Raúl Grijalva

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2512 would seek to address the abandoned Three Kids Mine in Nevada. The Three Kids Mine site is an abandoned manganese mine and mill near Las Vegas. Today, the abandoned mine has open mine pits and significant volumes of toxic manganese tailings containing arsenic, lead, and diesel fuel, which the BLM has said pose significant risks to public health, safety, and the environment. H.R. 2512 would direct the BLM to convey the Federal portions of the Three Kids Mine site to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Henderson, Nevada, and require remediation and reclamation of the site. We support the goals of H.R. 2512 to clean up the toxic abandoned mine site and commend the sponsors of the legislation on their innovative thinking with respect to addressing this problem; however, the estimates of the cost addressing this abandoned mine site are large and uncertain. According to the Bureau of Land Management, the cost of reclaiming and remediating this abandoned mine site is estimated to be between $300 million and $1.3 billion. We continue to have concerns about who would assume responsibility for these costs should the cleanup be abandoned for any reason in the future because this legislation would release the United States from all liabilities related to the Three Kids Mine site, including under environmental laws such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Such a release of liability for the United States could mean that in the event that the developer is unable to complete the cleanup of the Three Kids mine, there may be no responsible party. We also have concerns about the precedent that could be set by waiving the liability of the United States for the cleanup of the site if we are trying to ensure that private entities are held responsible for cleaning up other sites. However, while we continue to have some concerns regarding the process outlined by the legislation, we do support the goals of H.R. 2512 to reclaim this abandoned mine site, and we do not oppose the legislation. I reserve 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 yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2060, as my colleague described, does several things, including providing water and economic certainty to the city of Prineville and the Ochoco Irrigation District. It does so in a way, however, that provides certainty for the city and agriculture, but not the future needs of the environment. The legislation also mandates how Reclamation is to operate and manage the Prineville Reservoir through the first-fill provision and removes some flexibility on Reclamation's part to mitigate and adapt to changing conditions. We still do not fully support the first-fill provision but understand that there are ongoing negotiations that look at providing the certainty that the city needs while protecting the environment. Stakeholder-driven processes are the best way to answer our community's needs, and we look forward to working with our colleagues in the Senate and on the other side of the aisle to ensure that all needs are met and protected. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 1740. This legislation seeks to add these river segments to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The legislation passed the House by voice vote last year. Congressman Larsen has been a consistent advocate for this legislation. On behalf of the river and his constituents, we applaud his hard work. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Many years ago, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fenced off two small parcels of land plus a portion of a street outside of their Pascagoula, Mississippi, facility for security purposes. Recently, NOAA has been using this property for storage and parking. NOAA would like to secure this land, which is now back under the ownership of the City of Pascagoula, to accommodate the storage and future expansion of their facility. In exchange for these two parcels of land, NOAA proposes to transfer real estate to the City of Pascagoula to develop waterfront property for the purposes of creating a public green space as part of the overall redevelopment plan in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. NOAA and the city have both identified the parcels of land to be considered for this transaction, and NOAA is prepared to contract for the land surveys and appraisals necessary to prepare the acquisition and disposal documents. They have both expressed written support for this land exchange. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I know that the gentleman from Alaska will be pleased to know that the production of fossil fuels from our public lands is at a record high, and the percentage of our oil from imports is dropping every year. The bill before us today resolves competing land claims. We support that. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 292, a bill that ratifies an agreement between the United States, the Bering Straits Native Corporation and the State of Alaska by transferring certain Federal lands to the Bering Straits Native Corporation and the State of Alaska. S. 292 is the result of years of negotiations between the parties regarding overlapping land selections made by the Bering Straits Native Corporation under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the State of Alaska under its Statehood Act. The bill reasonably and sensibly finalizes each party's interests in the land around Salmon Lake, an area of great importance to the people of the Bering Straits region. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

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

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of the legislation, and I commend Congresswoman Pingree for her hard work. H.R. 2336 moves forward a study of 11 miles of the York River to determine if it is qualified to be protected as a Wild and Scenic River. This is a good piece of legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the sponsor of the legislation, the gentlelady from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Michael Johnson for his twenty-two years of dedicated service at Tucson Airport Authority. In this time, Mr. Johnson designed and constructed airport capital improvements that significantly enhanced the safety of civilian and military aircraft operations in the airport movement areas at Tucson International Airport and Ryan Field. I also commend Mr. Michael Johnson for his additional eighteen years of aviation consulting work at Tucson International Airport and Ryan Field. His engineering achievements improved aviation safety and promoted economic sustainability.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, the House Republican version of this bill rolls back existing protections for immigrants who are victims of domestic violence and strips provisions in the Senate version that protect Native Americans and LGBT abuse victims. Republicans have decided to use this non-partisan issue to push their war on women further than many of us thought possible. This new bill says that if a Native American or immigrant--documented or not--is the victim of abuse, the government should turn a blind eye. This is a cold, heartless vision of what law enforcement means to the American people, and it's hard to find words strong enough to reject it. The House bill eliminates an existing confidentiality clause known as the self-petitioning process that allows abused women to apply confidentially, if appropriate, for protected immigration status. If the clause is removed from current law, women legally in the country because of a pending marriage who suffer abuse would not be able to keep their applications for permanent status private from their abusers. Boyfriends or husbands would be able to revoke the citizenship application, making the abused woman revert to undocumented status and limiting her legal options. Men shouldn't be able to abuse women and control their access to law enforcement at the same time. This is a scary scenario that we shouldn't even have to contemplate. Currently, Federal and State law enforcement officers have exclusive authority to prosecute misdemeanor domestic violence crimes committed by non-Indians on Tribal lands, many of which are known to go unprosecuted for logistical and other reasons. The Senate VAWA reauthorization bill lets Tribal law enforcement exercise jurisdiction over such cases, while the House version maintains the status quo. The unfortunate situation of abused Native women has been ignored for far too long. The law should protect all women from abuse, wherever they live. Republicans found an awful lot of nerve to deny equal protection to millions of Native American women for no reason I can tell. The Senate version includes a provision that helps colleges and universities increase violence-prevention education and reduce dating abuse and sexual assault. The House version does not include that language. The Senate version prevents any entity that receives Federal anti-abuse grants from turning away LGBT victims when they have suffered from domestic violence or abuse. The House version is silent on the issue. According to a National Network to End Domestic Violence report, ``Domestic violence impacts one in four American women over their lifetimes, and 15.5 million children are exposed to domestic violence each year. Victims rely on services to escape violence and rebuild their lives. When victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence or stalking take the difficult step to reach out for help, many are in life-threatening situations and must be able to find immediate refuge.''

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. If I may, if I could inquire from Chairman Hastings as to anymore speakers. I am prepared to close.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to emphasize the point that nearly 85 percent of all public lands are already open for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. Whether we are talking about Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management--including national monuments-- National Park Service lands, or Forest Service lands, in each and every case the majority are open for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. My amendment would only trigger the provisions in title I and II of this legislation if less than 75 percent of Federal public lands are open for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. I can't think of any other use that occurs on 75 percent of our public lands. I understand that some individuals are upset about some specific court decision or specific local closures, but we need to keep things in perspective. Right now, more than 4 out of 5 acres are open for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. Given that, do we really need Federal employees in D.C. making decisions about which lands to close or, worse yet, have Congress make that decision? My State and my district are both blessed with Federal lands. Debates occur all the time about shooting ranges, and they have been very fierce, as I mentioned earlier. Local land managers have worked with local groups and communities to come up with solutions, including providing access on other Federal lands. Unless we see significant closures across the landscape, I think we should allow local managers to make local decisions based on local input. The problem this bill claims to solve does not exist, but this amendment would allow the provisions of the bill to kick in if this problem ever actually developed. I would urge support of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, we do not object to this dab of lipstick on H.R. 4089.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dams, derricks, distress sales--that has been the agenda of the majority until today regarding our public lands. Today, an epiphany. We need to protect wildlife habitat, water quality and access for hunters, fishermen, anglers, and recreational shooting. Promoting more hunting and fishing activities on Federal land involves ensuring the habitat is protected, acquiring new lands to expand existing habitats, funding wildlife and habitat management and continuing to ensure that our parks, forests, monuments, and wildlife areas remain in public hands. So if we're going to have a discussion about access for a very wide and broad issue of hunting and fishing on our public lands, we should do that, have a serious discussion. I invite the majority to enter into that, a serious discussion about the funding for fish and wildlife habitat, a serious discussion of land acquisition to increase access and availability for hunters and fishermen and clean water programs that would ensure that that habitat is protected. Hunting and fishing are under attack, but they're under attack from privatization and development, not from Federal land managers. This bill says that top-down Washington knows best, knows the best management and that that is the way to go. We support letting local land managers and local communities do their job. You can't say you trust CBO when you like the score and don't trust CBO when you don't like the score. A vote for this bill is a vote to spend $12 million. It's that simple. A vote for this bill is to continue the philosophy of dams, derricks, and distress sales of our public lands under the guise--under the guise--of solving a problem for hunters and fishermen in this country that does not exist on the public lands. Four out of five acres is available for hunting and fishing on our public lands. I would suggest that that is not just a question of being enough; that is about access and opportunity on our public lands for those activities. Let's not jeopardize them. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 4089, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chairman, my State and my colleague's, Congressman Flake's, State, and my district are both blessed with Federal lands, both Forest Service Bureau of Land Management areas. The debate over access for shooting has been fierce for many, many years. We've had closures of some areas because shooting activities, in particular, using saguaro cactuses as targets, was impacting the lands, and the ironwood, which is an endangered bosque that is one of the few left in our Nation and certainly in the Southwest. These processes by which communities go through an arbitrary, cookie- cutter approach at the national level in terms of recreational shooting robs the local community of their ability to impact and their ability to be able to negotiate compromise and draw consensus on appropriate shooting ranges and sites. I would suggest that here in Washington, D.C., whether it's Congress or the officials here in Washington making those decisions for Arizona, for our respective districts, that the reaction from the public will not be a good one insofar as they have been robbed of the opportunity to find a workable solution for all the parties involved. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. May I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

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