Raúl Grijalva

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, Congressman McDermott.

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Gadsden Elementary School District #32 Marching Band for their accomplishments as a student band and as representatives of the city of San Luis. Gadsden Elementary School is in the San Luis, a city located in the Southwest corner of the State of Arizona on the border of San Luis Rio Colorado, Mexico. The school's marching band, the Pride of San Luis, is composed of 180 talented students and 15 dancers in grades 4 8. Director J Martin Peralta, Jr. and Music Coordinator Martin Peralta, Sr. have led this group of young men and women to countless victories, including first place awards in the Lake Havasu, Parada Del Sol Parade in Scottsdale, Arizona, the APS Phoenix Light Parade, as well as in the local Somerton Founder's Day Parade and the Yuma Lights Parade and most recently have been invited to the London Days Bridge Parade. Luis Marquez, Board President, said that ``Listening to the marching band is like listening to an amazing group of professionals: they have the enthusiasm, character, and talent they need to keep making a great job everywhere they go.'' The Pride of San Luis is comprised of more than just talented musicians; they are exemplary scholars. Raymond V. Aguilera, Superintendent of Schools, said that ``[m]any of the band members go on to receive college credit during High School, take the ACT test and qualify for the Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth Program. The band's alumni have attended or will attend university programs throughout the country''. This group of hard working young people brings hope and pride to local residents. As William and Ellen Kiley stated: ``For those who worry about the future of our country, you have only to look at these young people to feel reassured that all will be well''. The parents, teachers, and citizens of San Luis cannot be more proud of their hometown marching band. Juan Carlos Escamilla, Mayor of the City of San Luis, declared: ``It is truly an honor. I'm so very proud of every single one of our kids. I'm so proud as a parent. I know they have a very strong goal. If any organization could do it--it's this group. They will make it happen.'' Music Coordinator Martin Peralta Sr. articulated it best: ``Esta generacon de estudiantes van a hacer historia y la experiencia que van a hacer historia ya que movera al mundo con su musica donde cada uno de los ciudadanos del pais se van a sentir orgullosos de ellos''. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring these bright young student musicians and the adults that empower them to succeed.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the legislation. This bill is too controversial and should not be on the suspension calendar. Last year the majority held a hearing on the issue in the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. The Park Service testified against the bill. It was also opposed by a range of national organizations--from fiscal conservatives and tax watchdogs to environmental conservationists. This bill, it has already been stated, would create the first ever exemption to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for construction of a bridge in a protected river. This has never been done, and the question is, why now? This precedent for a $700 million mega-bridge that threatens all 203 protected rivers in 38 States should not be allowed to proceed, and it very much violates the no earmark pledge of the Republican majority. Congresswoman McCollum and Congressman Ellison introduced a better bill, H.R. 3434, that removes congressional mandate from this bill that is under consideration and sets a spending cap to protect taxpayers. I understand the need to create jobs. I understand the need to fix our falling infrastructure. There are over 2,000 bridges in Minnesota and Wisconsin that need immediate dire attention that would create jobs, and it would move the infrastructure needs of this country in a very, very direct way and in a very needed way. This is a waste of taxpayers' money and a violation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1837, the San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act. This legislation repeals existing State law and, frankly, leaves no State safe. If enacted, H.R. 1837 would set an unprecedented standard of State preemption. As a member of the Subcommitee on Water and Power, I am concerned that the opposition to this legislation, over 300 stakeholders, over seven States, the nonpartisan Western States Water Council, various attorney generals from New Mexico to other States, have voiced their concern about the preemption and the concern about the intrusion into what has traditionally been a State's right in terms of water management. If enacted, this unprecedented act of State preemption would be a precedent that brings many States' water settlements into question. In my State, Arizona, a diverse set of stakeholders, water users, Indian tribes, municipalities, the Federal Government were involved in lengthy years in reaching water agreements to try to balance the use of water in our State. They were crafted, they were difficult, they were delicate, but agreement happened, and now those are now being implemented throughout the State. It raises question about that difficult process, particularly when you had tribal governments involved in these negotiations and are part of the settlement. By sovereignty, States' rights are preeminent in this question. I urge Members to vote ``no.''

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GRIJALVA. The bill we are debating today, H.R. 2117, eliminates the entire State authorization rule, including the establishment of a process for States to review and appropriately act on student complaints concerning an institution. This amendment would make sure that those student-complaint provisions are retained. Up until now in many States, a student who discovered that the program she is enrolled in is not providing the preparation she paid for or is not preparing her in the way that they suggested or has treated her unfairly would have little recourse in the way of complaint. Not all States have a complaint process in place, but these recently implemented rules established a State-based process for students to lodge a complaint. This provision is a good idea. This process will help to shine light on programs and will give students and families an opportunity for recourse when they feel they have been misled or mistreated by an institution or a program. The vast majority of institutions work in a student's best interest and will seek to guide students and address concerns when they arise. This amendment ensures that students have a place to air their concerns when that is not the case. I think we should maintain the student-protecting provision in the regulations by removing the provision that eliminates it in this bill. My amendment protects students and taxpayers by ensuring that each State has a process in place to receive and review student complaints and by promoting good practices and addressing abuses. Last Congress, we worked hard to protect consumers from bad practices at credit card companies and banks. We should do the same for students. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. In closing, the underlying legislation, H.R. 2117, stacks the deck against due process and the ability for families and students to seek redress when institutions or programs deny them or mistreat them regarding the services that they've purchased and the education that they're seeking. By reinserting that provision, we allow families and students to have redress, to have due process and to have a fair and balanced look at complaints they might have. It is simple, it is direct, and it merits remaining in the legislation. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this bill. I do not even know where to start: Keystone XL; Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; Drilling of the coast of California; Throwing money at oil shale, an unproven technology with a horrible track record and no clear path to responsible development that will not create jobs or revenue for the Treasury. All of that is in this bill. Reauthorization of the Surface Transportation bill should be a noncontroversial exercise that invests in roads, highways, bridges, tunnels, and waterways throughout the country. Bipartisan efforts in the past saw this reauthorization as a key jobs creator and reinvestment tool for America to reinvest in its physical infrastructure and regain its competitive advantage. For the first time since the creation of the Interstate Highway System in 1956, this Transportation bill does not contain a single high priority infrastructure project. Instead, this bill intends to pay for reauthorization of the transportation bill with some of the most controversial, partisan, and special interest-driven pieces of legislation considered by this Republican-controlled House. This bill would open the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to onshore oil extraction. Home to elk, caribou, gray wolves and polar bears, the refuge is one of the most pristine pieces of wilderness anywhere on Earth. It was set aside as a refuge on a bipartisan basis. Now, the majority wants to throw that away and allow large oil companies to suck massive profits out of our Nation's public resources. Even with expanded drilling in some of the most sensitive ecosystems in North America, this proposal would only generate less than 2 percent of the revenue needed to support the transportation projects the bill authorizes over the next 5 years. With the President's wise decision to wait on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, Republicans are now trying anything they can move it through without review or public support. This bill would shift authority for approval from the State Department to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), even though FERC is not responsible for overseeing or regulating oil pipeline siting or safety. This bill would not ask FERC to review the pipeline; it would mandate that FERC authorize the construction of Keystone XL. If they refuse to approve it, the project would move ahead, ignoring important environmental protocol. Despite our Nation's recent investments in clean, homegrown, energy choices for Americans, we are rushing through a pipeline that will import dirty oil from Canada to a port in Texas so it can be exported to other countries. This is not the way to make this sort of decision. At the beginning of last year, the Republican majority promised an open and transparent Congress that would include single item bills, sufficient time for review, and bills under an open rule. Today, we are on the House floor debating a 200-page section of a 900-page transportation bill. We were promised a Congress focused on jobs and continued efforts to bolster our Nation's economic recovery. Instead, we have been given a year of political games and a paralyzed legislative branch. Let's start over and work on a bill that will make our roads safer, modernize our highways and create real, long lasting jobs. I urge my colleagues to vote NO.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, the clock is ticking, Republicans are playing games, and people are hurting. Republicans care more about their singular goal of defeating Obama in November than helping people that are hurting and helping the middle class. This latest chapter on the extension of unemployment benefit adds to an already sordid and sad story. Last December, Republicans threatened to lay off over 1 million Americans by refusing to extend unemployment benefits. House Republicans are now pushing a plan that would reduce unemployment benefits for 3 million Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. This plan is wrong. It's wrong for the middle class, and it's wrong for people who are trying to find jobs. It is time that the Republican majority brought a real jobs plan to this floor that will create real jobs and put the American people to work. When they're working, our economy is fine. When they're working, our small businesses are fine. Rather than acknowledge these facts and these realities, Republicans in Congress seem intent on blaming the unemployed for unemployment.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize The Humane Society of Southern Arizona, which provides services in my district, and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) for their efforts to help save the lives of shelter animals in the Tucson area. The ASPCA has awarded a $10,000 grant to The Humane Society of Southern Arizona to support their hard work and innovation in finding homes for animals. The Humane Society of Southern Arizona is one of 56 animal rescue organizations nationwide that are receiving grant funding for the ASPCA's ``Mega Match-a-thon'' event, which will take place this spring. The ASPCA is granting nearly half a million dollars to support a host of large-scale adoption events nationwide in an effort to save more lives of shelter animals. Over its 145 year history, it has been a priority of the ASPCA to help create a nation of humane communities; places where homeless animals are not killed simply because of the lack of space or resources. The Humane Society of Southern Arizona shares this commitment to the humane treatment of animals and stands as an example for communities and shelters nationwide. On behalf of the citizens and animals of Arizona, I am proud to congratulate both The Humane Society of Southern Arizona and the ASPCA for their continued commitment to protecting animals.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. I rise in support of House Resolution 364, which enshrines the meeting room in the visitors center in the name of Gabe Zimmerman. My colleagues have retold the tragedy that happened in Tucson in January, the deaths, the injuries; and as we recover from that trauma, led by the courage and strength of Congresswoman Giffords, this moment is an important moment as we commemorate the sacrifice and honor the service of Gabe Zimmerman. I want to quote from the statement that his mom made, Emily, at a press conference on July 20: ``It's right to honor Gabe here, at the Capitol, where Congress is charged with responding to the needs of those people who stood in that line, at that grocery store, to all Americans, by crafting our Nation's laws. While he was the first congressional staff person in the United States' history to be killed in the line of duty, it's not his death, but his work and his ideals that should be recognized here, ideals shared by thousands of congressional staff people over hundreds of years of our Nation's history. ``Gabe thought a lot about and cared a lot about the importance of civic engagement in an open and civil society. That concept, that goal, which is a cornerstone of our democracy, can be remembered in this room, along with an idealistic young man who died.'' I think his mom said it best. So as we honor Gabe, we honor those staff people that work for us, that sometimes make us look better than we are; to those staff people that work for us that sometimes have to deal with the controversies which we create, and in doing so, they extend service and support to the people that we represent. There is no finer example than Gabe Zimmerman, and I'm honored to support this resolution and honored to be from a community that Gabe was from.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. I have 3 minutes, and I will be glad to as soon as I have finished my summation, if I have time, sir. But let me go over the points. This is a job for robots. I know it's a touchy term for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but the reality is Rio Tinto is a pioneer in automation. They've done it in Australia; they've done it in other parts of the world. There is no reason to believe that that same pattern is not going to be applied to the mine that they own in Resolution. The sucking sound that we will be hearing will be the loss of water levels in that area and the effect it will have. And it's a copper caper, using unusual appraisal procedures which does not guarantee that the company is going to pay any fair price for the billions of dollars of copper they stand to receive from the American people. Like I said earlier, something has to be sacred. H.R. 1904 trades away many sites that are sacred to Native people. We've received pleas from Indian Country over and over again; and we should deal with those issues before the land exchange, not as this legislation has it, after. Add insult to injury, we keep talking about jobs. There is an agenda before this Congress to begin to immediately create jobs for the American people. That is stalled--and from what I hear from leadership, permanently derailed. So as the American people look for real employment and real opportunity, we present a false hope in this legislation, something that hasn't been vetted. I urge opposition to the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just talk about the opposition. It is not only with affection for the State that I grew up in and that I was born in, but it's also for the future of that State, and it's also for the future of important rules and laws that have protected our environment for many years, and to ensure that the jobs that we're talking about are not just a panacea and a selling point as opposed to a reality. The opposition to this Rio Tinto-Resolution Copper land exchange is based on many factors, but let me just point out two. This is the fourth version of the land exchange. It began with former colleague Renzi, then Mr. Pastor, Ms. Kirkpatrick, and now my friend, Mr. Gosar, from Arizona. They are not the same, none of those. The one major difference is that, with the exception of the legislation before us, the NEPA process, the ESI, the consultation all occurred before the land exchange, not after. Once we do that process, if something comes up that needs compliance and mitigation, it becomes subject to the private property owner--a foreign company that will now have this public land--to deal with that question, serious compliance issues, and legal issues. The other point is the water. Twelve years have already been banked of the 20 that the mine would need in order to operate. The point being, and protecting oak flats and other important areas of the water supply for the region, that seems like a significant number. But to bank water for this project on the outskirts of Phoenix does nothing to mitigate the potential usage of water, the potential drain of water in those three aquifers in that region, and the effect that it would have. NEPA would tell us what that effect would be. A full study would tell us what effect it is. But we're not having that done. So the consequence is that we're working on supposition, and I think supposition on this major land exchange is a huge mistake. We cannot afford unintended consequences with this land deal. And a full and open process. If we would have done that at the initiation with the Renzi bill almost 8 years ago, we would be through that process many, many years ago; and we would be perhaps talking about a differently crafted piece of legislation. We aren't doing that. And the last thing is, there is something sacred and spiritual about this as well. Native people are not just complaining because they want to complain. They are legitimately saying that we need to have consultations, there should be full studies, and factored into the decisionmaking must be the historical and cultural and religious sacred areas that we need protected and ensured that they will be protected. Those discussions have not occurred. H.R. 1904 is a land giveaway. And the gentleman from New Mexico said why our economy is in a bad place. Well, this kind of legislation tells you why. It is a sweetheart deal for a multinational corporation foreknown. It gives them breaks.

Mr. GRIJALVA. May I inquire, Mr. Chairman, how much time each side has?

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I indicated, much of the opposition to this legislation is coming from Indian country. All the pueblos in New Mexico have opposed this legislation. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona is opposed to this legislation. Twenty-six tribes from across the country, including Texas, have opposed this legislation. They see an impact on sacred sites, history, and culture that has not been factored into this discussion, nor have native peoples, particularly those affected nearby in San Carlos. Apaches have been allowed to run what is important, which is the government-to-government consultation. Just a point. The chairman, my friend from the Natural Resources Committee, mentioned the CBO score for this bill. There are also two points to make. The CBO says this bill could cost the taxpayers up to $5 billion over 10 years. This cost is not offset. CBO says the payments to government could be significant, but the bill's provisions don't allow CBO to score them accurately. A straight royalty, for sure, would have certainty and would return what was needed. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. I thank my friend Mr. Flake. And you're right; this isn't the Jetsons doing this. I probably would feel a lot more comfortable if that were the case. Given the time we have left, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, the claim is that this legislation is going to boost the U.S. economy tremendously, but the copper will likely benefit China more than the United States. Nine percent of Rio Tinto is owned by the state-controlled Aluminum Corporation of China. Rio Tinto has a long-established relationship and at our hearings refused to disclaim what level of exportation they were going to make to China of this copper ore. At a time when we should focus on U.S. industry supporting that industry, creating jobs here in America, we should not be trading away billions in copper to supply China's needs. This bill doesn't even require that the ore extracted from this mine be processed here, much less that it will be marketed or sold here. With that, let me yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, a member of the Resources Committee, Mr. Garamendi.

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

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

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 1904 is a triple threat. It will rob Native people of their heritage. It will rob local people of their water. And it will rob the American people of their money. This legislation is simply an abdication of our responsibilities as stewards of public lands and the public trust, and it must be rejected. The Congress routinely considers land exchanges. It is our responsibility to weigh the merits of each proposal to determine whether it is in the best interest of the American people. Some proposals facilitate public recreation, some help local communities build courthouses and schools, and some serve important environmental goals. The land exchange required by H.R. 1904 serves none of those purposes. Rather, this legislation will take thousands of acres of healthy, protected, sacred public land and convert it into billions of dollars in corporate profits for two foreign mining companies. H.R. 1904 trades away several sites that are sacred to Native people. The hearing record before the Natural Resources Committee includes desperate pleas from San Carlos Apache, White Mountain Apache, Yavapai- Apache, Tonto Apache, Fort McDowell Yavapai, Hualapai, Jicarilla Apache, Mescalero Apache, and the Zuni Pueblo and others, pleading to respect the religious and cultural traditions. Instead, the bill waives compliance with NEPA, the Native American Graves Protection Act, the Historic Preservation Act, and all other statutes that might give the tribes a voice and respect at the table before this decision is finalized. The final insult comes when the bill requires consultation with Native people--after the land exchange, after that exchange has already occurred. This will not be government- to-government consultations as required by the treaty trust relationship. Rather it continues a pattern of neglect and belittles Native people once again. The legislation also threatens to dewater a large and already drought-prone area, turning it from an arid but functioning landscape into a desert. According to testimony received by the committee, a mining operation like the one planned by Resolution Copper requires an estimated 40,000 acre-feet of water per year. This is roughly the amount of water used by the entire city of Tempe in Arizona. The company does not own any water rights and has failed to indicate where the water from the mining operation will come from. Historically, mining companies have simply sunk their wells deeper than their neighbors and taken the water that they need. A Federal mining permit process, along with compliance with NEPA and other laws, might mitigate or at least explore these concerns; but the legislation allows Resolution Copper to skip these steps, leaving the people of southeastern Arizona in grave danger of severe water shortages. NEPA happens after that land trade is finalized, when Rio Tinto--the parent company of Resolution Copper--holds all the cards. Compliance with NEPA becomes unclear and poses legal issues regarding private property. Finally, the legislation will allow Rio Tinto--the parent company of Resolution Copper--to realize billions in profits without guaranteeing a fair return to the current owners of the land, the American people. The bill contains appraisal and payment provisions; but the language is nonstandard, and in some cases totally unique. Why are such provisions necessary when a simple, straightforward royalty would provide a fair and predictable return for the taxpayers? At a time when we are told that everybody from college students to the elderly must accept drastic cuts to basic Federal programs, it is unconscionable that we would approve a massive transfer of wealth from the American people to a foreign-owned mining company without insisting on a fair return. Supporters of this legislation claim it would create jobs. Job creation has been the excuse used here on the House floor to push legislation dismantling the last century of environmental protection, and H.R. 1904 continues that pattern. The job-creation claims are all based on predictions provided by the industry and the companies which stand to profit from this deal without a mining plan to verify or corroborate any of the information. Thus, they are all highly suspect. When this proposal was first developed in 2005, the Arizona Republic and Tucson Citizen reported the mine would create 450 jobs. Without explanation, these predictions have skyrocketed over the years to 1,200 jobs to 3,700 today; and 6,000 jobs, as well, have been brought up as numbers of jobs that would be created. None of these numbers are supported by facts. The trend in mining over the last several decades is clear: mining companies are producing more and more and using fewer and fewer workers. Rio Tinto and BHP-Billiton are pioneers in the use of automation, and the Resolution Copper project is an opportunity to perfect these technologies even further. The number of jobs actually created by H.R. 1904 will pale in comparison to the economic and environmental devastation that it could cause. Mr. Chairman, this is a special interest legislation that is not in the interests of the American people. This legislation asks Congress to be business agents for foreign-owned corporations and not stewards of the public land or represent the American taxpayer. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona, my colleague, Mr. Pastor. (Mr. PASTOR of Arizona asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)