Western Water and American Food Security Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRIJALVA. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me the time and for the good work he has done on the water issues in our committee and for the rational thought he brings to the discussion.
Mr. Chairman, the Endangered Species Act is not causing the California drought, period. It is wrong to mislead the people living through the drought by telling them that the answer is to abolish environmental laws. It isn't.
But here come the House Republicans again with another unfounded attack on endangered species that will go extinct without ESA protection.
Here they come again, claiming ``power grab'' and ``overreach'' every time that they don't get their way.
Here they come again, using a serious water challenge as an excuse to chip away at a law they don't support, even if it is unrelated to the problem at hand.
Millions of Californians need Congress to take this drought seriously. But my friends across the aisle have decided their opposition to the Endangered Species Act is more important, and the drought in California is a convenient excuse to dismantle ESA.
We recently finished debating the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill that now includes language that would jeopardize the survival of the African elephant, greater sage-grouse, gray wolf, northern long-eared bat, Sonoran desert tortoise, and many other endangered species.
H.R. 2898 will add the delta smelt and several salmon and steelhead runs to the list of species that the House Republicans have decided we can do without.
I guess we shouldn't be surprised. After all, the sponsor of this legislation said last month on live television that he would ``hopefully someday repeal
[Page: H5247]
the Endangered Species Act.'' That kind of rhetoric is not constructive, but is a useful glimpse into the real Republican agenda.
[Time: 09:45]
By showing what this bill is actually about, these comments tell us Republicans know that this is a distraction from the real problem. California faces a crippling drought and global warming that will continue to make the State drier and hotter, and the demand for water far outstrips supply.
Californians will have to make some tough choices in this drought, but they do not need to choose to exterminate fish and wildlife resources that belong to the American people. Congress should not choose to do so either.
People and wildlife can coexist, and the ESA is proving it. Since 1973, 99 percent of protected species have survived, and the U.S. economy has tripled from just over 5 trillion to more than 16 trillion. Restoring delta smelt, salmon, and steelheads will have additional economic benefit for commercial and recreational fishermen.
If that isn't enough, Americans are telling us that we have to protect species. Recent polling shows 90 percent of voters support ESA.
Sadly, this bill is just another example of House Republicans ignoring the will of the American people and driving the extinction of American fish and wildlife one species at a time.
I ask for a ``no'' vote on H.R. 2898.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, before I speak to my amendment, I want to acknowledge the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) for her input on this amendment and for her long advocacy for water reuse, recycling, and conservation, and for emphasizing that we need a near-term water-creation strategy, along with a long-term sustainable strategy. H.R. 2898 is not that long-term sustainable strategy.
Californians and others across the west need drought relief now. The proponents of this legislation know that it will not provide that immediate relief. They also know their bill will never become law.
So why are we here today, wasting everybody's time? It is simply because House Republicans are not going to miss an opportunity to attack the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
The allegation that environmental laws have restricted dam construction is patently false. In fact, it was President Reagan who first sought to help curb the deficit by turning off the tap of easy Federal money that had funded multi-billion-dollar boondoggles and pork barrel dam projects.
Building new dams takes forever because it doesn't make economic sense without heavy government subsidies. Instead of flushing taxpayers' dollars, we should be investing in projects that recycle wastewater, create reuse, and provide immediate water supplies.
Eight-seven percent of California's wastewater, hundreds of billions of gallons of water that could supply the needs of agriculture and people, is lost to the Pacific Ocean each year because we do not have enough water recycling projects in place. This is literally an ocean of missed opportunity.
[Time: 11:30]
Mr. Chairman, my amendment creates new water for the people of California. If Republicans were serious about solving this drought problem, they would have written a bill that creates new water. Sadly, they have not. Instead, they have written a bill that uses a very real crisis to attack the ESA and NEPA.
This bill insults people who are suffering through this historic drought, and it is just the latest example of House Republicans blocking public participation in government and driving the extinction of American fish and wildlife one species at a time.
I agree with my colleagues; this is a manmade drought. It is manmade because we are not conserving and recycling water that we have and because we are wasting time on this bill instead of planning to increase water supplies in the short term and in long-term sustainable strategies.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Los Angeles Times had an article entitled, ``Editorial: GOP Water Bill in Congress Should Be Rejected.'' It compared the two pieces of legislation, Jared Huffman's H.R. 2983 and the bill that is on the floor today, H.R. 2898. The conclusion was that we needed a commonsense, comprehensive approach.
The article says, ``the Huffman bill is starkly different and frankly much smarter, focusing on updating Federal water policies and practices that today are firmly rooted in outdated, mid-20th century knowledge and technology.''
It is a comprehensive approach that my side of the aisle seeks, and this legislation before us today does nothing.
Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to another important aspect of the legislation, which is the issue of relief. Providing a near-term relief, I think, is essential--that is not to stall a long-term solution, but to provide the relief that everybody has talked about that California and the Central Valley needs.
The Central Valley has been described as the ``Salad Bowl'' of America. The delicious crops that are grown there are consumed by Americans at a low cost. There is an occasional reference to the people that day in and day out labor to pick those crops and put them on the tables of the American people--the farmworkers.
Referencing their dire economic and living conditions that they find themselves in right now, the conclusion is that we need to proceed to pass H.R. 2898 to help these farmworkers and their families. I agree; farmworkers and their families must be a priority for relief. H.R. 2898 doesn't provide any relief to farmworkers and their families.
Mr. Chairman, farmworkers need an investment. They need an investment in education; they need an investment in housing; they need an investment in livable incomes, and they need to work on the concentrated poverty that we find. Those areas of farmworker communities had one of the highest poverty rates in California before the drought; they are at a high poverty rate now with the drought; and if we want to change the course of history, we need to deal with that issue. We need to continue to restrict pesticide use that harms humans, and we need to have working conditions and opportunity available to farmworkers.
Farmworkers don't need crocodile tears. They need relief; they need attention, and they need investment. They need a relief that is near term and not one dominated by technology and outmoded strategies that will not bring that relief to them. We should be about creating opportunity, creating
[Page: H5279]
immediate relief, and helping those families not only in the near term, but in the long term.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source