Raúl Grijalva

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. The amendment I am offering does one simple thing and one thing only. It ensures that this land trade is fair and protects the American taxpayers. For every land exchange undertaken by the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, Park Service, or Fish and Wildlife Service, land managers must ensure taxpayer assets are protected by requiring land appraisals based on accepted Federal standards. This House has considered six different land exchange bills in this Congress. Each and every one of them required standard appraisals for those lands, and they all passed. But today we have a bill that defers to legislation passed by the State of Minnesota to control the examination and the value determination of Federal lands. This is not how we treat Federal assets. Whether a land exchange is undertaken through an administrative process or through legislation, we require a standard appraisal and equalization payments if the value of the lands considered for exchange are not equal. Surely we can provide better protections to the taxpayers of this country. The last estimate, and I will stress estimate of the value of the land in question, was nearly $100 million. Do we really want to abandon our responsibilities as stewards to Federal taxpayers and waive fair appraisal standards? Surely we can hold Congressman Cravaack's legislation to the same bar and standard we required for Congressman Herger, Congressman Gosar, Congresswoman Tsongas, Congressman McKeon, Congressman Amodei's bill and, yes, my own bill. I understand a lot of Members on the other side of the aisle would happily turn over Federal lands to the States. In fact, that position is reflected in their party's platform. But this isn't what we're voting on today. Today we're voting on a land deal that shouldn't turn the taxpayer interests upside down. I would urge support of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. I will close at this point. This debate, quite honestly, Mr. Chairman, makes me feel like I'm living in an alternative reality--a reality where the protections of God's bounty on this Earth are nothing more than an opportunity cost for local governments, a reality where we think it's perfectly acceptable to fund our children's education by stealing from the natural resource legacy our forefathers sought to protect, a reality where $650,000 for St. Paul is more important than $1 million going to counties most impacted by this exchange, a reality where the basic ability for people to be informed about government actions and to voice their views is blocked by a party that prides itself on the idea of liberty. I don't know about you, but this is not the reality that I want to live in. We could have brought this bill to the floor today with strong bipartisan support and resolved the real issue of isolated State lands within the Boundary Waters, just like the Minnesota Legislation did. Instead, it is Groundhog Day where antiwilderness and antigovernment philosophies are masked as a concern for education funding when the arithmetic doesn't actually support the argument. This is a disappointment. This bill is bad for forests, bad for wildlife, bad for the American people, and should be rejected. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, Federal land grants to States for education have resulted in the transfer of more than 77 million acres of land to over 30 States. These well-meaning acts, taken over 200 years ago, have left communities across the country with a fragmented pattern of land ownership. Through the Northwest Ordinance enacted in 1787, Minnesota was granted 8.3 million acres of school trust lands. Today, the State has only 2.5 million acres left, with 93,000 located in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Proponents of this legislation claim this will right inequities caused by the designation of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. For most of us, it would seem like common sense to do a land trade, but I think most of us would also want a land trade that is fair to both sides. The State of Minnesota recently enacted State legislation that would allow an exchange of State and Federal lands. While controversial, it garnered bipartisan support and didn't include language suggesting that we need to waive Federal laws. As my colleague, Congresswoman McCollum, will tell us, the State did their job. It is now time for Congress to do our job. Our job is to protect taxpayer assets and the democratic process. Congressman Cravaack's bill fails on both of these accounts. We just need to look at the facts. By failing to require the standard public process that allows all Americans the ability to participate and comment on the exchange of assets, H.R. 5544 robs the citizens of this Nation of their right to participate in the democratic process. Unlike every other land trade bill brought before this Congress, we have no map showing what Federal lands will go into State ownership for development. Neither the people of Minnesota nor the people of the United States have any idea that we will lose lands critical to protecting drinking water or vital to hunting or motorized recreation. There is no map. The Federal lands to be traded are not identified. Three Native American tribes have tribal treaties guaranteeing tribal members the right to hunt, fish and gather in the Superior National Forest. This bill potentially deprives these tribes of their access rights. Second, by failing to ensure that our assets are appropriately valued as part of the exchange, Congressman Cravaack's bill shortchanges the American taxpayer. H.R. 5544 defers to the State of Minnesota to decide the value of Federal lands. When Congress authorizes the sale or exchange of Federal assets, it is our job to make sure the Federal Government is getting a good deal. Again, for every land exchange this Congress has considered, we have relied on standard appraisal processes that are well understood by real estate professionals and land managers. Overriding this practice is like buying a house based on an appraisal provided by the owner, with the owner admitting they really don't have an updated assessment. Such a scheme fails to protect the interests of the American taxpayers who own this land. We are not talking about a couple million dollars of taxpayer assets here. Estimates nearly a decade old placed the value of these lands at nearly $100 million. Third, it is not clear this legislation is going to accomplish its stated goal: education investment. During committee consideration of this legislation, Minnesota school officials testified that of the $9,000 per year spent on an average Minnesota student, $26, less than 1 percent, comes from school trust lands receipts. This entire bill is geared to making up the $650,000 the State believes it has lost, a mere drop in the bucket for the overall necessary education investment. An amendment offered by Congressman Hastings that is self-executed in the rule shortchanges three counties in Minnesota. Since 1948, Congress has and continues to provide St. Louis, Cook, and Lake Counties mandatory annual payments to compensate them for lost revenues related to the designation of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Since the passage of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act, these counties have received nearly $60 million in compensation from Thye- Blatnik payments alone. Last year, these payments amounted to $6 million. Chairman Hastings' amendment stops increases in these payments, which CBO estimates would be approximately $1 million. This is ironic, considering the entire bill is justified on the State estimating the exchange will increase their school trust revenues by $650,000 a year. Wouldn't it make more sense to go back and see if we can make better use of the existing money going to the State and to the counties? Finally, this bill fails to garner broad and bipartisan support. Not one Democrat from the Minnesota delegation has cosponsored the legislation. Nearly 25 organizations in the State have written Congress in opposition to the legislation. Minnesota Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, representing over 2 million hunters and anglers, oppose the bill. The Star Tribune's editorial board says the bill ``fails the credibility test'' and ``is about converting forest land to mining.'' Many of us, including myself, have had bills to accelerate the land exchange process. However, those bills have safeguards like ensuring that the public can participate in the process; safeguards like ensuring Uncle Sam won't become Uncle Sucker, leaving taxpayers with a raw deal; safeguards like ensuring treaties guaranteeing access to tribes are not impacted. This bill has none of those safeguards. There are ways to do land exchanges that earn public support, garner bipartisan endorsements, and protect taxpayers. This bill fails on all counts and should be rejected. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and memory of Alex Teves, who was killed in the terrible shooting in Aurora, Colorado, not long ago. He died saving his girlfriend's life, pushing her out of the way and covering her with his body as bullets flew around the theater. He was only 24 years old. At his young age, he was already the kind of person many of us hope to be. Friends, family and everyone who knew him describe him as an extraordinarily warm, generous and sincere man. Beyond the goodness he showed his close friends, he was enthusiastic to meet and get to know everyone, whether they were older, younger, shared his interests or had never spoken with him before. People felt his optimism, his honesty and his genuine kindness as soon as they met him. He made the most of his natural gifts and abilities and made time to help others. He was more than a good example--he was a rare and very good human being. Every day in high school he wore a white t-shirt and blue jeans, and was so well-known and well-liked that the entire student body held a ``Teves Day'' each year for everyone else to wear the same. He graduated from the University of Arizona in 2010 and earned his Master's in Counseling Psychology from the University of Denver just this June. He was preparing to dedicate his life to helping those who could benefit from his warmth, his compassion and his wisdom. To anyone tempted to become cynical about our country, our future or our way of life, I say Alex Teves proves them wrong. Our nation loses someone special to gun violence far too often. In Alex, we lost someone who was not afraid to befriend strangers, not afraid to push himself in the service of others who needed help, and not afraid to give his life for someone he loved. He lived a quiet, everyday kind of heroism that never gets the recognition it deserves and never seeks it. I humbly offer my voice to the many, many others who are grieving for his death today, and offer them as much comfort and support as I can. He was a truly extraordinary person, and those who knew him best will miss him for a very long time. I believe his name will live on as a good, even a great, example for others. He felt a natural instinct to love, help and be good to the people around him, and he passed it on simply by being himself. He deserves a greater tribute than I can pay him today.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, at a time when the Republican majority has, in another wasted effort, repealed health care reform for the 33rd time, at a time when we will not see on this floor a vote to extend tax cuts for the middle class, now the Republican majority is planning to literally take food out of the mouths of families and children by cutting $16.5 billion from the SNAP program in the farm bill. This represents 45 percent of all the cuts, immediately cuts 3 million families and children from the program, and this is at a time when one in seven American families depend on some supplemental food assistance. But as the Republican majority fiddles away, we know that there is a crisis. Fifty-eight percent of all food bank clients currently receiving SNAP benefits need assistance from them. The resulting demand to food banks will put additional pressure on our communities and on families.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, after 11 years, over 2,000 Americans killed, 16,000 Americans wounded, nearly $400 billion spent, and more than 12,000 Afghan civilians dead since 2007, we have to question the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. Should we continue America's longest war? At what cost and for how long? The American people have questioned and continue to question time and time again--or should we be there, and the answer has always been a resounding no. It's not new news that the American public, Democrat, Republican and everyone else has soured on the war. The national security rationale has lost its resonance, and the economic and human cost in Afghanistan are crippling our ability to recover from our own deep recession. According to The New York Times/CBS report, more than two-thirds of those polled, 69 percent, thought the United States should not be at war in Afghanistan. The U.S. war in Afghanistan is costing the U.S. taxpayers nearly $2 billion per week, over $100 billion per year. Meanwhile, in the wake of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work, struggle to pay their bills, and look to us for job creation and support. Americans who feel the sting of doing more with less are connecting the dots between our Federal priorities and spending and the pain they're feeling at home. Americans struggling to put their kids through college without Pell Grants or running out of employment benefits with no new job on the horizon cannot ignore the cost of the war. Arizona families in my district have paid nearly $777 million for the Afghan war since 2001. For that same amount of money, the State of Arizona could have had 336,000 children receiving low-income health care for 1 year; 15,000 elementary school teachers employed in our schools for 1 year; 93,000 Head Start slots for children for 1 year; over 100,000 military veterans receiving VA medical care for 1 year; over 10,000 police officers and law enforcement officers securing our communities and neighborhoods for 1 year; 113,000 scholarships for university students for 1 year; 139,000 students receiving Pell Grants of $5,550. These are just some of the bad trade-offs we are making with our national resources, our treasure and our blood on a war instead of fixing the problems here at home. I would like to take a brief second to thank, to honor, and to commemorate those warriors from my district, District 7, for your ultimate sacrifice to our country: Sergeant First Class Todd Harris, Sergeant Martin Lugo, Sergeant Justin Gallegos, Master Sergeant Joseph Gonzales, Sergeant Charles Browning, First Lieutenant Alejo Thompson, Sergeant First Class Jonathan McCain, Staff Sergeant Donald Stacy, Private First Class Adam Hardt. Our servicemen and -women have performed with incredible courage and commitment in Afghanistan. They have done everything that has been asked of them; but the truth is, they have been put in an impossible position, a war with no foreseeable end and a war that is costing not just them and their families, but our country, the ability to prosper and to move forward. It's time to say enough is enough. It's time to take the responsibility to end this war in Afghanistan, be responsible, but end it. The cost to America, the cost to our future is too enormous to continue on the path that we're on, a path that has no end. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GRIJALVA

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

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment states that nothing in this bill should diminish opportunities for hunting, fishing, grazing, or recreation on public lands. H.R. 4402 would elevate the interests of the mining industry above all others. This legislation contains language requiring that the priority of the Federal Government ``shall be to maximize the development of the mineral resources, while mitigating environmental impacts, so that more of the mineral resources can be brought to the marketplace.'' This legislation would put mineral extraction on public lands above all other uses, jeopardizing hunting, fishing, livestock grazing, outdoor recreation, and many other critical uses of our public lands. When open pits cover the American West, tourists to Arizona may have another Grand Canyon to visit. This time, instead of marveling at the geologic forces that over the courses of millions of years shaped one of the Nation's most awe-inspiring sites, they will be forced to ponder chains of manmade chasms left behind by unaccountable mining companies. My amendment will make sure that other important uses are not pushed aside, that all Americans continue to have access to their public lands. In fact earlier this week the Department of the Interior issued a report on the agency's economic contributions to the Nation. Many of these contributions come from uses other than mining. In 2011, there were over 435 million recreational visits to Interior-managed lands. This activity contributed $48.7 billion in economic activity and supported approximately 403,000 jobs nationwide, including 14,000 jobs in my home State of Arizona. By elevating the interests of mining companies above hunters, anglers, and ranchers, as H.R. 4402 would do, we threaten that revenue that local communities have come to rely on. Last month we considered so-called urgent legislation from the majority here on the House floor that was billed as vitally necessary to protect hunting and fishing on public lands. Now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing just the opposite by elevating mining on our public lands above hunting and fishing. It seems that when the majority was fishing around for new sweetheart deals and ways to help the mining, oil, and gas industry, they decided to forget about their commitment the previous month to the hunting and angling communities. My amendment would in no way hamper mining on Federal lands. It would simply reaffirm that we should not bury the other important uses of our public lands below energy development, as the underlying bill would do. Our public lands belong to the American people and have many important uses. We should not undermine the ability of the American people to hunt and fish on public lands by destroying the current law. I can't get my head around the idea that the mining industry will have first use above all other uses on our public lands while paying no royalties to the American taxpayer. On top of that, the bulk of the resources taken from our public lands is exported worldwide to countries like China. Multinational mining companies get our resources free of charge while visitors have to pay a user fee to use some of our public lands. Now their needs are not as important to the Republicans as free access for the mining interests in this country. It's very sad and ironic. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment to maintain a balance for the American people in their use of their public lands. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield the balance of my time to my good friend from New Mexico and a member of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Lujan.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, the middle class and men and women looking for work in this country are asking: Where are the jobs? The Republican majority in the House will be responding, once again, by voting to take away health coverage to struggling Americans. For instance, instead of bringing a jobs bill or a fair taxation bill up to the floor, we will be taking away health care from a very significant and important group of Americans--the first Americans--the American Indians. By upholding health reform, the Supreme Court decision affirmed that the permanent reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act was also part of the decision. The National Congress of American Indians responded by stating: This is an important step for health care in Indian Country. The permanence of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act has been affirmed. The Affordable Care Act permanently authorizes the daily health care delivery to nearly 2 million American Indians and Alaska Natives who are in critical need of improved health care and services to their communities. There will be critical updates and modernizations, expanded cancer screenings, long-term care, hospice care, and care for the elderly and the disabled. The passage of health care reform represented a 14-year struggle by tribal leaders to make permanent a legislative commitment by the Federal Government that had not been upheld. It is wrong for the Republicans to take this promise away from Indian Country and from the first Americans of this country. Americans want a jobs plan, not their health care taken away.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, money has taken over our political process. Big corporations and high-rolling political schemers tell us everything is still mom and apple pie, and there's nothing to worry about. But some of us have seen the effects of these hidden million-dollar dark money donations. We've seen the ads that tell you what to think and who to vote for, without telling you who's talking. We've seen the multimillion-dollar lawsuits that help elite corporate interests, without explaining who's paying the bill. We've seen more and more elections bought and paid for by the only people who can afford it. And those people are not us. It's time to start naming names and asking why these people won't tell us who they are. We must start to fight back and ask them what they have to hide. A front group called the National Federation of Independent Business is suing to block the Affordable Care Act. The president of the group says he's doing this to help small businesses. When I and my colleague Representative Keith Ellison wrote him a letter, asking him who his members are, he refused to answer. We asked him who gave him several recent million-dollar-plus donations that have helped fund the lawsuit; he refused to answer. We asked him why Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS political group gave him $3.7 million just when he initiated the lawsuit; he refused to answer. And he thinks that's good enough. Well, it's not. NFIB has never liked answering questions. In 2006, according to an article in the Nashville Scene, the organization claimed 600,000 member businesses nationwide. Today on its Web site, it claims about 300,000. But when we asked NFIB to disclose where its money comes from, instead of providing us the courtesy of a written response, the group told the press that its membership has been growing by leaps and bounds since the lawsuit began. It described shrinking by 50 percent as big, new expansion, and it said new members had made small donations that covered the cost of this complex lawsuit before the Supreme Court. In other words, NFIB won't tell us the truth about who it represents or how big it is. What does it have to hide? Our democracy has always been about people. It's been about individuals and families making choices about who represents their interests. It's about what kind of country we want to live in, not about what kind of country the very wealthy want to choose for us. Today, as we prepare for the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act, millions of Americans with preexisting health conditions, with sick children, with long-term medical needs, and with no insurance stand together on one side. A front group with bottomless pockets that won't explain its motives sits on the other. Mr. Speaker, this is not what our democracy is supposed to be about. Our Founding Fathers did not believe wealth makes a man more important than his neighbor. They didn't believe money is more important than the dignity of the individual. They didn't believe that any company or any organization is entitled to a special set of rules. And they certainly didn't believe that an incorporated business entity is the same thing as a human being. There is no reason we have to accept the choices that the very, very wealthy few in this country are making for the rest us. Today we stand up to be counted, and we demand that dark money donations come to light; that anyone who wants to influence our democracy step forward and state his name for the record and be honest and transparent with the American people. Democracy is not for sale, and an election should not be an auction. I'm proud to be on the floor today and say that I am on the side of people that want disclosure, want fair elections, and are tired of the influence of dark money in our collective democracy. I challenge those front groups to ``put up'' or ``shut up.'' Tell us who's funding you and what you really want. It's about 4 months and a little more time until America elects a new Congress and a President. Let the voters decide. They know where I stand. And we want these front groups to tell us where they stand, where they get their money, who they are, and who they represent. The American people in this great democracy of ours should make the choice whether we like it or not. The influence by a very few secretive groups that are fronting for others should not be the ones that decide who represents the American people, who will run this country, and who will set the priorities for this country.

Mr. GRIJALVA

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

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I inquire as to the time available.

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

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes, we are.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wanted to talk, and maybe list, so that the American people and the Members of Congress understand the scope and the depth of H.R. 2578, in particular, title XIV: National Park Service Units within 100 Miles of the U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canadian Borders. There are 54 National Park Service units and 11 National Park Service wilderness areas: Acadia National Park; Amistad National Recreation Area; Apostle Islands National Lakeshore-Gaylord Nelson Wilderness; Big Bend National Park; Cabrillo National Monument; Carlsbad Caverns National Park- Carlsbad Caverns Wilderness; Casa Grande Ruins National Monument; Chamizal National Memorial; Chiricahua National Monument-Chiricahua Wilderness; Coronado National Memorial; Isle Royale National Park-Isle Royale Wilderness; James A. Garfield National Historic Site; Joshua Tree National Park; Keweenaw National Historical Park; Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park; Lake Chelan National Recreation Area; Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area; Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historic Park; Nez Perce National Historical Park; North Cascades National Park-Stephen Mather Wilderness; Olympic National Park-Olympic Wilderness; Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument; Organ Pipe Wilderness; Padre Island National Seashore; Palo Alto Battlefield National Historical Park; Perry's Victory and International Peace Memorial; Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore; River Raisin National Battlefield Park; Ross Lake National Recreation Area; Saguaro National Park-Saguaro Wilderness; St. Croix Island International Historic Site; San Juan Island National Historical Park; Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural National Historic Site; Theodore Roosevelt National Park; Tumacacori National Historical Park; Voyageurs National Park; White Sands National Monument; Women's Rights National Historical Park; Wrangell-St. Elias National Park; Wrangell-St. Elias National Preserve; Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve. I list those because turning these shared treasures of the American people from the land managers that provide the access, the interpretation, and the multiuse mandate to these areas to an agency like Homeland Security with no expertise, no track record, no history, and giving them carte blanche, almost czar-like control over these valuable legacy parks of our Nation, is one of the reasons that we have 66 organizations--environmental, Latino, and consumer organizations-- opposed to the legislation and opposed in particular to title XIV. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. I think the purpose of title XIV of H.R. 2578 is not to make the border more secure. Rather, the purpose of the bill is to use border security as cover to effectively repeal more than a century of environmental protections for Americans living and working along our borders with Canada and Mexico. In April, the Natural Resources Committee held a joint oversight hearing with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, during which the Government Accountability Office, the Interior Department, the Agriculture Department, and the Border Patrol all testified under oath that Federal land management laws do not impair border security. According to the GAO report, 22 of 26 Border Patrol agents-in-charge that were interviewed reported that Federal land management laws had no impact on the overall security status of their jurisdiction. In summary, the number of Border Patrol agents-in-charge who found that Federal land management laws were impeding border security but were prevented from fixing the problems by the Interior Department was exactly zero. The administration concurred with this finding at multiple hearings. The record is clear. And the problem this bill claims to solve does not exist. The true purpose of this legislation is also clear. The proponents oppose the more-than-30 bedrock environmental protections that will be effectively repealed by this legislation, including the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Drinking Water Act, everywhere, not just within 100 miles of the border. Title XIV employs a manufactured conflict with border security to weaken their application. The laws to be waived by this act are the work product of dozens of administrations and Congresses, developed after thousands of hours of negotiation and compromise and, in most cases, were enacted with strong bipartisan support. Title XIV hands the Border Patrol a unilateral veto over all of these laws, all this work, and all this bipartisan effort. Enactment of this legislation and title XIV would not only allow DHS to trample the ground near the border. It would also allow the Agency to trample the rights of States and Native people. This legislation would empower individual patrol agents to enter tribal land without notice and conduct any and all activities, including excavation and construction, without regard for the presence of tribal sites or tribal leadership. The real problem of border enforcement is one of manpower, budgets, economic incentives, and difficult terrain. This bill addresses none of those concerns. We will not secure our borders by allowing our waters to be polluted. We will not secure our borders by allowing our air to be dirtier, by ignoring the laws that have protected the environment and the American people. That will not bring security to the border. This legislation and title XIV reduce the number of immigrants coming to this country. If it does, it will only be because the water, air, and economics of our border communities are so degraded that no one wants to come there anymore. This legislation is sweeping. It's reactionary. This bill is not what it appears to be. And it should be rejected. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Without a doubt, proponents of H.R. 2578 and, in particular, title XIV, the border bill portion, claim this legislation will end the horrors of the border, that it will secure the border and, finally, Arizona and the rest of the Nation will be ready to sit down, conduct real work, and reach comprehensive immigration reform. The horrors they will describe--the rape tree, the murders, the abuse of people--some are quite real. The violence is conducted by criminal organizations that prey on desperate and poor people, fueled by a drug trade that produces billions upon billions of dollars for these very criminals that create the violence. In the last decade, over 4,000 souls have died trying to cross through the most desolate parts of the Arizona desert. And this human tragedy should not be the excuse to undo environmental and public protection laws, which the majority has been attacking on all fronts since the beginning of this Congress. This is a dangerous precedent, that in order to secure the border we must lose those protections. It's an absurd connection, and there is no correlation. It is interesting that in the list of laws to be waived, if we are truly to make a dent in that violence, we find no mention of suspending the unregulated gun shows that happen in border regions. Eighty-five percent of the assault rifles used by cartels and organized crime syndicates along the border and in Mexico originate in the United States from these gun shows. It is interesting that there is no mention of suspending Federal support for U.S. financial interests that harbor and launder money from Mexican crime syndicates here in the United States. The environmental laws and protections being eliminated under title XIV will not bring long-term solutions to our beleaguered southern border. These laws are not the reasons for the stress. The reason for the stress is the unwillingness of this Congress to deal with immigration reform and the broken immigration system. Enforcement is part of the solution; it is not the only part of the solution. The stress is caused by politicians who either exploit the issue for their own gain or run away from the issue because of their own fear of it. To begin to deal with this issue, we need the resolve to work toward comprehensive immigration reform. But all the majority wants to do is scapegoat its lack of resolve to deal with this real issue in order to advance an agenda to hijack the laws that have served our public lands and our citizens well for decades. This is a terrible precedent. It's backdoor amnesty for polluters, developers, and mining industries. And those extremists want all these protections and environmental laws eliminated. The border is the excuse; the target is the environment. I reserve the balance of my time.