Raúl Grijalva

Mr. GRIJALVA

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

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 57.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 21, and I urge all my colleagues to oppose this big giveaway to Big Oil. The bill before us today is yet another effort to open our public lands and waters to major new oil and gas extraction. This is despite the fact that oil companies already control huge amounts of our public lands and waters, most of which they don't even use. Right now, oil and gas companies have about 9,000 approved but unused permits across 26 million acres of public land. Right now, offshore they have 2,000 active leases covering 12 million acres, three-quarters of which aren't being used. This bill asks us to give them even more land--an area three times the size of California, or more than 300 million additional acres. Big Oil has more public land than they can use. They could expand production today if they really wanted to. Instead, they lobby Congress to open up even more lands to extraction, to lower environmental standards, and to give them more taxpayer-funded subsidies. And in the process, they lock out public land and public access from other essential uses that would contribute to the American people and contribute to the mitigation and remediation and the climate action that is required around the issue of climate and the climate crisis. To add insult to injury, this bill would actually make it harder to help everyday Americans. It would prevent the President's ability to keep down gas prices. Last year, President Biden took decisive action, allowing releases from the reserve to lower prices at the pump. Under this bill, if the President needed to act again to keep prices low, he would first have to pay off Big Oil by opening up our public lands. This bill does not protect the American people, and it certainly doesn't protect our climate or environment. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment No. 55 at the desk.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 56.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I believe I have made it very clear that this bill is deeply flawed from the concept to execution. While I really do hesitate to improve a bad bill, I think it is important that we acknowledge one of the bill's starkest omissions. My amendment would simply require that while developing the plan this bill proposes, the relevant Secretaries also develop a plan to consult with Tribal Governments. This is particularly important as the bill could open up an additional 300 million acres of new oil and gas extraction on public lands. If we really intend to give away an area three times the size of California to Big Oil, then we need to understand the impact it will have on communities across the West starting with those who have stewarded these lands since time immemorial. It is essential that the Secretaries fully and meaningfully consult with Tribal Governments to understand the impact this extractive development would have on Tribal communities from damaging air and water to destroying sacred sites. For too long, Tribal Governments have been excluded from Federal decisionmaking processes. We have seen the impact of that omission as homelands are degraded, sacred sites destroyed, and Tribal communities are forced to bear the brunt of pollution. A no more important example is the example of uranium contamination that continues and the cleanup of uranium contamination that continues in around the Grand Canyon and Navajo Nation, and that has affected that community and the Navajo people for generations. It is unacceptable that we would turn a blind eye to these impacts. Tribal Governments need to be at the table from the start helping to shape decisions that impact their communities and their ancestral lands. This amendment would ensure that they do just that while helping to uphold the Federal Government's trust responsibility. This shouldn't be controversial. In fact, this should have been built in from the start. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment that would prevent this oil giveaway from further burdening communities of color, low-income communities, Tribal, and indigenous communities. Over the past several years our late colleague, Representative McEachin and I traveled the country to hear from environmental justice and frontline communities across this Nation about pollution and climate impact. We heard the tales of water not fit to drink, air not fit to breathe, and communities not safe to live in. For too long we have allowed the vulnerable to bear the impacts of development, leaving them to pay the costs that are incurred. We must change that narrative by ensuring that these communities are at the decisionmaking table and that their voices are clearly heard at every level of government. This was a legacy my dear friend and our late colleague dedicated his life to, and that is why I am proud that we will be renaming the Environmental Justice For All Act in his honor in the next several weeks. Unfortunately, the bill in front of us today would take us further than ever from achieving environmental justice and attention to frontline communities. There is no way to open up 300 million acres to new extraction without massively impacting communities of color, low- income communities, and Tribal and indigenous communities. These already-impacted communities would face additional pollution of their air and water, additional impacts on their health and that of their children. My amendment seeks to avoid these unacceptable impacts, preventing the Secretaries from leasing any land that would continue to increase disproportionate burdens on already burdened communities. We must stop putting pollution over people and put an end to the cycles of exploitation that leave the most vulnerable facing avoidable impacts. Mr. Chair, I encourage all of my colleagues to support the environmental justice amendment and to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would ensure that this Big Oil giveaway doesn't prevent America from leading the world in clean energy production. Rather than tethering ourselves to the energies of the past, we need to move forward with the energy of the future. The President knows that; my Democratic colleagues know that; and the American people know that. It is time we all embrace clean energy deployment. Instead, the bill before us today would support Big Oil and only Big Oil, pushing the public off their lands while locking up acres that could be used for wind, solar, and other clean technologies. This bill gives away public lands and waters to oil companies and gas corporations at a time when we should be taking urgent action to address the climate crisis and transition away from fossil fuels. Public lands have huge renewable energy potential. Offshore wind alone could produce more than 2,000 gigawatts, nearly double the Nation's electricity use in 2021. Rather than embrace this opportunity, H.R. 21 would require land managers to open lands to oil and gas but wouldn't consider other potential uses, including renewable energy. My amendment would close this gap, requiring the Secretaries to consider the impacts to renewable deployment before leasing new lands to the fossil fuel industry. The American people want affordable, reliable energy. They aren't interested in seeing Big Oil protect their record profits and increase their profits while boxing out and locking out developing technologies. It is time to stop prioritizing polluters over people and commit to a clean, just energy transition. Our public lands and waters have an important role to play in reducing emissions, protecting the climate, and supporting communities. We need to make sure that they are available for renewable energy production and not locked up with fossil fuel companies. Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, today and tomorrow House Republicans are bringing the Strategic Production Response Act to the floor, a bill that forces the administration to open up even more public lands and waters to drilling any time the President releases oils from the reserve in order to lower consumer gas prices. Now, what House Republicans are doing is effectively ending the President's authority to lower consumer gas prices while handing over our public lands and waters to Big Oil. You might wonder why Republicans are pushing legislation that clearly hurts the American people and consumers. To put it plainly, they are simply crossing another item off the wish list of Big Oil. It is a simple payback to the political campaign donors. This legislation is not needed. It is fabricated. It is based on a lie. Time after time, year after year, the fossil fuel industry lobbies to control and lock up more of our public lands and waters, and it often comes at the expense of surrounding environmental justice communities. I say it is built on a lie. There are 9,000 permits on public land effectively for Big Oil to be able to drill, access, and extract. There are 2,000 that are not being used. There are 2,000 permits on our oceans and waters that at this point 75 percent of those permits are not being used, which already affords them the opportunity to extract. Frontline communities in this country carry a legacy of dumping activities that have endangered both the health and the quality of life of these communities. Sadly, Big Oil has a well-documented and troubled history of concentrating their polluting projects, such as pipelines and refineries, in environmental justice communities, including communities of color, poor communities, Tribal communities, communities without political representation and a systemic discrimination in terms of the burden they carry. All of this is documented. It is documented in higher air pollution rates in those communities, water pollution and contamination, premature death, higher incidence of cancer, and other diseases that affect these communities more than any other. Yet, Republicans, once again, stand ready to do Big Oil's bidding this week. If Republicans actually are interested in helping American families in the communities overburdened by oil industry pollution, they would support the Environmental Justice For All Act. We have been working on the Environmental Justice For All Act for over 3 years. It was developed and shaped directly by EJ communities during an extensive engagement process. This Act has many components, but it's based on a simple principle: All people have the right to clean air, clean water, and healthy local environments. For too many across our Nation, these rights are not yet realized. The provisions in the Environmental Justice For All Act are about credible, equitable access to parks and outdoor activities and opportunities for underserved communities. Federal agencies will be required to meaningfully, under NEPA, engage any communities prior to any decision when proposing actions affecting an EJ community and it strengthens Tribal consultation and input opportunities. The bill strengthens and restores civil rights protections for communities long facing greater environmental hazards on the bases of race, color, or national origin. The bill brings transparency, coordination, and accountability from Federal agencies when they carry out activities affecting frontline communities. I was proud to work with Representative McEachin, who left us far too early, to develop the Environmental Justice For All Act. His legacy on this issue, is his compassion that he brought to it, his strength that he brought to it, they continue to be the legacy and the motivation to secure environmental justice and work for this legislation. I am proud to say that Representative Barbara Lee will now join as co-lead on the Environmental Justice For All Act this session, and now the legislation will be called the Donald McEachin Environmental Justice For All Act. We are talking about basic rights. We are not talking about anything extravagant, anything that is not proven by fact. These communities have been burdened time and time again by industry. The legislation that we will be seeing today and tomorrow brought forth by the Republicans opens the door once again to unchecked, unmonitored and unprotected actions that will negatively continue to affect these communities. The environment, climate, the need for remediation, and the need for involvement by all communities, and the resolution of the issues we face around climate change requires that the environmental justice community long left off the discussion, long-ignored in the history of this Nation, in the siting of projects and activities that have hurt those communities and those families, needs to be at the table. If my Republican colleagues indeed want to reward Big Oil for their support that they have given them, it is time that they include all communities.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, since Speaker McCarthy won't tell us what he had to give extremist Republicans in his caucus in a backroom deal for power, we can only assume that they agreed to tank the economy and destroy millions of jobs unless Congress slashes Social Security. Raising the debt ceiling is a routine matter of business that has been passed cleanly by Republican Presidents, including Trump, and Democratic Presidents alike. If Republican lawmakers default, the shock will plunge the world into a recession and a financial crisis. Let's not forget that 65 million Americans are on Social Security. This debate is clear. Speaker McCarthy made a deal with the devil in exchange for the power to hold our economy hostage and push through extremist Republican proposals, such as Senator Rick Scott's plan to sunset Social Security. We can't allow it to happen. Tell us what to aim to cut and save Social Security.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time. As Ranking Member Nadler from the Judiciary Committee said, H. Res. 12 is a dangerous government attempt to interject extremist politics into our justice system and shield MAGA extremists from legal consequences for their actions, including January 6 and the follow-up and investigations that are ongoing now. He is right about that Republican strategy. H. Res. 12 is both political cover and a political weapon. Like any legislation, H. Res. 12 is driven by the motivation of its sponsors, the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. For example, legislative action on climate change is motivated by urgency and our collective health and life, but H. Res. 12 is intended to intimidate, scare, and ultimately cower our public institutions into standing down as our descent into division and fascism continues. Power for the sake of power is truly dangerous. H. Res. 12 is just that. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the following exchange of letters regarding H.R. 2415 and H.R 2641. House of Representatives, Committee on energy and commerce, Washington, DC, December 13, 2022. Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Grijalva: I write concerning H.R. 2415, the ``Orphaned Well Cleanup and Jobs Act of 2021.'' This legislation would amend section 349 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to eliminate existing subsection (g) which authorized a technical and financial assistant program at the Department of Energy to help States remedy environmental problems caused by orphaned or abandoned oil and gas wells on State or private land which is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. In an effort to expedite the filing of the Natural Resources bill report for legislative history purposes, I agree to not seek a sequential referral at this time. The Committee takes this action with our mutual understanding that by forgoing a sequential referral request of H.R. 2415 at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or similar legislation. Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming this understanding and ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record to memorialize our understanding. Sincerely, Frank Pallone, Jr., Chairman.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1519, I call up the bill (H.R. 8393) to enable the people of Puerto Rico to choose a permanent, nonterritorial, fully self-governing political status for Puerto Rico and to provide for a transition to and the implementation of that permanent, nonterritorial, fully self-governing political status, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 8393.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 8393, legislation I was proud to introduce along with my colleagues, Representatives Nydia Velazquez and Darren Soto, Resident Commissioner Jenniffer Gonzalez- Colon, and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, to resolve Puerto Rico's territorial status. This bill being on the floor today was far from assured. There were many times over the past several weeks when it appeared there wasn't any hope of ever bringing this bill to the floor. In fact, my colleagues and I were negotiating final changes as recently as 24 hours ago. But with the prodding of Leader Hoyer, we persevered. In spite of opposition to the historic nature of what we are about to accomplish, we persevered. I commend and congratulate my colleagues who put aside their philosophical differences and worked to arrive at a compromise that we can all support. Last year, the Natural Resources Committee held two legislative hearings where Puerto Rican-elected government officials, legal and human rights experts, and residents offered testimony and feedback to the committee on the details of those bills. Those bills that we were discussing were two bills, one dealing primarily with statehood status and the other one seeking a self- determination path. Those two bills were diametrically opposed, and until the negotiations began, little progress was seen moving the question of status forward. The Puerto Rico Status Act combines important elements of these two bills to present a compromise that also incorporates input from the full range of voices among Puerto Rico's status debate and that would be supported by a majority of Members of Congress. That is the bill that we bring forward today. We had in-person public hearings, including with over 100 individuals who shared comments and suggestions on the text with the delegation at our public forum in Puerto Rico. In addition to these in-person opportunities for public input, we also published the draft text on POPVOX, an online submission tool that members of the public used to share more than 100 comments, all of which were reviewed and considered while developing the final language. The Puerto Rico Status Act is, therefore, the product of a participatory and informed process. It incorporates expertise and knowledge from a wide range of stakeholders who have grappled with the dilemma of Puerto Rico's second-class political status for many years. Finding a resolution to Puerto Rico's political status has been elusive and difficult, and it has been that way for a long time. Recent efforts to resolve the issue began in 1991 with competing bills introduced in the House and Senate, followed by legislation sponsored by our former colleague Don Young in 1998, and finally the Puerto Rico Democracy Act in 2010, sponsored by then-Puerto Rico Resident Commissioner and current Governor Pierluisi. While each of those previous bills passed the House, as we hope our bill will today, as well, they ultimately failed because they did not possess the necessary elements to end the colonial status of the island through a fair and informed process. In becoming chair of the Natural Resources Committee, I made the issue of resolving Puerto Rico's political status a priority. It is crucial to me that any proposal from Congress to decolonize Puerto Rico be informed and led by Puerto Ricans. As a non-Puerto Rican, I cannot claim the experience of Puerto Ricans who have fought for equality and autonomy for their island for so many years. However, as someone of Mexican descent and indigenous ancestry, I feel a sense of solidarity with the people of Puerto Rico in that enduring struggle. We continue to strive for equality and preserve our traditions, as we all do that, and that struggle is a shared experience among marginalized and disenfranchised people in this country and in Puerto Rico. I am proud to be discussing a piece of legislation, a proposal, today that assists the people of Puerto Rico to directly be involved in determining their political future. In recent years, we have seen all too painfully that the current colonial territory status is no longer viable and is incapable of providing either adequate political or economic benefits to the people of Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico's current status is what impedes its economic development. PROMESA and its financial oversight and management board, the shortcomings of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, or PREPA, and the inadequate Federal response under the previous administration to disasters like Hurricane Maria and the COVID-19 pandemic, these are all products of the current territorial status. Recent Supreme Court rulings have only further clarified that, as a territory, Puerto Rico lacks the same constitutional protections and rights as in the 50 States. This bill would finally stop offering the problem as a continued solution and would let the people of Puerto Rico choose a nonterritory, noncolonial status for themselves. I am extremely grateful to all the political and community leaders, residents, and staff who worked to produce this compromise and contributed to this bill. I thank House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer; the Governor of Puerto Rico, Pedro Pierluisi; Representatives Velazquez, Soto, and Ocasio- Cortez; and Resident Commissioner Gonzalez-Colon for their leadership and dedication throughout a difficult but very necessary process. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, the only point of darkness that I can see is the greatest democracy on Earth, the United States of America, and what this bill does is provides some light and consistency to that great democracy by saying you must rid yourself of this colonial legacy. Our great Nation should not be a colonial holder of other countries and other futures. This is an opportunity to break from that and to encourage democracy. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). As I indicated earlier, my thanks go to her for her work, as well.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto), someone who, with other colleagues, worked through this difficult process and produced the consensus today.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Ocasio-Cortez), one of the principals that worked on this consensus.