Raúl Grijalva

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to commend the sponsor of this bill, the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), for bringing forward this most important measure. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo). (Ms. BORDALLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, we have no objection to the favorable consideration of this measure. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I urge the favorable consideration of this measure. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega). (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, we have no objection to the consideration of this measure. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, we have no objection to the consideration of this measure. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend first the sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca), for bringing forth this very important measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the consideration of this measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the consideration of this measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the consideration of this measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the consideration of this measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the cosponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) for bringing forth this very important measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the native people of my district and of Arizona to commemorate the opening of the American Indian Museum today in Washington, D.C. This is an historic moment when, at long last, the indigenous people of this continent have a place to call their own on our National Mall and in our national consciousness. The museum is not a place that will display relics of the past but a living monument to the multitudes of cultures, arts, and languages that exist in the Americas. This museum will be a living legacy to those who have come before and a gift to those who will be born in the future. This morning I had the honor of seeing the procession of Native American people on our National Mall. Thousands of people from every corner of the continent filled the Mall. They came to make a ceremonial and symbolic journey representing the millions of native people who live and thrive on this continent. So let us honor our first Americans and let us remember this day as a day where we continue to working and looking forward to extending the support and the respect that the first Americans deserve.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of all the tribal people of my district and of Arizona to commemorate the opening of the American Indian Museum today in Washington, DC. This is an historic moment when at long last the indigenous peoples of this continent have a place to call their own on our National Mall and in our national consciousness. The museum is not a place that will display relics of the past, but a living monument to the multitudes of cultures, arts, and languages that exist in the Americas. This museum will be a ``living legacy'' to those who have come before, and a gift to those who will be born in the future. This morning I had the honor of seeing the procession of Native American people on the National Mall. Tens of thousands of people from every corner of this continent filled the Mall. They have come to make a ceremonial and symbolic journey, representing the millions of native people who live and thrive in the Americas. But, while we honor this monument to our native peoples today we must not forget the ongoing struggle these communities face to retain their dignity in face of poverty, unemployment, lack of access to adequate healthcare, among other issues. For example, the infant mortality rate is 150 percent greater for Indians than that of White infants. Indians have the highest prevalence of Type-2 diabetes in the world, and are 2.6 times more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes. Indians have a life expectancy 5 years less than the rest of the U.S. population. The United States has a longstanding trust responsibility to provide health care services to American Indian and Alaska Natives. As a society, we can and we must take action to address the disparity and distress many of these communities face. So on this occasion, I ask my fellow Members of Congress to join me in honoring the opening of the American Indian Museum, and I also ask you to join me in seeking to address some of the difficulties facing our native population in order to truly honor the first Americans.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, on September 7th and 8th, 2004, I was delayed in returning from my district due to official business and I missed rollcall vote Nos. 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427. If I had been here I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote No. 422, to name the Harvey and Bernice Jones Post Office Building, and rollcall vote No. 423 to name the General William Carey Lee Post Office Building. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 424, the Previous Question regarding the Rule for the Labor Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2005. I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote No. 425, Ms. Jackson- Lee's amendment to increase funding in the CDC and NIH for Lupus. I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote No. 426, Ms. Jackson-Lee's amendment to increase funding in the CDC for Hepatitis C. I would have voted in favor of rollcall vote No. 427, Mr. Sander's amendment to increase funding for the low-income home energy assistance program and the weatherization assistance program by $22,000,000.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the drastic and shortsighted measure to strip courts of their authority to review the Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. This is a very clear and easy vote for me, but in no way does that make it insignificant. To the contrary, this is the most important civil rights vote of the year. Congress has not passed a federal court stripping measure since 1868, though it has been attempted on nearly every hot button issue in the past 50 years (prompted by Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade, Loving v. Virginia, and others), always with the premise of the need to ``limit activist judges.'' Republicans are trying to undermine the legitimacy of these justices because they are not elected. The founders deliberately created an unelected body that would not have to make the political calculations that the President and Members of Congress need to consider in our controversial decisions. Justices are, by design, removed from the political or electoral process to serve lifetime appointments where they can make independent decisions. Naturally, these decisions often come before the public is quite ready for them. Such was the case with the prohibition of interracial marriage. In 1967, the Supreme Court stated that such a prohibition would ``deprive . . . liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.'' We now look back on the prohibition of interracial marriage as abhorrent and appreciate the court's decision in Loving v. Virginia in helping us reach this realization. This bill is not about marriage, as the title claims. This bill is about denying a day in court for an entire class of Americans. This is a question of fairness, equality, and social justice. We cannot, in the interest of fairness to all, exclude selected groups of Americans from enjoying equal protection under the law. Furthermore, court stripping is blatantly unconstitutional. It violates the separation of powers, due process, and equal protection clauses in our Constitution. If you think this is an easy vote because it will never pass constitutional muster to become law, I remind you of the oath we all took the day we were sworn into office. Every single one of us has sworn to ``protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.'' A vote in favor of this bill is an attack on the very document that we have sworn to defend. This body is not at liberty to pick and choose which of the laws we pass should be subject to judicial review. The founders created three equal branches of government, a true system of checks and balances that has served us well for over 200 years. The power of one should not outweigh the other or the system will be fundamentally undermined. I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure to condone discrimination, undermine the Constitution, and disrupt the democratic process.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I wish to state for the record my vehement opposition to this amendment. This amendment purports to deny funds to any state that permits undocumented immigrants to obtain driver's licenses or other ``comparable'' identification documents and to deny funds to any state or local government that has passed a policy that limits disclosure of immigration status to federal authorities. Withholding funds from local governments and from our frontline first responders in local level would undermine their effectiveness in a critical mission. Local law enforcement authorities across the country have made it clear that if the federal government abrogates their responsibility and forces them to take on what is a federal obligation with regard to immigration enforcement, this will be an unfunded mandate, depleting critical resources of time and funding. The effectiveness of local law enforcement, and our safety, depends on their being able to count on cooperation from their neighbors, regardless of their immigration status. When local authorities are perceived as immigration enforcers, immigrant communities, who may have critical information with regard to homeland security, will be very reluctant to cooperate or even speak with law enforcement. Due to unfunded mandates and a neglect of real security needs at the local level, municipal governments and local police are already strained, and this amendment would increase that strain. This would undermine homeland security, and the safety of immigrants themselves. In particular, victims of domestic violence would have to decide whether they are willing to risk deportation before seeking help from authorities. This amendment would undermine security for all who reside in this country, and the safety of immigrants in particular. Immigrants who are victims of domestic violence would have to decide whether they are willing to risk deportation before seeking help and reporting abuse to authorities. The provision withholding federal funds from states that permit undocumented immigrants to obtain driver's licenses or other ``comparable'' identification documents is similarly nonsensical and counterintuitive. I would think that those who rail against the presence of the undocumented in this country would welcome the opportunity to increase safety by allowing those who are undocumented to be identified by authorities. Allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain forms of identification would make the job of law enforcement easier, and allow immigrants access to necessary basic services such as opening a bank account. All other things being equal, it would be better to have more of the people who are in this country identified and to have as many drivers as possible obtain a proper license. Both of these conditions would contribute to increased public safety. This amendment is an attempt to blackmail local governments into following an agenda that would endanger their safety, by threatening to take away critical resources. The States that would suffer the most from passage of this amendment include my own state of Arizona as well as Alaska, California, Colorado, Washington, DC, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. I find it outrageous that a member of this body would suggest withholding critical funds, from programs such as the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, Byrne grants, and many others, just to impose an extreme personal view about what local governments should be doing. This is not the time for zealots to push unfunded mandates through bills providing for the security of us all.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2507, the bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Child Nutrition and WIC Programs. In this hot political climate, I am pleased to see that members crossed the aisle to compromise in the interests of hungry children. There are a number of provisions in this bill which will improve the program through increased access and innovative programs. Migrant and seasonal farm working families, the families that put food on our tables, face unique challenges in accessing this program. The average farm worker earns just $7,500 a year--leaving most of their families well below poverty level. The hardships that the children in these families face are only amplified by their migratory lifestyle. Their parents, who are poor, uneducated, and often with limited literacy in their native language, face many barriers helping their children apply for services every time they move. S. 2507 would make homeless, runaway and migrant children automatically eligible for free lunch and breakfast. It will extend automatic eligibility to children who qualify for migrant educational services under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It will be easier for parents to apply for free or reduced price meals by requiring only one application for the household and making that application valid for the full school year. Additionally, children in Food Stamp and TANF households will be directly certified to participate in the program. Common sense and scientific knowledge tells us that eating breakfast improves school performance. Yet a number of barriers keep schools from offering this service, ranging from cost, stigma, and transportation. This bill would encourage more schools to serve breakfast by studying the logistical impediments that make it difficult, and finding ways to reduce those impediments. Children who are hungry during the school day suffer even more during the summer when the appropriate resources are not available. S. 2507 authorizes a new pilot project to examine ways to reduce transportation barriers and increase access to summer feeding programs in rural areas. Childhood obesity has become a national epidemic. Nearly a quarter of Hispanic children are overweight, and at high risk for Type II Diabetes. This program is in the position to significantly impact this national health crisis. In addition to requiring schools to create a wellness policy, this bill would authorize grants for outreach and education on obesity prevention activities to communities with high Limited English Proficiency populations. This bill would expand the Fruit and Vegetable Pilot program, allowing it to target high poverty areas. Additionally, it authorizes an evaluation of the impact of fruits and vegetables on childhood obesity through pilot programs in WIC. I stand today in support of this reauthorization bill because it offers real solutions to families and children who are most in need of our help. S. 2507 is a comprehensive piece of legislation that increases access, simplifies the application process, offers outreach, creates innovative pilot programs for targeted communities, and promotes the health and well being of all children served in the program. I encourage my colleagues to support this important bipartisan reauthorization.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, we are standing here today to consider pieces of legislation that the House passed overwhelmingly just a year ago. These were not controversial bills at the time they were first considered and they are not controversial now. It seems clear to me that the House Republican Leadership would like to distract the American public from the real issues that need to be addressed. Instead of being down on the floor to discuss legislation that we all agree on and already passed, members of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce should be spending time working on the legislation that would offer real solutions to students struggling to pay for a college education. Tuition is rapidly rising in nearly every state. The buying power of Pell grant has dropped significantly in the last 30 years. Students are graduating from college with enough debt that they could buy a car or even a house, which significantly hinders their ability to contribute to economic growth. Students are increasingly turning to a part time education just so they can support themselves while in college. These are clearly dire times when it comes to college affordability, but instead of spending our time crafting legislation that would offer real solutions to students, we are rehashing legislation that we already passed to fulfill the political needs of the House Republican Leadership. The Higher Education Bills that we are considering today are bills that I supported in the past and will support again in today, but today's debate is merely a distraction from the real problems that students face in paying for college.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Enrique, Jesus and Julio Zapata, and in particular, their honorable service in the Vietnam War. I am proud to say these three brothers, who gave so much to our country, were born and raised in my district in the city of Nogales, Arizona. During the Vietnam era, Enrique, Jesus and Julio made the courageous decision to enlist in the United States military. Jesus Zapata served his tour of duty in Vietnam from June 4, 1965, to July 4, 1966. Enrique Zapata served two 6-month tours of duty in Vietnam with the United States Navy, enlisting July 20, 1964. Julio Zapata served in Vietnam from April 30, 1967, to April 30, 1968. Our country owes a debt of gratitude to these fine citizens and the countless Vietnam veterans who have not been accorded the full respect and appreciation they deserve from our country. As I speak today, they sit in the gallery of the House of Representatives. I hope those of my colleagues who meet them will thank them and extend their appreciation from all of us for the service they gave this country. On Cinco de Mayo, when we celebrate and acknowledge our diversity, let us also acknowledge the shared sacrifice that all Americans have made for this country.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, the passage of H.R. 1779 is a welcome first step in addressing the serious problems facing our National Guard and Reserve today. But as we once again mobilize more troops and send them off to fight, and possibly die, in an increasingly hostile environment, we must ask ourselves why legislation such as H.R. 1779 has become a necessary stopgap measure. The very fact that Guard and Reserve members feel compelled to withdraw funds from their IRA's in order to pay the bills at home is unacceptable. Yet, this is precisely the problem: Current compensation and benefits programs for the National Guard and Reserve were developed more than 50 years ago, when it was expected that they would be mobilized only in the most dire national emergency. Over the past dozen years, the Guard and Reserve contract has changed dramatically, with more than 40 percent of members being called to duty and in some cases, being repeatedly deployed without fulfilling the requisite off-duty time period. H.R. 1799 is a band-aid measure temporarily mending a broken system. Congress must and can upgrade Guard and Reserve compensation and benefits to better offset the demands and sacrifices imposed on the Guard and Reserve community. It is a great injustice that those who selflessly and voluntarily serve our country are not repaid in kind. By this I mean that Guard and Reserve members are ineligible for military health coverage, except while on active duty or after age 60. Although covered by TRICARE when mobilized, many Guard and Reservists and their families are faced with changing doctors and dropping private coverage. We must provide adequate and comprehensive health care coverage for the Guard and Reserve community. It is my hope that this year's Defense Authorization Act will include permanent authority for a fee-based TRICARE coverage for all drilling Guard and Reserve members, and offer all such members the option to have the government pay part or all of their employer coverage premium during extended activations. Loan forgiveness and increased education infrastructure funding for Guard and Reservists and their families should also be a top priority during this year's budget deliberations. Earlier this year, I received a letter from one of my constituents and his wife who are both Guard Members. Both were more than willing to serve their first tour of duty in Iraq, knowing full well that this would delay by a semester their graduate course studies. Six months later, both were facing yet another extension of active duty. Along with delaying their studies and future career path, they are now also incurring interest on a loan which is not being utilized. Congress must improve educational opportunities and benefits for Guard and Reservists by providing deferments and interest payments for borrowers of student loans who are called to active duty. Health care, timely compensation, and education funding are only a few of the many things we should and CAN provide to our Guard and Reserve members. Extending the military pay raise, providing meaningful tax relief for military families, and improving overall quality of life entitlement programs is the very least we can do for the families and servicemembers who have endured extraordinary--and in some cases-- supreme sacrifices for our country. The mistreatment of our Guard and Reservists and its repercussions on them and their families' morale and well-being must stop. Is it too much to ask that our government provide basic necessary services such as comprehensive health coverage and timely compensation to our Guard and Reserve members? I urge my colleagues to include funding for these measures in this year's Defense Authorization Act and to push for passage of the many proposals addressing these issues which are currently stalled in Committee.