Raúl Grijalva

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. This package of 14 bills is an unwarranted combination of individual bills that would do serious and lasting damage to communities and people across this country. Many of the individual pieces are controversial, but they are overshadowed by title XIV, the drone zone title. The drone zone created by this bill would trample the environment and the personal freedoms of millions of people living within 100 miles of the border. At a time when the clock is ticking on the reauthorization of the highway trust fund, where real jobs can be created, we are wasting time on this misguided package. At a time when the clock is ticking on making college loans remain affordable, we are wasting time on this package. We should reject H.R. 2578 and get down to the serious work, which is to create jobs and help middle class families make ends meet. Mr. DeFazio and Ranking Member Markey and I will be offering amendments to address the absolute worst aspects of this package. I urge my colleagues to support the amendments. Unfortunately, even those amendments cannot fix all that is wrong with this package, and I ask my colleagues to reject H.R. 2578. There is a point in which common sense and sanity should prevail in this House. We have a piece of legislation that begs the question on both before us, and I would urge its defeat. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the manager's amendment.

Mr. GRIJALVA. On the manager's amendment, we have no problem with the technical changes to the legislation. The content remains the same and the opposition remains the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Out of all the titles cobbled together under this one piece of legislation, title XIV is the most alarming, so I have introduced this amendment to strike it all from the bill. Not only is it the text of one of the most controversial bills introduced in this Congress, its intent is to expand the scope and the authority of one government agency to achieve a loosely defined objective, an agency that has not even asked for this expanded authority. Title XIV of this legislation would supersize Customs and Border Protection so they could seize control of Federal lands within 100 miles of the northern and southern borders. It would be at their discretion and without any recourse by the public to be able to counter that. If this bill were to become law, families who use our parks, forests, and wildlife areas in all of these States could be subject to increased surveillance without any notification. We already know what happens to the economic welfare of families and what has happened to the economies of the States of Alabama and Arizona when States pass hostile anti- immigrant laws. This takes the same concept and spreads it across our northern and southern borders. Right now, Customs and Border Protection isn't suffering from a lack of authority. If anything, it is suffering from a lack of focus. The ability to access Federal lands isn't causing Border Patrol problems. In the most recent GAO report, radios that don't work and the lack of infrastructure and personnel are what they have cited as being barriers. Yesterday, during the debate over the rule for the bill, the sponsor of the legislation that has become title XIV claimed that we can't deal with the issue of immigration reform before securing our land borders. He went on to say that people are angry about the situation at the border and that, before this anger is addressed, we can't do anything about our broken immigration system, so we are going to pay some lip service to border security to advance what is essentially an anti- environment and anti-immigrant agenda. That should make many of us angry because it adds to the division in our Nation and to the sense of millions of families in the border region and across this country who feel they are political pawns in a system--in a game--that is never ending. Millions of people live along these 100 miles, and they deserve the same protection from environmental pollution or government overreach that the rest of us in the country enjoy. The original bill granted DHS a waiver of 36 laws. The recently introduced amendment would allow that list to be 16. The fact that we were able to concede half of the original list proves that the bill is, from the outset, an unnecessary overreach. The 16 laws left in the legislation are not minor statutes. They include the National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Antiquities Act, the Wilderness Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The solution to a broken system along the border is comprehensive immigration reform. If you took that 100-mile zone along the southern border and made it into a State, it would lead the Nation in poverty, unemployment, educational attainment, the lowest wages, the most uninsured, and the lowest economic growth. Yet this legislation and title XIV, once again, take this region, and instead of providing support and comprehensive attention to it, we further marginalize and isolate it. All the laws that are being waived and eliminated are all landmark pieces of legislation that guide and manage our Federal lands, resources that belong to every single American taxpayer. Throwing away decades of law that help protect and preserve our Federal lands makes no sense. The supporters of this legislation will say it is necessary to address the horrors and violence that occur on the border. That's not true. It's back-door amnesty for extremist anti-environmental groups, industries, and developers who lust after our public resources for private profit at taxpayers' expense. That is why I've introduced my amendment to strike the title from the bill. I encourage its support and reserve my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your courtesy. I would at this point say that I appreciate the time, and I'll wait to call for a vote. Thank you very much.

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

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from North Carolina, the ranking member of DHS appropriations, Mr. Price.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me thank my good friend, Mr. Lujan from New Mexico, for his time. H.R. 2938 is named the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Clarification Act. However, do not be misled by this bill's benign sounding title. It does not aim to clarify anything. Rather, it seeks to unilaterally abrogate an Indian land claim and water rights settlement, and it would also interfere with pending litigation in Federal court. In 1986, the United States enacted Federal legislation specific to this tribe and this situation. The Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Clarification Act, Public Law 99 503, was to implement a settlement reached between the United States and the Tohono O'odham Nation. In this settlement, the nation released claims against the United States for flooding and loss of its land, as well as water rights of 36,000 acre feet per year. In exchange for releasing the claims, Congress guaranteed, via statute, that the nation could obtain replacement reservation lands within three counties without restriction as to the use of that land. H.R. 2938 seeks to renege on Congress' solemn promise and change the material terms of the settlement; this while Congress contemplates in a very real way breaking its word to Indian Country one more time. The legislation will reopen and change the terms of a 1986 bipartisan land settlement authored by Congressman Mo Udall, then-Congressman John McCain, then-Senator Dennis DeConcini, and then-Senator Barry Goldwater that compensated the Tohono O'odham Nation for 10,000 acres of land destroyed by the Army Corps of Engineers in the 1950s. By violating an existing settlement, this legislation will create new liabilities for the Federal Government, as taxpayers will have to provide more compensation to the nation as a result of prohibiting the purchase of replacement lands, as provided in the original settlement act. Enactment of this legislation would also set a dangerous precedent in which Congress could unilaterally alter the terms of a Federal settlement years later. If this is the case that would stop Congress from revisiting any settlements over the years, then all settlements are open for review. H.R. 2938 is job-killing special interest legislation. The primary advocates for this legislation are wealthy gaming entities, tribal entities trying to protect their monopoly on a gaming market. If they get their way, they will prevent the Tohono O'odham Nation from creating thousands of new jobs, permanent and construction. It reneges on the United States' promise to replace the reservation lost, and it vastly diminishes the Tohono O'odham settlement by imposing new restrictions on the land replacement provided for in the 1986 settlement. It creates new liabilities for the United States. If this were to become law, H.R. 2938, it will breach the settlement act, and it will leave the United States liable for untold millions of dollars in land and taking claims for the land and water rights that the nation relinquished under the original settlement act. And it undermines ongoing litigation. The same interests that support H.R. 2938 have brought various lawsuits to stop the nation from exercising its rights. But so far, both State and Federal courts have fully upheld the Tohono O'odham Nation's rights. The proponents of H.R. 2938 want Congress to change the law in order to legislate a victory that they cannot get through legislation. In addition, misinformation, distortion, and outright lies have been spread through congressional offices by a major lobbying firm in D.C. in the employment of a gaming entity that is opposed to the original law and is promoting this law. This has nothing to do with ``reservation shopping.'' In no way would defeating this bill allow tribes to start buying up plots of land outside of, say, New York City and open up casinos. The original act was specific only to the Tohono O'odham. The replacement land could be only purchased in one of three Arizona counties. In fact, the land in question is in the exact same county, Maricopa, where the flooded land of Gila Bend reservation was located. So I think it's time to stop this. This land was purchased legally by the Tohono O'odham Nation, all in accordance with the Gila Bend Reservation Land Replacement Act, to replace reservation land the U.S. Government flooded and destroyed, to be used by the nation at their discretion for economic development. The innuendo of reservation shopping or the idea that its defeat will cause rampant reservation shopping is absurd, and it needs to stop. I also want to address the idea that compact guaranteed no new casinos in the Phoenix area. If this was the case, the only casinos that would exist in the Phoenix area are the ones that were in existence in 2003. But lo and behold, the very tribes supporting this legislation have built two additional casinos since then. In fact, one of these tribes is about to break ground on a new $135 million Las Vegas-style casino and hotel right outside of southwest Phoenix. And, finally, let's stop the lies about the administration being ``neutral'' on this bill. They have testified against it. I have spoken to them. Their position hasn't changed, and the administration does not support this legislation. This legislation is causing disparate treatment of one tribe for the sake of protecting a market. The market should be competitive. This is not a violation of the Arizona Gaming Compact, but it is an abrogation of a law this Congress passed in 1986 that is now being changed due to the whims of those afraid of a competitive market. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for yielding.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Lujan. Just, I think, important points to clarify. One is that the Tohono O'odham Nation's proposed gaming facility in this land that was authorized by Congress would violate its tribal-State gaming compact, or Prop 202. The Department of the Interior has spoken clearly on this issue and confirmed in section 3(j) of the tribal-State gaming compact clearly allows the nation to develop a gaming facility on the land. Nothing in Proposition 202 would disallow the nation from gaming in the Phoenix metropolitan area, as the other five to six casinos show that there were gentlemen's agreements for no additional casinos in Phoenix. Well, there was no such side deal. The line of argument is, I think, an after-the-fact rationalization for a position that is entirely unsupported by the letter of the law. The compact has stated all elements of tribal-State gaming agreements must be embodied in the compact and must be approved by the Department of the Interior. I think that we have to look at what has not been said. The United States' breach, if this becomes law, will void the nation's release of its original land claims and open the United States to a liability that was valued at $100 million in 1986 dollars. The breach will also open the portion of the nation's original water claims settlement. This settlement is key to the negotiations going on now with the Salt River Project, the Central Arizona Water Conservation District, the State of Arizona, the Maricopa-Stanfield Water District, and the Central Arizona Irrigation District, all affecting the very precious commodity in Arizona, which is water. So at the expense of those liabilities, that breach could cause not only the State of Arizona, but the United States taxpayer, millions and millions of dollars and loss in settlements that are so vitally needs around the water issues affecting Arizona and the West.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. I rise today to offer an amendment to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill that strengthens our efforts to have a secure and prosperous border. As you know, these issues are foremost in the thoughts of people across this country. As was noted by my friend and colleague from Arizona, Mr. Flake, his amendment acknowledged the reality that strengthening the ports of entry should be a national priority. His amendment was accepted as a means to begin to increase and pay attention to that national priority. It's a jobs issue, and it's a security issue. Land ports of entry are the economic drivers for the U.S. economy and also the front line for facilitating legitimate trade and travel while preventing unauthorized entry and contraband from crossing the border. Along the nearly 2,000-mile border with Mexico, U.S. Customs and Border Protection carry out this mission in 42 land ports of entry located in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. While significant investments in the border have been made in recent years, including the opening of three new crossings in 2010, more is demanded. Staffing at our land ports of entry have been severely overlooked, compromising our national and economic security. While a necessary buildup of border enforcement has occurred over the last 10 years, that proportional increase and attention to customs and ports of entry has not occurred. It is estimated that in Arizona alone, our ports of entry need 500 additional officers to meet a staffing need: 250 at the port of entry in Nogales, 50 in Douglas, and 150 in San Luis. Nationwide there is a need for up to 5,000 additional CBP officers. These shortages are alarming and they have alarming consequences. A 2008 GAO report said ``weakness in traveler inspections exists at our Nation's ports of entry.'' And according to this report: ``Field office managers said that staffing shortages created vulnerabilities in the inspections process.'' In 2008, the Department of Commerce found that the ``cumulative loss in output due to border delays over the next 10 years is estimated at $86 billion.'' Our economy and indeed our security will continue to be compromised unless we take strong measures. My amendment seeks to redirect within the account of border infrastructure additional funds for the personnel sorely needed. Let me just end by indicating some facts and points of reference. U.S.-Mexico bilateral trade reached nearly $400 billion in 2010. Mexico is the third-ranked commercial partner of the U.S. and second largest market for U.S. exports. Mexico spent $163 billion in U.S. goods in 2010. Twenty-two States count on Mexico as their number one or two export market, and it's the top five for 14 other States. One in every 24 workers in the Nation depends on U.S.-Mexico trade for their employment. This is an issue of the economy. It's an issue about jobs. My amendment merely addresses a reality: from unobligated and enhancement funds within the budget to transfer $30 million to begin that initial step to bring our ports of entry and customs to a full force in terms of staffing and to begin to expedite legitimate trade and end long waiting periods, improve our economy, and, yes indeed, continue to provide the advanced security that we need on those borders. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

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

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 241, sponsored by the gentleman from California, provides for the conveyance of 5 acres of land from Los Padres National Forest to the White Lotus Foundation. This conveyance allows for better access to a retreat area owned by the foundation. We have no objections to this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

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

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, if I might inquire of the chairman if he has any additional speakers.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As my colleague stated, H.R. 3263 authorizes storage of nonproject water in Lake Thunderbird Reservoir. The ability to store water at Lake Thunderbird Reservoir will provide reclamation and the managers with flexibility in managing the system. The administration supports H.R. 3263, and we have heard from the tribes around the region who do not object to this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, while the precedent of waiving the liability of the United States for the cleanup and reclamation of the site is of concern, of equal concern is the fact that Henderson has grown into the site, and grown closer and closer. BLM has stated they don't have the resources to provide the money to clean the site adequately, so it just sits there. This developer, and if the consent decree is binding, as has been indicated by the sponsor, is an opportunity. While it is not a perfect opportunity from my perspective, it is indeed an opportunity to deal with that cleanup and not just have the site sit there in perpetuity without any attention as everything else grows around it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. 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. GRIJALVA. I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the sponsor of the legislation, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for saving this very complicated and important piece of legislation as the last item that we deal with here today. My appreciation. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me thank the chairman for moving the legislation forward. I'm very appreciative. H.R. 4222 is an important piece of legislation that will enable the Pascua Yaqui tribe of my district in Arizona to consolidate its landholdings and remove two isolated undeveloped parcels of land from the Bureau of Land Management responsibility. The two 10-acre parcels are islands of trapped Federal land surrounded by Pascua Yaqui land on all sides. The tribe is developing a golf course in this area, and conveying these two parcels to the tribe will make managing the land easier for the tribe and the Federal Government. Without this legislation, the tribe would have to design around the parcels, slowing down the project, and weakening economic development that will benefit the entire Pascua Yaqui community and the residents of Pima County. Passage of this bill will further the Federal Government's responsibility to enhance tribal trust resources. I worked with BLM to ensure that the language of the bill would allow for environmental review and a public comment period in line with the National Environmental Policy Act and am pleased to report that the bill we are taking up today is supported by the Agency. I wish to thank my colleagues and the leadership within the Natural Resources Committee for bringing this bill forward and for hopeful passage in this session. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 4222, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

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