Raúl Grijalva

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Interestingly enough, H.R. 687 does mandate that the Federal Government decide when and how NEPA is applied, that the Federal Government mandate what the valuation of the exchange is--independent of a process driven by the company--and it mandates that we deal with water issues after the fact, who gets water protection and who doesn't. Whether it is 10 jobs or 1,000 jobs, all my bill does is hold the company's feet to the fire. You have talked about jobs; you have talked about providing them, saving that community, and rebounding the Arizona economy. Here's an opportunity by guaranteeing that that claim will indeed be a reality if this bill is implemented. I think my amendment actually improves it because it takes some of the rhetoric of promoting the mine and makes it language and legislation that makes the company back it up. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. At this point, I don't have any further speakers.

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me summarize three important points from this debate. H.R. 687 reflects all five of the previous variations of this legislation. You are doing a post-NEPA with no enforcement. You are turning the regulatory process and the oversight process to the State of Arizona, which has weak mining laws and which is also not in a position to meet the requirements that have to be part of this prior to any land exchange: that would be hydrology; that would be sacred-site consultation; that would be a NEPA review as to water issues that could occur and subsurface damage. To the area around Apache Leap and Oak Flat, those become important issues. The sanctions issue is important to resolve against Iran--that we are not in violation by creating a partnership in an exchange with a foreign corporation that is doing business with Iran. I think the most important issue is the taxpayer issue. We here in this Congress--certainly many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and on this side of the aisle as well--talk so much about the taxpayer; talk so much about budget cuts and how to relieve the taxpayer; talk so much about deficits and how we need to reduce those deficits to the benefit of the taxpayer. We have no jobs bill, but we talk about helping the taxpayer. Then here we have before us our trading away of Federal land in an exchange, not knowing what the real value is, because that's proprietary, not knowing what the real production is going to be by the company because that's proprietary, not requiring the same regulatory NEPA process required of any other land exchange because this is a special deal. At the end of the day, as to exported copper that is processed outside the United States--one, no gain to the taxpayer; no royalty requirement--lost to the taxpayer; no real understanding of the full value of what's underneath that ground and what protections and mitigations would have to be put in place in order to make sure that those areas are taken care of--not a problem; violation of the government-to-government consultation on sacred sites and cultural sites--we ignore that, too. I think this is a rush to judgment, and it has been 10 years of a rush to judgment. If the company 10 years ago would have agreed to do a post-NEPA, we would have had all the information this Congress needed in order to make an informed, due diligence decision. If 10 years ago they would have sat down with the tribes and honestly and forthrightly and equally done a government-to-government consultation, we could have been on our way. If 10 years ago they would have made the guarantees about a fair return to the taxpayer--how much ore is going to be domestically marketed and remain in the United States and how much is going to be processed--we could have been on our way. That was 10 years ago. This is the same piece of legislation, the same insistence on the company. I think it is a bad deal for the taxpayers, and it is a bad deal for the State of Arizona. We would be the poster child for one of the worst expedited, sweetheart deals at the expense of the American taxpayer and at the expense of the people of Arizona, of the tribes of Arizona, and of the revenue that that County of Pinal enjoys. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, with this, I will close. At some point, we as Members of this august body have to really define what ``bipartisanship'' is. The last time that this bill was before us and passed the House, seven Members from this side of the aisle--Democrats--voted for it, and eight Members on the other side of the aisle voted against it. I mention that because this bill is about precedence. It is about the kind of precedence that we are going to set as Members of this body-- ignoring our due diligence, ignoring the fact that we have before us a piece of legislation that has failed to get out of the Senate and, more importantly, that on two occasions the administration has strongly indicated it does not support it. So we will go on with this exercise of futility at the expense of real business that this Congress should be doing for the American people. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my colleague from Utah, it should be noted that 1/14th of 1 percent is the impact copper has on the Arizona economy. It used to be 4 percent about 10 or 15 years ago. Conversely, $421 million annually is spent in Pinal County and the surrounding area around Oak Flat and Apache Leap in terms of ecotourism and visitorship revenue. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, repeatedly we have heard this bill is about jobs. We've heard it a lot, and we continue to hear it. We have to pass this bill, so goes the refrain, because it's about jobs in a part of Arizona that really needs jobs. I understand how important it is to help rural parts of the State. I understand how important it is to help rural communities across the country. I talk about this all the time--trying to work to advance a policy agenda that translates into real, meaningful opportunities for all Americans and for those sectors of our State, as was previously pointed out by my colleague, Congresswoman Kirkpatrick, in which unemployment is very, very severe. That's why I think it's important to make sure this bill translates into real and meaningful jobs for the communities that will bear the biggest burden of the proposed mine. My amendment would require that the Remote Operations Center for the mine be located in the town of Superior, Arizona, or adjacent to another mining community within the Copper Triangle. Modern blockade mines use a range of automation technology, and most of the human labor is done off site at the Remote Operations Center. Like other mines operated by Rio Tinto, which is Resolution Copper's parent company, the Remote Operations Center will likely be in a metro area. Rio Tinto is presently operating its Pilbara, Australia, mine from 800 miles away in a large metro center. Our amendment will ensure that this is not the case in Superior. If this legislation is really about jobs and lifting up the local economy, it is important to guarantee that local residents will have access to the jobs that were promised and the jobs that were created. My amendment guarantees that the jobs this mine does create will benefit the local community. This amendment, at the very minimum, will realize some real jobs if this legislation is to ever be implemented. When one reads and hears Rio Tinto brag about automation and technology and the progress in mining, where less labor is needed, and when one listens to the wild variations about jobs from 3,700 to 5,000 to 1,200 to 1,400--and the recent one from the company's own Web site is 1,400--one asks: What is the real number? Since no mining plan of operation has been submitted, it's impossible to analyze or estimate. So how do we know? There is nothing in H.R. 687 that guarantees jobs for Superior, Arizona, or any other nearby mining community. With my amendment, we can at least make sure the remote operating center isn't in Utah, where Resolution Copper is headquartered, or some other far-flung place. As part of this legislation, my amendment would require that that center be located in Superior and that the opportunities promised and the jobs created would go into that area. I urge adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the Resources Committee.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I think the great Senator Moynihan once said that ``people are entitled to their own opinions, but they're not entitled to their own facts.'' Allowing the immediate exploration on and under Oak Flat prior to NEPA review contemplated in section 4(j) of the act will constitute an irretrievable commitment of resources. That is part of what has already been the legislation. What's also in the legislation is section 4(c) of H.R. 687 that requires consultation only after enactment of the act, making any consultation with Native communities a mere formality. Secretary Vilsack said it in prior written comments: It is important that this bill engage in a process of formal tribal consultation to ensure both tribal participation and the protection of the sacred sites. This is his principal concern with regard to H.R. 687, and that's why it did not receive the support of the Department. I mention those things because they're part of the legislation. This legislation was written for the convenience of the company and to facilitate a trade that at the end of the day doesn't offer not only any benefit but circumvents any protections we have to deal with intended and unintended consequences. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman Kildee, for his comments.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, during Hispanic Heritage Month, I would like to take the time to honor Hispanic-Serving Institutions across this country. These educational institutions--like in my home State where there are 10 of them--are institutions of higher learning, with enrollment of at least 25 percent of undergraduates being full-time Latino students. At a time when the population of the Latino community continues to grow, it is essential that we invest in education and that we support institutions that promote that education and provide for these students the opportunity and the access for them to go on and be great contributing members to our country. President Obama proclaimed the week of September 15-21 as Hispanic- Serving Institutions Week. It is with this sentiment in mind that I would like to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the wonderful job these institutions do by supporting the Preservation Research at Institutions Serving Minorities Act. This act would effectively amend the National Historic Preservation Act to guarantee Hispanic-Serving Institutions get equal access to technical or financial assistance to promote professionalism and the preservation of our natural resources, historic buildings, and artifacts throughout this country. With that, let me again say thank you to the Hispanic-Serving Institutions.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We're back again. This is the second time with a different piece of legislation. And, quite honestly, H.R. 1410 is nothing more than special interest legislation designed to protect the Phoenix market from a few wealthy tribal gaming enterprises. The legislation not only upsets settled law, but potentially subjects the United States to new liabilities for breach of trust, breach of contract, and taking claims valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars, but it also creates a dangerous precedent for hundreds of tribal-State compacts and land and water rights settlements that are found nationwide. Let's talk about those promises. The Gila Bend Act, approved and enacted by this Congress 25 years ago, entitled the Tohono O'odham Nation to acquire nonreservation land anywhere within three Arizona counties in order to replace original reservation land rendered economically useless by the Painted Rock Dam, the San Lucy District in particular, which that community was totally destroyed. The settlement specifically promised that the nation could acquire new replacement land that could be used by the nation for economic development and as a ``Federal reservation for all purposes.'' H.R. 1410 would impose additional restrictions beyond those agreed upon by the United States and the Tohono O'odham Nation 25 years ago, breaking the solemn promise made between two sovereign nations. This would mark the first and only time in the modern era in which the United States unilaterally reneges on a tribal land and water rights settlement. Last time around, the special interests behind this legislation tried to amend the actual settlement language from 1986. They soon discovered that that would open up a Pandora's box, potentially rendering more than a century's worth of binding, legal agreements with Native American tribes and nations moot. This time, they thought they would be clever and instead attack the actual State compact, but this legislation sets equally dangerous precedent. In the 2003 compact, the State explicitly agreed that the nation could conduct gaming on any of the nation's lands that meet the requirements of IGRA. Proposition 202, the voter-sanctioned State law which gave the Governor the authority to enter into the very tribal gaming compact now in force, includes the exact same language allowing the Tohono O'odham Nation to conduct gaming on lands that meet the requirements of IGRA. H.R. 1410 breaks this contractual promise that Arizona made to the Tohono O'odham Nation. It would also be the first and only time that the United States unilaterally inserts new terms into a tribal-State gaming compact. Let me restate that. With H.R. 1410, the Federal Government will be stepping in and unilaterally altering a voter- approved, legislature-approved, tribal-approved, and Governor-approved binding tribal-State compact. How's that for a dangerous precedent? This legislation would put all tribal gaming compacts at risk of collateral attack by Members of Congress. Now the special interests are bringing H.R. 1410 up this time because they have lost yet another court case. Since its predecessor, H.R. 2938, was introduced in 2011, almost every argument to justify H.R. 2938 and now H.R. 1410 has been rejected by Federal courts in multiple cases. In fact, there have been 11 administrative and judicial decisions rejecting justifications for this legislation. The latest came on June 25, 2013, when the Federal district court ruled the Arizona tribal-State gaming compact was fully integrated and contained no prohibition of new gaming in Phoenix, and this foreclosed any alleged promises not to game. The court dismissed all remaining claims brought by plaintiffs. Aside from making good on what the Federal Government promised the Tohono O'odham Nation, this is also about jobs, jobs that this project would create, 9,000 of them, and $300 million in annual economic impacts that are critical to the economic well-being of the west valley of Phoenix and the State of Arizona. This is why many of the surrounding cities and hundreds of business leaders and trade organizations are supportive of the project. The city of Glendale, where the casino would be located and which was initially party to the lawsuits, is now actively working with the nation to move forward on the project. They see the economic benefits it will bring. In fact, they are asking Congress not to pass this legislation as it will only undermine their ongoing talks. Congress needs to stop trying to interfere in this issue in order to pick winners and losers. This bill is just a waste of time and energy that this Congress should be spending on many more pressing issues that face this Nation. It should be noted that the administration has twice testified against this bill in both versions, which regardless of what happens today in the House, it will not become law. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There's no question that the prevailing point of view--and I talked about the disinformation--will prevail here today. I have no question about that. The fact that we are going against judicial decisions, undoing a law that was passed by this Congress to make whole a tribe that lost their land 25 years ago, and interjecting ourselves, for the first time in the history of this Nation into a State and Native American gaming compact, that doesn't negate that. So, you know, my opposition, whether it's in the distinct minority or not, is based on what I believe is reality and fact. And if this debate were about reality and fact, and not about supposition, disinformation, or misinformation, the debate would be in a whole different tone. This is about economic development for the State. This is about Congress making true on a decision they made 25 years ago, and this is about Congress not short-cutting judicial decisions that have been made over the course of the last 5 years, in which the Tohono O'odham Nation has prevailed in every one of them. So, given all that, bipartisanship, I love it, but being correct and holding true to a decision that this Congress made 25 years ago, I think, is consistent with the work of this House and consistent with preserving gaming compacts in States and, more importantly, making whole a tribe that lost valuable resources to the Federal Government in the past. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It has been impossible to correct the misrepresentations, and to put that mildly, the constant and sophisticated disinformation lobbying campaign has persisted without regard to facts or reality. There has been some constant points that were made--that H.R. 1410 is about stopping reservation shopping and off-reservation gaming, akin to the situation that's going on in Michigan. It is totally different. It is unrelated, and the decree by Congress in law, upheld by State and Federal law, points to the fact that that is not real, and it is totally different. The 202 initiative that the public voted on and passed, that that somehow is in jeopardy. The last court hearing reaffirmed that that was not the case. And that it is a precedent for all State compacts to be opened up. Each State compact is unique, different, with its own checks and balances, and Arizona is no different. This is a violation of the State gaming compact, and that there was a gentleman's agreement. Again, the courts pointed that that was not in fact part of the record or part of the decision, and that court decisions, very interesting, court decisions, Interior Department findings, are of no matter: In 2009, April 30, the Department of Interior ruled in favor of Tohono O'odham Nation. In 2009, June, ruled in favor of the Tohono O'odham Nation. In 2010, July 23, Echohawk Trust decision letter, in favor of the Tohono O'odham Nation. The Gila River v. U.S., 2011, March, court summary judgment in favor of the Tohono O'odham Nation. May 20, 2013, Ninth Circuit Court decision in favor of the Tohono O'odham Nation. The Tohono O'Odham Nation v. Glendale on an annexation issue 2011, May, Court of Appeals decision, Tohono O'odham Nation. 2011, October, Supreme Court denial of petition for review, Tohono O'odham Nation prevails. 2011, December, Supreme Court fee award, Tohono O'odham Nation prevails. 2012, January, Superior Court judgment, Tohono O'odham Nation prevails. Tohono O'Odham Nation v. Arizona, 2011, June, district court summary judgment, Tohono O'odham Nation prevails. 2011, June, again district court judgment, Tohono O'odham Nation. Arizona v. Tohono O'Odham Nation, district court order on a motion to dismiss claims 5 and 6; claims 1, 2, 3, and 7 in part, Tohono O'odham Nation wins. 2013, May, district court summary judgment order, all remaining claims except breach of contract under restatement, Tohono O'odham Nation wins. 2013, June, district court summary judgment order, all remaining claims, including breach of contract, Tohono O'odham Nation prevails. Again, June, 2013, district court judgment, Tohono O'odham Nation prevails. Eleven in total administrative and judicial decisions--but let's not let facts and judicial precedent and the fact that the Tohono O'odham Nation has prevailed consistently against the State, against the city of Glendale, against competing tribes over and over again and has had the Interior Department, which, as I stated earlier, has testified twice against the previous legislation and against this legislation. I want to quote from The Glendale Star from their editorial of August 1: Is it any wonder so many people distrust government--at any level? When there are so many questions about the motives of the plaintiffs that are suing the Tohono O'odham Nation, one begins to ask about the greed factor. Does anyone believe the future of Indian gaming in Arizona is at risk if the Tohono O'odham Nation eventually wins this long, drawn-out battle in the courts? Who is willing to bet on the future of Indian gaming in our State? If the congressman who is sponsoring this legislation is so set against gambling, he should be trying to get rid of all the casinos in the State. He should be out stumping for the end of gaming altogether. Instead, he is working on the side of the two major gaming operations in the valley, both in the East Valley, by the way, and not the West Valley. This congressman needs to start looking in his own backyard and trying to come up with solutions to unemployment, help for small business owners, transportation gridlock, and more than blocking what could be a big step toward economic stability, i.e., jobs. At least, the nation's resort-casino would provide construction jobs for many out-of-work carpenters and masonry workers for a year or two. Those jobs are needed now. I mention all this because, as I said earlier, it's been difficult to try to counter the allegations and the misrepresentation and the disinformation that have been leveled against the Tohono O'odham Nation's efforts to establish a casino under a congressional decision and law that afforded them, to make them whole because of the land they lost because of the dam, and we're still back here on this particular piece of legislation. So court decisions, administrative decisions matter not. Precedent matters not. The opening of Pandora's box, in terms of water claims and other settlements with Indian country, matters not. What matters is to protect some very important gaming interests and special interests for two gaming entities that have had the luxury for the last 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 years. Tohono O'odham Nation has prevailed in court. The issue of a backroom deal that wasn't kept has been ruled moot by the court. The issue that this is somehow reservation shopping and offsite gaming has been ruled moot by the court. And then you have the Glendale City Council, a principal plaintiff in this, now retreating and, rather, working with the Tohono O'odham Nation to work out some agreements, as opposed to continuing the litigation. The courts have ruled $4.5 million is owed to the tribe in legal costs by both the State and the affected gaming industry, also from Glendale; and I think it's time, as this legislation goes forward, that people ask a very fundamental question about this legislation: Is it intended to preserve a gaming compact? Which, I believe, and the court has ruled, no. Or is it intending to preserve a market share for two gaming entities that have enjoyed that market share by themselves? The free market requires competition. The free market requires opportunity. And all that is happening in this legislation is to try to constrict the ability of people in this free market of ours to compete, to create jobs, and to create opportunities. Mr. Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me enter into the Record three letters. One is from Councilwoman Norma Alvarez from the city of Glendale. Let me quote from it: As a member of the Glendale City Council, I urge you to oppose H.R. 1410, the so-called Keep the Promise Act. This bill is aimed at halting the Tohono O'odham Nation's resort and casino project in the West Valley in order to preserve the market share of two wealthy tribes on the other side of the valley. In serving these narrow interests, H.R. 1410 will also be harmful to my constituents, who want the thousands of jobs that the West Valley Resort and Casino will create. I am part of a majority of the Glendale City Council that supports beginning discussions with the Tohono O'odham Nation to find ways to work together. These talks are long overdue and they need an opportunity to succeed. From Councilman Samuel Chavira from Glendale, let me quote from him: As a local elected official, I believe that this legislation is not only detrimental to my community, but is an affront to the notion of fairness in attempting to overturn a land settlement resolved by Congress three decades ago brought by parties who have repeatedly failed to sustain their position in court. My constituents want this project to go forward, the sooner the better. Please join me in opposing

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. GRIJALVA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, let me say that the situation in Michigan, as I mentioned, is unrelated to this. There is no legal precedent, and there is no congressional action to guide the decisions of courts, which has been the case with the Tohono O'odham decision and with the casino in the West Valley. Let me just say, this is about fairness. This is about Congress upholding its word. This is not about reservation shopping. It's not about offsite gaming. It is not about a gentlemen's agreement. And it is totally and entirely about an act that was taken 25 years ago, upholding that act, making a tribe whole, and not opening up a Pandora's box in which litigation will continue to proceed once this legislation goes forward. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Rio Rico Little League Juniors, this year's National Champions. On August 16, 2013, Rio Rico (4-1) beat Goodlettsville, Tennessee 7-3 to capture the United States Championship at the Junior League World Series. The Rio Rico Little League Juniors advanced through the state, regionals, and won the National Championship and represented the United States against the undefeated Asia Pacific Baseball Academy team from Taiyuan, Chinese Taipei (Taiwan). On August 18, 2013, Nogales and Rio Rico both came together in celebration of the Little League's success. The streets were filled with fire trucks, fans, and family members who eagerly and fondly received the team for the champions they are. I like to extend my deepest congratulations to the Rio Rico Little League boys and to the coaches that contributed to the very success and victory of the team. I also give my most sincere thanks to the Rio Rico Little League juniors for their wonderful performance and for representing all of Arizona with such pride, dignity, and courage.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to Congratulate Tucson's Sunnyside Little League girls' softball team on winning the 12-and- under Little League World Series. On August 14, 2013, the Sunnyside Little League became the 2013 Little League Softball World Series champions by defeating the McLean Little League (Virginia) team 9-0. This victory marks the first West Coast team to win the Little League Softball World Series in more than 23 years. These extraordinary young ladies finished the Little League World Series with a 5-1 record and became the first team in Arizona to win a title in this division and only the third to win it all in any softball division. In the championship game, the girls from Sunnyside put on a show in front of a crowd of about 2,300 people at Alpenrose Stadium in Portland, Oregon by scoring two runs in the bottom of the first inning and not letting up. Arizona's red-hot offense blew the game wide open in the bottom of the fourth inning, nearly reaching the 10-run rule. I like to extend my deepest congratulations to the Sunnyside Little League girls and to the coaches that contributed to the overall success and victory of the team. I give my most sincere thanks to the Sunnyside girls for representing Tucson, AZ with such great pride and passion. These girls are heroes and role models and deserve recognition for their accomplishments.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Texas, Congressman O'Rourke, for organizing this discussion, a discussion that needs to happen. A discussion that talks about the border in a full context is drowned out by the shrillness, the overreaction, and a rhetoric that sometimes borders or crosses into hatred and fear. I represent District 3 in southern Arizona, 300 miles of border between the U.S. and Mexico that I happen to have the privilege to represent. Border communities, such as Nogales, San Luis, and Sasabe are all part of this district that I represent. I grew up in those borderlands, borderlands that share a common history, heritage, and share a common dependency on the economic development and the jobs and the social welfare of those borderlands. That dependency is with our neighbors across the border in Mexico. I want to talk a little bit about looking at this context in very human terms, in geographical terms, and in historic terms. The discussion on immigration reform, when it comes to the issue of security, has been about how much more can we do in order to satisfy, in order to accommodate, and in order to draw more support for a comprehensive immigration reform package. I understand the logic, but I--certainly with the Corker amendment--don't understand at all the overkill and the excess. To double the number of border patrol agents without a strategic plan, without accountability for the 18, $19 billion that has been spent on this border up to this point, I think is throwing money, potentially good money, after bad. Second of all, to look at technology as the answer, we should also be looking at addressing our ports of entry, addressing the very, very real need of understaffing among Customs agents that are essential both to security and the flow of goods and services, trade, and economic development. My colleagues have indicated how many jobs depend on this trade. This is the second-leading trading partner in the world for the United States, Mexico is. We cannot have a border whose sole purpose is to shut down the availability of goods and services and to cripple and constrain the very trade that we need for economic development in this country. Many jobs depend on it, and certainly the health and well- being of the region depends on it. The excess of security, based on the amendment to the legislation in the Senate, the overkill, as I called it--I think one has to harken back to discussions that have been before this floor in the past, and that has to do with how much is enough. I will take a very, very safe bet that regardless of how much, how many, and how much money is spent on security along that border--how high the fence is, how long the fence is--that there will still be those who get up on this floor and on the other Chamber's floor and demand more without a plan, without accountability, and without an audit for what's been done at this point. Let me discuss the current state of security on the border--the largest numbers of deportations, the largest number of detentions, 20,000 Border Patrol agents on the border, largest number of apprehensions, and the reduction in unauthorized entries into this country, significant reduction. The plan in place to deter is, like it or not, working. And for us to layer that with additional money, additional personnel, is, I think, to me pure political symbolism and doesn't really address the issue of security. If you want to address the issue of security, you must deal with the ports of entry primary, you must fully staff Customs, and you must have the very necessary blend on the border of security, trade, economic development, and necessary and important exchange with Mexico. Two issues: the humanitarian issue in Arizona. Arizona has been ground zero on the question of immigration and immigrants beginning with State Law 1070, which was thrown out by the Supreme Court, beginning with various legislative efforts at the State level to make immigrants a target in that State, many of those legislative efforts having been successfully defeated in the courts. The flow of drugs should be the point of concentration, the organized crime on both sides of the border, the gunrunning there, drugs coming this way, people-smuggling and the abuses associated with that. If there is going to be a security initiative as part of this new comprehensive immigration reform, let's be focused, let's be real, and let's address the real problem and the humanitarian crisis. Over 6,000 souls have perished in the desert in southern Arizona, in my district, and on the O'Oodham reservation--people desperate, people being left there by coyotes. It's a humanitarian crisis. If the money we are talking about for enforcement does not include rescue, humanitarian relief, then it's money that's not addressing the problem. I guarantee you that, over a 10-year period, if 6,000 people were to perish in any other part of this world, we would be calling it a human rights and a humanitarian crisis. It doesn't get the attention it should, but the tragedy continues. With this increased security, people will look for further and further, more desolate areas in which to attempt or to be dropped off by smugglers. Again, the deaths will increase. I suggest that that has to be part of it. Oversight in the context of security needs to be part of it. Human rights abuses along the border due to the increased militarization has to be part of it. A uniform policy for the use of lethal force has to be part of it. The GAO report on those very procedures I just mentioned has to be completed, and those recommendations need to be implemented before we continue to talk about giving more money without taking care of the civil rights, due process, and humanitarian crisis that we have on the border. We have an opportunity in this Congress to finally reform this broken system of immigration. We have an opportunity to do it in a just, humane, fair, and secure way. As we go forward with the debate in this House, let us hope that the discussion is over facts, that it's rational, that we talk about the human quotient involved in this discussion and not the pandering, fear-mongering and divisions that have marked this debate in this House, to which the leadership of this House instructs its Members. Let this be a debate about the future of this country, not the divisions of this country. I want to take time again to thank Congressman O'Rourke, a freshman who has taken leadership on this issue and on that of the borderlands, and I am very grateful for his organizing this.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall votes 217 and 218, I was unavoidably detained. My vote should be noted as a ``yea'' on rollcall 217 and a ``no'' on rollcall 218.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We support the legislation, and I would like to yield as much time as he may consume to the author and sponsor of the legislation, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 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, I rise in support of H.R. 1157, which would require the Fish and Wildlife Service to provide both motorized and non-motorized access to the summit of Rattlesnake Mountain. The bill would allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into cooperative agreements with the Department of Energy, the State of Washington, local governments, and other interested persons to provide guided tours to the summit of the mountain and to maintain the access road to the mountain. In 2008, the Fish and Wildlife Service completed its management plan for this area and determined that service-sponsored or -led tours and a hiking trail are appropriate and compatible uses of the area. In October of 2011, at the hearing on H.R. 2719, the Fish and Wildlife Service supported the bill's intent to provide appropriate public access on Rattlesnake Mountain that gives due consideration to all stakeholders, including the Yakima Tribe. I commend Chairman Hastings for introducing the bill, and I support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.