation to make up for the revenue. Yet, because of the Hastings amendment, this legislation actually takes $1 million in revenue away from the Counties of Lake, Cook, and St. Louis. Are we robbing Peter to pay Paul? That's the question. I reserve the balance of my time. September 6, 2012. To: Amelia Jenkins. Subject: Request from Ranking Member Grijalva related to Thye Blatnik. Dear Amelia, As a county commissioner in Cook County Minnesota I am opposed to any change in the long standing, reasonably established (with the Boundary Waters legislation many years ago) legislation that has, in effect, the Federal Government making payments to Cook, Lake, and St. Louis counties that makes up for property taxes that were lost by locking this land into the federal wilderness system. There was much local opposition and controversy surrounding the establishment of this wilderness, which was for the benefit of the whole country, and these payments were established to offset taxes lost and create a more positive relationship between these 3 counties and the federal government. This is one case where the history of the legislation needs to be revisited and reasons for it need to be properly understood. Thanks, Jim Johnson, Cook County Commissioner (District 4, which includes Cook Counties portion of the boundary waters).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, among the many flaws in the legislation is a provision waiving compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NEPA. NEPA has been under attack by the Republicans for years. Most famously, former Chairman Pombo led a yearlong effort to undermine the law before leaving Congress. NEPA stands for two very simple principles: The first is that the Federal Government should think before it acts, and the second is that the Federal Government should listen to the American people before it acts. NEPA does not dictate outcome. It requires Federal agencies to gather information, consider alternatives, and seek public input before taking action that would significantly impact the environment. Waiving NEPA means waiving educated decisionmaking, waiving NEPA means waiving transparency, and waiving NEPA means waiving the possibility that the American people should play a role in managing the natural resources which they own. In the case of H.R. 5544, waiving NEPA means waiving any process for determining which Federal lands will be given to the State, what lands will be traded away, and how will they be chosen. Apparently, that information is to remain secret. Will lands currently used for recreation or to protect water quality or to preserve critical habitat be traded to the State for logging and mining? We have no way to know. Waiving NEPA shrouds this land deal in secrecy and insulates it from any public input. Why should any Member in this House oppose allowing his or her constituents to have input in the management of Federal natural resources? Cutting out public input is undemocratic, unwise, and unfair. Now we have heard claims that NEPA should be waived because it leads to so-called ``frivolous'' legislation. Of course, ``frivolous'' is often in the eye of the beholder. The facts are that NEPA is more than 40 years old, its regulations are flexible and well-settled, and NEPA litigation is fairly rare. What's more, timber companies, cattlemen, mining companies, and other industry plaintiffs file NEPA litigation just as often, if not more, than environmental groups. We are also told that NEPA causes too much delay. This accusation is also unfounded. NEPA regulations allow for agreed-upon timeframes and page limits to move the process along. Instances when the NEPA process appears to drag on are often the result of an applicant who fails to provide necessary information in a timely fashion or changes the parameters of their project midstream. These anti-NEPA claims are not based on fact and they are a smokescreen, a smokescreen designed to hide the fact that the real goal of exempting this land deal from NEPA is to shield this exchange from public scrutiny. Later today, Mr. Holt will have an amendment to restore NEPA compliance for this land deal, and that amendment should be approved. A vote for NEPA is a vote for the idea that average Americans might have something valuable to say about the management of their natural resources. A vote for the bill without NEPA is a vote to shroud this deal in darkness so that its potential impacts on habitat or water quality or recreation remain hidden from public view. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for women and families affected by ovarian cancer. In 2012, it is estimated that approximately 22,280 women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer and 15,500 will die of the disease. In my state, Arizona, an estimated 11,090 women will die from ovarian cancer this year. Too many American women--sisters, daughters, nieces, wives, friends, neighbors, and coworkers--are losing their lives to this disease. Because ovarian cancer screening or early detection test do not currently exist, organizations stress that ``until there's a test, awareness is best.'' I commend the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance for its steadfast commitment to make women aware of the risk factors, signs, and symptoms of ovarian cancer and for its advocacy on behalf of women and families touched by this devastating disease. I also would like to commend the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance's Partner Member groups in Arizona. Experts recommend that women see a gynecologist if they experience any of the often subtle symptoms of ovarian cancer daily for more than a few weeks. Four major symptoms of ovarian cancer include bloating, pelvic or abdominal pain, difficulty eating or feeling full quickly, and frequent or urgent need to urinate. I ask all of my colleagues to become familiar with these symptoms and to share the information with their friends, family, staff, and constituents. Ovarian cancer is the ninth most common cancer among women and the fifth leading cause of cancer-related deaths, making it the deadliest of gynecologic cancers. If ovarian cancer is treated before it has spread outside the ovary, the five-year survival rate is 93 percent. Currently, only 15 percent of ovarian cancers are found at such an early stage and overall the relative five-year survival rate is 46 percent. I urge my colleagues to help make women aware of the potential warning signs to prevent future deaths. Experts acknowledge that symptoms can be vague and may be associated with other medical conditions, however, as the saying goes, it is better to be safe than sorry. September is National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month--an important time during which ovarian cancer organizations, advocates, and others will be helping to raise awareness about the disease and its symptoms. Teal is the official color for ovarian cancer, like pink is for breast cancer. My staff and I will be wearing teal or teal ribbons to indicate our support of the ovarian cancer community and their efforts, including increasing awareness of the symptoms, boosting federal funding for ovarian cancer awareness, and expanding federal research to improve treatments and support the development of a desperately needed screening or early detection test. I urge my colleagues and their staffs to join me in recognizing September as National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month and to join with us in wearing teal throughout September to increase public knowledge about this deadly disease.