Raúl Grijalva

Mr. GRIJALVA

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

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, this draft report that I'm holding is entitled The National Scenic Trail Feasibility Study and Environmental Assessment. Like many products of the Federal Government, it's lengthy and complicated. But let's be perfectly clear. We're not waiting for a separate environmental assessment. It's all done and it's all in here. Even though it's labeled a draft report, the National Park Service doesn't do drafts like a high school assignment does drafts. This is a 75-page bound document, eight full color fold-out maps. It draws on more than 90 sources, from books on dinosaur footprints to books on the pioneers who first set foot on those trails, from scholarly histories of the ancient Earth to histories of the small communities along the trail. This study is done. In reality, the process of changing the study from a draft into a final report is a bureaucratic one; it is not a substantive one, which makes this amendment dilatory, at best, and not a substantive one. The draft study was completed in August of 2006. It has been under review at the Department of the Interior for 17 months. The National Park Service tells us that it needs approximately one dozen signatures from various Interior officials in order to be considered final. That's all we're waiting for. In effect, therefore, the amendment could have us abdicate our authority and responsibility to designate trails and pass that authority over to the Secretary, so that whenever he and the various Deputy Assistant Secretaries at Interior get around to signing off on the study, then the trail would be designated. Such an abdication would not lead to a better study; it would just lead to delay. It might be different, Mr. Chairman, if my good friend from Utah could point out something that is lacking in this study, if he wanted to wait because he felt the analysis of the affected environment on pages 61 and 62 were not entirely complete, or if he was contending that the book The Indian Tribes of North America by John R. Swanton and the Smithsonian Institution Press should not have been relied on in this study. That is not the case, Mr. Chairman. The work of the study is done. The administration came before the National Parks, Forest and Public Lands Subcommittee in May and testified they do not anticipate any substantive changes to this document and that they support the designation. Congress has, in this study, more than sufficient documentation to establish this trail. There is no reason to delay this designation. Only if you simply oppose the trail, then that would be the reason for delay. Mr. Chairman, it's not the role of the Secretary of the Interior to designate trail. It's the role of this Congress, and we should get on with it. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson). (Mr. LARSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that this amendment is completely unnecessary. The trail crosses State land that is State- owned, local, and the property of willing private landowners. That's all. State and local hunting and fishing laws clearly govern all of these lands. What's more, this amendment refers to ``all designated and future designated land within the New England National Scenic Trail, including all Federal lands.'' Mr. Chairman, once again, there are no Federal lands involved here. So in addition to being unnecessary, the amendment is drafted and applies to land that does not exist. Secondly, we are perplexed as to why we would single out State and local laws on hunting and fishing and the possession or use of a weapon, trap, or net. Why would we state that these laws, which, as I have already said, obviously apply to the lands along the trail, why would we state that these laws apply but not mention other equally applicable State and local laws. The amendment could legitimately cause someone to wonder, because we mention only these activities, are other State and local laws somehow rendered inactive by this bill? A Federal trail designation does not preempt State and local laws. But this amendment might make some believe that it does. This amendment is not intended to solve what I believe is a real problem. It's, rather, an attempt to inject a made-up issue into a simple, straightforward trail designation. In the end, this amendment really only confuses the issue. Having said that, however, if the language makes Mr. Bishop comfortable enough to support this legislation, we are willing to consider it. We do not believe that it is needed or really even helpful. It will burden the bill, despite its redundancy, only slightly; and in the spirit of bipartisanship, we accept Mr. Bishop's language. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, we accepted a motion on hunting and fishing that was consistent with State laws because that seemed to be the most pressing issue in the discussion and debate over this legislation. Now we have a motion to recommit that tries to solve a problem already dealt with which is easily and simply dealt with with the underlying legislation. The bill specifically prohibits condemnation, so there is no legitimate concern regarding private property rights. There is no legitimate reason to say the same thing over and over again. But now we're in a whole other realm. We're in a conspiracy theory, Federal bogeyman kind of discussion where proponents of the bill say, Well, sure, you have stopped Federal condemnation, but what about our doomsday scenario where the Feds and a State or a locality team up in some secret plan to have the State condemn the land and then give it to the Feds. We better stop that scenario as well. The point of the matter is that this motion is about usurping local control and, indeed, giving it to the Federal Government. I want to say enough is enough. At what point have we gone far enough to deal with any legitimate problem? Supporters of this amendment and the motion see condemnation under every rock and around every corner, and there could never be enough language in this bill or any other bill to satisfy them. Even worse, proponents of this language know full well that neither this motion nor anything else we do here in Congress can stop States from exercising their condemnation authority. Here we have a motion that is both completely unnecessary and completely ineffective. There is no condemnation under this bill. Proponents of this motion need to move on. I urge defeat of the motion to recommit. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, it's a good piece of legislation, well crafted, well worked. Many of the doomsday scenarios we've heard about condemnation have no relationship to this legislation. I would urge its adoption.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 1528 amends the National Trails System Act to designate most of an existing trail system in Massachusetts and Connecticut as the New England National Scenic Trail. In 2002, Congress directed the National Park Service to study this trail for potential addition to the National Trails System. The draft study, completed in 2006, supports designation of the trail, with some changes to the route to address landowner concerns. The administration has testified that no major changes in the study are expected, and expressed support for the measure in testimony before the Natural Resources Committee. The trail runs 220 miles through the heart of Connecticut and Massachusetts, past some of the most spectacular vistas and landscapes in New England. The trail offers some of the world's best opportunities to view volcanic and glacial geology, including fossil and dinosaur footprints. The proposed trail also fulfills another requirement of the National Trails System Act by being close to population centers. This trail has over 2 million people that live within 10 miles of the route, and this accessibility makes the trail a wonderful recreational opportunity. The route of the trail crosses land owned by State and local governments and by private landowners. No Federal land is involved. Local trails associations have obtained permission from landowners allowing existing trails to cross their lands. If a landowner requests that the association close the trail on his or her property, the association honors that request. The NPS study identified no need for direct Federal trail ownership or direct Federal trail management. If H.R. 1528 is enacted, the role of the National Park Service in implementing the designation would be to provide technical and financial assistance to the existing trail partners, including State, tribal, regional and local agencies, the Appalachian Mountain Club, and the Connecticut Forest and Park Association. H.R. 1528 is cosponsored by Members representing all the affected districts in Connecticut and Massachusetts, and enjoys energetic support from the affected local communities. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and I want to commend my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) for his commitment and leadership on this matter. We support the passage of H.R. 1528, and urge its adoption by the House today. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments that the gentleman from Utah, the ranking member of the subcommittee, made. There is a point of consistency, too. As we talked about the effects, I thought we were talking about a trail bill, not a farm bill, but the effects of the Federal Government on private land. I would suggest that part of the consistency would be to quit incentivizing extraction of mining claims and mining rights on private property, that that would be consistent. It would be consistent also to not have eminent domain and condemnation with regard to road construction of Federal roads and energy corridors. I think that kind of points out the fact that we are talking two different things here. We are talking about a trail that has already been through the process and the study and that merits our support today. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield to the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) such time as he may consume.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1528.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I rise to thank Dean Aguillen for the service he has provided to this Congress and the American people. Dean's final day with us is today; however, I believe that a friendship and working relationship will continue for years to come. During my first term in Congress, Dean was a great assistance to my office and me. He helped with the transition and acclimation from being a local county supervisor to Congress. Dean has accomplished quite a bit in his career within the Capital, but I want to take time to thank him for the way in which he became successful. Dean is an extremely hardworker and he does the multiple jobs and responsibilities with a smile, patience, respect, and understanding. He has taken care of all of the Democratic members, but I have also seen him take time to recruit and help young staff learn the ropes so they too can be successful. Dean has made a great impact on many Members and staff. I wish him the best of luck and know that success will continue to be a part of his life. Thank you Dean for your patience, kindness, and commitment to this country and to our community.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to once again bring a sense of reality and clear light to the immigrant and Latino communities of our Nation. Six months ago, my family and I went to the wake of a 19-year-old soldier who died in Iraq from my hometown of Tucson, Arizona. It was very difficult, especially when his mother asked me to tell her why he died. I should say, she spoke only Spanish. I said what I could about freedom, sacrifice, and liberty. And now, this Congress wants to change legislation to have the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission not investigate or prosecute cases of discrimination if the complainant doesn't speak English, like this young man's mother. She gave this Nation a son. I challenge, no, I demand of those proponents that want to have second-class citizenship in this country to go to that mother and tell her why.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate El Casino Ballroom's 60th anniversary. For sixty years, El Casino Ballroom in Tucson, Arizona has been a community and culture center in Tucson and much of Southern Arizona. El Casino has touched the lives of many generations; it is a place where families and friends celebrate weddings, quinceaneras, anniversaries, and major events in our lives. It has been a center of culture and history for generations. For the community, El Casino is the place you look forward to going for concerts, where you hope to see your child celebrate his or her marriage, and where you know any event will bring together new and old friends. For the young, your first celebration at El Casino is a rite of passage. To celebrate and thank El Casino Ballroom for their service to the community is also to remember how and why El Casino started. Three friends--Ramon Siqueiros, Benjamin Jacobs and Adolfo Loustaunau-- brought their vision for a place for Mexican-American families to gather. The friends purchased the land and were part of the construction team that built the ballroom on 26th Street between 2nd and 3rd Avenues. They were the owners, the builders, the managers, and--with their families--the cooks. For Tucson, El Casino Ballroom is a safe place. In 1947, places throughout Tucson were discriminatory, posting signs of who could and could not frequent the clubs. El Casino was open to all--Mexican Americans, Anglos, African Americans, and anyone who wanted to dance, listen to music or celebrate. Local and famous artists have performed throughout the years in the ballroom. Among the notables are: Little Joe, Vicente Fernandez, Perez Prado, Fats Domino, Little Richard, Pedro Infante, Javier Solis, Jose Alfredo Jimenez, Los Tigres del Norte, Los Lobos, Mariachi Vargas de Tecalitlan, Duke Ellington, Ike and Tina Turner, Chuck Berry, Queen Ida and local son Lalo Guerrero. El Casino Ballroom was sold to the Latin American Social Club, a group that is celebrating its 75th Anniversary this weekend. The Latin American Social Club is an organization committed to improving the community needs, and since 1968, they have kept El Casino open. In 1991, El Casino was temporarily closed due to roof damage. From that temporary loss, the community had a void to fill. After much work, fundraising, construction, and community support, El Casino opened its doors again in 2000. The resurrection of this historical landmark was celebrated throughout Tucson. When the doors opened, the regular crowds, enthusiasm, and celebrations commenced. The return of El Casino Ballroom was like the return of the most treasured family member. I congratulate El Casino Ballroom on its anniversary; I wish them many more years so that current and future generations will continue to share in its cherished memories. El Casino is in our hearts. It is a strong part of our community, and is a natural extension of most Tucson families.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I rise today also to honor the soldiers and veterans that sacrifice so much for this Nation. And this week in which we celebrated Veterans Day, it is an appropriate and necessary time to reflect on that sacrifice. And in the Congress that often feels the need to scapegoat or debase immigrants, this body often forgets how immigrants enrich our lives. I rise today to take a special moment to thank those foreign-born noncitizens who are serving in this war and have served in wars past. In this current war, there are approximately 21,000 noncitizens in uniform. No other war has produced anywhere near as many posthumous citizens as this one. Madam Speaker, I ask you and all my colleagues to work toward civility, solutions and humanity when we talk about immigration. Please do not play politics with the lives of current and future immigrants and their family members, like me, who are only a generation removed from the experience.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2262. It is an understatement to say that the West has changed dramatically since 1872, but this law that we are reforming today has not kept pace. Those of us from the West need this legislation to pass to protect the health of our communities, our scarce water supplies and our public lands, which are under continuing threat from an outdated mining law. In my home State of Arizona, hardrock mining has left behind a legacy of contaminated lands and rivers, abandoned mines leaching poisonous metals into groundwater and other hazards to the public, with hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars to reclaim and cleanup the mess left behind. Only a few months ago, a young girl was killed when she and her sister drove their vehicle into a mine shaft that had been left exposed after the site was abandoned. The mine shaft was hidden by brush, had no signs or barriers to warn anyone about the danger. The younger sister was trapped overnight with her sister's body before rescuers found them the next morning. This is just one heartbreaking example of the impacts of a law left over from another era, an era when the West was not populated and when our value system was far different from what it is now. The law simply must be updated to today's modern-day values and environmental standards. The issue of employment has been raised over and over again, exporting our jobs and importing our vital metals. I agree, mining jobs are good jobs, but I would suggest they are not the only jobs in the West. We need to have a diversified workforce, and that workforce needs what the population needs, diversified opportunities. Chairman Rahall's bill puts standards in place, requiring cleanup and reclamation of mining sites. This bill makes certain that lands are off limits to mining, as they should be, but it also ends the free-for-all that this law has created over the years, where companies have used a patenting process to purchase inholdings within national forests and other public lands for a few dollars per acre, only to have the Federal Government later buy them out for millions of dollars when they threaten to develop the land. The Federal Government has spent billions of dollars over the years rebuying patented mining lands, and taxpayers' are served much better for their money. They deserve a fairness and an equitable return for their tax dollars. I strongly support the balanced approach that the chairman has taken with this bill. I am also pleased that the committee approved amendments I offered to allow Native American tribes to petition the Secretary to withdraw from mining lands of cultural, historic or religious importance to them. Tribes have been just as impacted as other communities by the impacts of mining and should be able to weigh in on these important matters. There is an urgency here that cannot be understated. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will vote for this bill.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me thank the chairman for the time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here to support H.R. 1483 as chairman of the subcommittee, but also supporting the larger heritage area bill. One section in particular that applies to my community is the designation of a new heritage area in the Santa Cruz Valley of Arizona. The Santa Cruz Valley has national significance and deserves the recognition that this designation would bring and highlight what is a shared border with Mexico. The Santa Cruz Valley encompasses many diverse cultures and histories. These include native peoples whose heritage dates back 13,000 years, and the descendants of Spanish, Mexican and American territorial settlers who shaped the region, its land, its customs and its traditions from the 1690s to the present date. For me it's an important designation. I grew up on a ranch, Canoa Ranch, that is located within the Santa Cruz Valley. It's a historic ranch, been designated as such and presently is being renovated to bring and highlight what that ranch life was in the 1800s and 1900s. The towns and cities of the Santa Cruz Valley support this. The amount of support that this proposal has is truly outstanding. I want to say something not only about the Santa Cruz Valley and its importance, but I think it transcends the discussion that we are having about heritage areas. Heritage areas, through the designation, is also a recognition of a mosaic, a mosaic of history, people, traditions, the environment, a mosaic that shapes this country. Each one is as different and diverse as our Nation. To get to a designation point takes a great deal of work and cooperation among communities and peoples, and that's what we are acknowledging with heritage areas, the work that went into it, the diversity of this great Nation of ours, and the mosaic that makes this Nation of ours as special and privileged as it is in the world. I would also like to say that we are going to hear things about taking property rights, the cost. A GAO study was commissioned, and many of the organizations which have been submitted for the record as private property rights advocates were solicited to provide specific examples where heritage areas did indeed interfere with, take or prohibit the use of someone's private property. Not one instance came up in that study. I just want to reaffirm that these projects, these heritage areas are cooperative, bipartisan and truly deserving of the designations. I want to thank the chairman for the entire bill.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, the Wells Hydroelectric Project, operated by the Public Utility District in Douglas County, provides electricity to approximately 17,000 customers in Washington State. The central feature of the project is a dam on the Columbia River. The utility district is in the early stages of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's relicensing process. The project's current license was granted in 1962 and will expire in May 2012. An application for relicensing must be submitted by 2010. H.R. 523 directs the Secretary of the Interior to sell 662 acres of BLM land within the project boundary to the utility district and requires the district to pay the appraised fair market value of the land. Importantly, the legislation requires that, even after the conveyance takes place, the Secretary of the Interior will retain authority under the Federal Power Act to place conditions on the utility district's new license, if necessary, to protect the natural resources of the area. Mr. Speaker, we have worked closely with the sponsor and our minority colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee to improve this legislation. We thank them for that and appreciate it very much. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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