Raúl Grijalva

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, today I rise in urgent opposition to the Republicans' H.R. 1. Last week, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its final report. Their message couldn't be clearer. We have a lot to do and very little time to do it before the ticking climate bomb we are living in goes off. I want to emphasize that their message wasn't one of complete despair. There is hope. The hope hinges on two major conditions. One, we must stop burning fossil fuels, the number one cause of climate change. And two, we must transform our energy system to a cleaner and more sustainable one now. H.R. 1, the bill before us today, which has earned the fitting title of polluters over people act, will actively and aggressively take us backwards on both those accounts. Looking more like a nearly 200-page love letter to polluting industries than a serious legislative effort, the polluters over people act is a laundry list of gifts and giveaways to polluting industries. Let's look at what it does for Big Oil. For example, last year companies shattered profit records across the board by price gouging working Americans at the pump while also hoarding thousands of unused leases on our public lands and waters. Rather than hold Big Oil accountable for this abuse, the polluters over people act lowers royalty rates, repeals interest fees, reinstates noncompetitive leasing, and forces Federal agencies to hold rock-bottom lease sales all but assuring that last year's profit records will soon be broken again. Never to be outdone, the mining industry gets its fair share of gifts in H.R. 1, as well. Mining companies, many of which are foreign-owned, already enjoy a free-for-all on our public lands. They make a mockery of Tribal consultation, destroy sacred and special places, ruin the landscape, and leave behind a toxic mess that pollutes our water and hurts our health--all without paying a cent to the American people--not one red cent is paid in royalties. Now included in this package is that they can use the public land for anything they want, including dumping of toxic mineral waste. There is more, but suffice it to say, with all these handouts, it comes as no surprise that the Congressional Budget Office just reported last week that H.R. 1 will actually increase the Federal deficit. Staying true to its name, the polluters over people act also fast- tracks dirty energy projects by gutting our bedrock environmental and public health laws; namely, the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. This is not in a new so-called permitting reform solution they have come up with to address our energy needs. This is the same ideological attack I have seen Republicans in the Natural Resources Committee launch on NEPA year after year after year. For anyone who is being lured into thinking there are opportunities for negotiations on this bill--do not be naive. This performative permitting reform is not a bipartisan solution, not even a starting point for one. This is just another decades-old request from polluters to make their operations cheaper and easier, while making Americans' lives harder and more costly. It is not a serious solution to any of our energy goals. Even former President George W. Bush's head of permitting efforts has said that this bill will be ``of no statistically significant consequence.'' In fact, the polluters over people act has none of the real permitting solutions that can speed up the build-out of the clean energy infrastructure that we all need. One of those solutions would be increasing funding for Federal permitting offices, which is exactly what Democrats did when they secured more than $1 billion in last year's historic Inflation Reduction Act. Even Republicans' own witness at a hearing called that money ``wonderful.'' No more funding is in H.R. 1. Another solution for speeding up clean energy development is reforming the planning and cost allocation process for electrical transmission lines that can carry renewable energy from different sources across the country. But, no, you are not going to see that in H.R. 1 either. Of course, any real permitting reform solutions would make sure to protect and empower the communities that have been disproportionately hurt by dirty energy and other polluters for decades--and that are now being hit the hardest by climate change as well. As you can probably guess, H.R. 1 doesn't just fail to protect these communities, it silences them further, laying them bare to even more devastation, harm, and exploitation. The polluters over people act isn't just an embarrassment of riches for polluting industries, it is an embarrassment to our communities, to our climate goals, and to this legislative body. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, we heard the term NIMBY thrown around to describe opposition to this bill. This NIMBY term, not in my backyard, is used to describe local residents, oftentimes very wealthy residents, who oppose development in their neighborhoods, but unfortunately support development of it elsewhere. This NIMBY term is being used by some to try to discredit opposition to this bill. In reality, the groundswell of opposition of this bill comes from places that look like places behind me, not Martha's Vineyard--places like Cancer Alley along the Gulf Coast, and many other environmental justice communities across the country that millions upon millions of American call home. Make no mistake, the greatest consequences from pollution giveaways in H.R. 1 will fall on places like the ones in this photograph that are already overburdened by industries' pollution. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, let me remind my colleagues that this bill provides more handouts to foreign mining companies with terrible environmental and human rights records. For example, Rio Tinto, a foreign-owned mining company, is preparing for a new copper mine in Arizona at a sacred site, Oak Flat. In 2020, the company knowingly and needlessly demolished a 46,000-year-old sacred Australian aboriginal site, an irreplaceable cultural artifact, to expand an iron mine. This bill rolls out the welcome mat for even more mining by foreign- controlled companies with records of human rights violations, cultural desecration, and pollution. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Levin), who is a valued member of our committee.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is too bad that my Republican colleagues continue to point to Chinese and Russian practices to try to lower the bar for environmental and community protections in our own country. The United States should lead, and we shouldn't set our standards by China or Russia. The American people want their protections, they want clean energy, and they want the process that allows the American people to know and to participate. This bill does none of that. Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, just a reminder. H.R. 1, the polluters over people act, repeals the $4.5 billion home electrification rebate program designed to lower energy bills for all American families. Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.)

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, the Republicans claim that they will do more to reduce emissions with this legislation than Democrats have done. I remind everyone that this legislation, the House Republican H.R. 1, has no emission reduction targets and the push is to increase fossil fuel production, which is the highest source that contributes to the climate crisis that we are facing now. Madam Chair, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), a member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. When we were in the majority, Democrats, we passed H.R. 1. What was that about? It was not about elections. It was about our democracy. It was about protecting that democracy. After January 6, that became urgent. Now, some might want to deny that--that was just a walk in the park, people taking a stroll. We were here. We knew what was going on, and the American people knew what was going on. The issue of patriotism has been brought up. It is patriotic for us to oppose polluters over people. It is patriotic because we care and feel that the public health of the American people needs to be protected, that we have to deal with climate and the crisis that we are confronting. To question the patriotism of those instincts is wrong, and we will continue to represent the American people on their most urgent needs. The future and their destinies shouldn't be turned over to Big Oil and Big Gas and the mining industry, for them to determine that future. They have to have a role, and our statutes and the protections that are in our laws need to be part of that role. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), my good friend.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, if you believe in climate change and the climate crisis, vote ``no'' on this legislation. If you believe that regardless of ideology, if you believe that climate change is real and must be dealt with, vote ``no'' on this legislation because it does nothing to deal with that real threat in front of us. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Crockett).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Mullin).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lieu).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing. Mr. Chair, I thank my Democrat colleagues for their comments, both from the Committee on Natural Resources members and other colleagues that came forth to speak against the polluters over people act, H.R. 1. Republican Members have produced an extreme piece of legislation. As I listened to the rationale today, there were four or five things that were repeated over and over again. It is an extreme piece and a high cost to pay for a speakership, but nevertheless, the rationale today was, as I heard it, patriotism. If you vote ``no'' for H.R. 1, you don't believe in America and you are not a patriot; you support China, Russia, Venezuela, OPEC, and communism. Unfortunately, that is a desperate lie and unnecessary in this debate. The other rationale I heard: Let the polluters drive energy policy, production, and the safeguards that the American people need. That was one of the rationales. The other one that struck me is collateral damage. Tribes, poor people, 40 million Americans, communities of color, once again, they get thrown under the bus to satisfy the greed of polluters. The issues of environmental justice are almost eliminated and downplayed in this whole discussion. That is 40 million people. That is collateral damage that cannot be tolerated and should not be. You ignore climate change. You blame other nations and ask Americans to accept a lower bar for themselves and give up the opportunity, as we always have, to historically lead in this world of ours. This act is about taxpayer subsidies to a powerful and rich polluter industry that doesn't need the support. It dismantles fundamental public health, clean air, clean water, NEPA, environmental protections, and judicial review. We need to remember that this act, H.R. 1, polluters over people, deals with a very consequential issue, and that is the consequential issue of life. H.R. 1 is dangerous to life. The real true act of patriotism, I remind my colleagues, is our responsibility and our oath to protect lives, to extend the future, to deal with fairness and the public's right to know and the public to have a voice in their future. H.R. 1, the polluters over people act, undoes all of that. Do we want to go back to the good old days when the rivers were burning, we were clear-cutting forests, when it was all right to admit wrongdoing and not have any consequences? Those are not the good old days that people want to go back to. If we are going to deal with the climate challenge and the climate action that is needed in this crisis, H.R. 1 needs to be defeated. It is the right thing to do, it is the American thing to do, and it is the patriotic thing to do. Mr. Chair, H.R. 1 is dangerous and needs to be defeated. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life of Daniel Moreno Lofton and share this dedication by this family. Daniel was born into this world on October 16, 1946, in Tucson, Arizona, to Peter Lofton and Jane Moreno. He was the eldest of his siblings. Daniel was presented to the Lord at the First Apostolic Church of Tucson by Pastor Reyes Coronado. At the young age of 19, Daniel made the life-changing decision to follow Jesus. He was baptized by Pastor Joe Fregoso at the First Apostolic Church of Tucson. Soon after, he was drafted by the United States Army and served as Combat Medic in the Vietnam War from September 1967 through September 1969. As a Combat Medic, he was at the frontlines, ready to render lifesaving aid to the wounded and, in other cases, recover the remains of those soldiers lost and ensure that no man was left behind. During his service, he received the following medals, badges, and commendations: National Defense Service Medal; Vietnam Service Medal; Vietnam Campaign Medal; Air Medal; Bronze Star Medal; Combat Medical Badge; and Army Commendation Medal. When he did speak about his personal experiences in the war, it was to acknowledge how the hand of God was upon his life and spared him from bullets as they grazed by the sides of his face and ears while he rendered aid or how he was kept safe as he traversed minefields to get to the wounded. He was always grateful to have made it back with no physical injuries and always made it a point of importance in his life to acknowledge the service of his fellow veterans and the sacrifice of those that did not make it back. Daniel continued serving as an employee of the Veterans Administration Hospital for 35 years until he retired. In 1969, Daniel met Mireya Anna Luisa Martinez at the First Apostolic Church in Tucson while she was visiting her cousin Pastor Gilbert Samano, Sr., and his family. As the friendship and love grew, they decided to marry, and on April 3, 1971, in the presence of their family and friends, they exchanged their vows and were married by Pastor Pablo Rodriguez at the First Apostolic Church of Compton, CA. Daniel and Mireya were blessed with two children, Ann Marie Lofton and Daniel Lofton, Jr. Those close to Daniel knew him for his thoughtful and caring personality. His kindness and unwavering willingness to serve others were demonstrated through his service as an ordained minister in the Apostolic Assembly. During his tenure, he served in many leadership roles in the men's auxiliary at the district, sector, and local levels. In addition, he was assistant pastor both in San Gabriel and Whittier, CA. His ministry was characterized by visiting and praying for the sick and elderly, utilizing the gift and calling the Lord had placed upon him. He had a heart for those in need, and often, he could be found providing a meal and a word of encouragement to brighten someone's day. Other times he would ask his wife, Anna, to pack extra sandwiches or burritos for lunch to share with someone he knew was in need. When one of his co-workers died with no next of kin, he took it upon himself to contact the Veteran's Administration and gather all the necessary paperwork to ensure that he was given a proper burial. This was typical of Daniel. Always compassionate; always generous. As often remembered by his family, when challenges presented themselves, a few of his favorite sayings to bring encouragement were ``Help is on the way!'' ``Trust in Almighty God!'' and ``All things are possible if you only believe.'' How could one not feel better after hearing those words? As a young man growing up on the south side of Tucson, Danny attended Sunnyside High School, where he excelled in varsity track and field and cross country, winning various awards and competitions. His specialty was the 100-yard dash, where he went on to win the city championship. He also played varsity football. Daniel loved sports and enjoyed going to games with his family or watching them on TV with his son. His passion for sports would not be complete if we did not mention how much he enjoyed watching and rooting for the U of A Wildcats. Daniel loved his family. He enjoyed spending time with his mother, Jane, visiting his aunts and uncles, and sharing family time with his sisters, brothers, and cousins. He also enjoyed his visits with his mother-in-law, Maria Luisa, and the extended family gatherings. He especially enjoyed his time with his wife and children. Family dinners, traveling, historical sites, and church events were happily spent together. On January 23, 2023, Daniel entered into his rest surrounded by his wife and son. Until we meet again, dear husband, father, brother, and friend, you will be fondly remembered and deeply missed. Daniel was predeceased by his daughter, Ann Marie Lofton-Arce, as well as his brothers, David and Jesse. He is survived by his wife of 51 years, Mireya Anna Lofton; his son Daniel M. Lofton, Jr.; daughter-in- law, Angelica T. Lofton; and grandson, Zachary Arce. He is also survived by his sister, Lydia; stepsisters, Esther, Sylvia, Lourdes, Dolores, Alice, Rosemary and Emma; and stepbrothers, Michael and Arthur.

Mr. GRIJALVA

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer what I hope will be an amendment that every Member of this body can support. This amendment would simply prevent new planned oil and gas drilling in our national parks or on protected public lands, including national monuments, national recreation areas, or areas of critical environmental concern. The debate yesterday and today has shown the American people that there are deep divisions between our two parties when it comes to America's energy future. We have starkly different priorities for protecting communities and the climate, securing environmental justice, and safeguarding public health. I hope the concerns that we have raised might change some minds across the aisle, though I worry it will not. However, one area in which I believe we can all agree is that we should not allow oil and gas extraction in our national parks, our national wildlife refuges, our national recreation areas, or our conservation lands. Mr. Chair, for those of us who have had the privilege to serve on the House Natural Resources Committee, we hear nearly every day about what parks and public lands mean to the communities in every congressional district across the country. Put simply, Americans love their parks. From the Everglades to the Grand Canyon, Shenandoah to Mesa Verde, these iconic landscapes are some of the most visited and the most loved in the United States. It is our responsibility as elected officials to ensure future generations, our children and our grandchildren, will have the same opportunities we have enjoyed and experienced in these incredible places. My amendment would protect these opportunities, ensuring that any new planned oil and gas extraction would not occur in our parks or our protected public lands. Despite what some may suggest, this amendment is essential, given the repeated extremist efforts we saw under the previous administration to open protected public lands to extraction. This amendment is necessary. I hope that all of my colleagues can join me in protecting our parks and protected public lands from unnecessary oil and gas extraction. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.