Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Clarification Act

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

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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. 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.

Yes, we are.

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

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. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

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

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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill H.R. 2578.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the Conservation and Economic Growth Act is aimed squarely at cutting government red tape and bureaucracy to boost local economic development and job creation. This legislation contains 14 commonsense bills from the House Natural Resources Committee, nearly all of which have received bipartisan support.

By solving problems and reducing red tape, this legislation will have a real impact on the people it affects. Among its many economic and job creation benefits, the bill will encourage tourism and recreation by ensuring public access to public lands. It will promote responsible use of our resources. It will protect the environment. It will secure Federal lands along our borders. And it promotes clean and renewable hydropower.

Month after month, Mr. Chairman, Republicans in Congress have been focused on encouraging and supporting new job creation. The House has passed over 30 job creation bills that sit in the Senate, where Democrat leaders have refused to take any action.

By reducing red tape, promoting American-made energy, and streamlining bureaucracy, we can start creating jobs for tens of millions of Americans who are looking for work. The Conservation and Economic Growth Act fits into this same job creation mold.

When it comes to the Environmental Protection Agency, the American public is well aware of the ability of this Federal agency to slow our economy with debilitating regulations. And when it comes to our Federal lands, which are predominated located in the Western part of the United States, there is plenty of bureaucracy and red tape to go around.

In that regard, there are four primary Federal land management agencies: the Bureau of Land Management; the Forest Service; the Fish & Wildlife Service; and the National Park Service. Combined, they manage over 600 million acres of Federal land and have over 60,000 Federal employees. Many of these Federal employees do important, helpful work. But there are many times when their actions or outdated Federal laws have a tremendous negative impact on their surrounding communities. But these Federal policies, restrictions, lawsuits, and the bureaucratic decisions can harm local economies and the public's ability to access public lands for the multiple uses for which these public lands were intended.

It doesn't have to take Federal spending or taxpayer money to solve these problems. It simply takes Congress making commonsense changes in laws and regulations to restore reasonableness, transparency, accountability, and, yes, Mr. Chairman, sometimes sanity to the actions of the Federal Government.

That is the purpose of this underlying legislation: to fix local and national problems caused by Federal red tape and policies that are harming the public and our economy throughout America. We will hear more specific information from the sponsors of these solutions during the debate this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation also reflects the promises of House Republicans when they were elected as a new

majority in 2010. The Conservation and Economic Growth Act is an efficient way to uphold Republicans' commitment to an open and transparent House.

The text of the act has been online since last Tuesday and available for Members and the public to read now for a week. Each and every one of the 14 bills that is in this package has had a public hearing, has been open to amendment in the committee, has been voted on in the committee, and amendments will be debated and voted on here today by the full House.

Now, Mr. Chairman, this stands in stark contrast to the previous way of doing business, when we had monster omnibus bills that were forced through the House without any chance of amendment. In fact, one can compare this small 14-bill package that has undergone full public and legislative review with the 2009 monster omnibus lands bill enacted into law when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. The 2009 omnibus bill was over 1,200 pages in length, it cost $10 billion, and it contained over 170 bills, including 75 that had never been considered in the House.

Yet through all of this process, not one single amendment was allowed to be offered, and even the minority--the Republicans at that time-- were denied an opportunity with the motion to recommit.

Well, those days of the monster omnibus are over. No longer will controversial bills that haven't seen the light of day be hidden deep inside a thousand-page bill. Since the start of this Congress, we reviewed bills one by one in the Natural Resources Committee. Each has had a public subcommittee hearing; and once the committee acts, the full House considers them in a transparent manner.

This bill, the underlying legislation we're dealing with, lives up to this standard. It is an antidote to the abusive processes of the past. It is a bite-sized package that can be easily read and today is getting a thorough debate on the House floor.

So now the House can act to approve this bill to roll back red tape, to restore some commonsense to solve problems, and to boost economic activity. This bill deserves bipartisan support, and I urge my colleagues to vote for its passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham), the primary sponsor of this legislation.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, just to correct the record, there is nothing in this bill that affects the Bureau of Reclamation or the hydro-dams on the Columbia River in my district.

I'm very pleased right now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), who is the author of title III of this bill.

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the author of title XIV, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), the author of title XIII of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei), the author of title IX of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the author of title V of this bill, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador), who is the author of title XI of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Canseco), who is the author of title IV of this bill.

Yes.

The gentleman is correct, with the adoption of the manager's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), who is the author of title II of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) who is the author of title X of this bill.

I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), who is the author of title VIII of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of my friend from Arizona, we have no more requests for time, and I'm prepared to close, if the gentleman is prepared to close.

Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let's go back to the basic issue, really, that's facing this country--and I alluded to it in my opening statement. What Americans really want is jobs. And while this package of bills is in line with that, what it really does is add some certainty to those that live in and around Federal lands. Therefore, allowing for at least some certainty as it relates to jobs, but probably as important, if not more important, is access to our public lands for those that want to utilize our public lands.

There's been much discussion here about how this bill does some damage to the environment. Well, let me just touch on a couple of issues that were mentioned on the other side and I think it needs to be clarified, at least here, before this debate is over.

First, the reference was made to sea lions that were guilty of one thing, and that was eating only fish. Well, I happen to be the author of the title of that bill. Let me clarify. There's a rest-of-the-story here. We had a hearing in the full committee of the Natural Resources Committee today on the Endangered Species Act. I think, frankly, it hasn't been reauthorized for 25 years, and I think we need to update that act to make sure that we recover species. And my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said it's a great act. That's good. We at least have some establishment of commonality.

The reason that provision is in the bill regarding sea lions is that salmon are listed as threatened on the Columbia River. And as they move upstream after coming back from the ocean, they get crowded going up Bonneville Dam. Now, there's a nonindigenous animal called the California sea lion that comes up there and feasts on these fish as they're going through the Bonneville Dam. So it's destroying an endangered species. The California sea lion is not listed as endangered, and they're not indigenous.

So that part of the legislation simply allows for lethal taking of those sea lions so the fish can pass upstream and spawn. Nothing more than that. It's a cute way, to borrow a phrase, to say that they're guilty of only eating fish. But there's more to that story.

This legislation also encourages the development of renewable hydropower. What could be cleaner than that? It promotes healthy forest and prevents forest fires, as my colleague from northern California just said in regard to the title of the act he has in there. It restores access to different parks for recreational purposes in the North Cascades and at Cape Hatteras on the Atlantic Coast, and it preserves old growth in Alaska.

So, Mr. Chairman, there is a lot to be liked about this bill, but it seems most of the discussion is around title XIV.

Let me read the title of title XIV one more time. It is the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act. Now why do we need that? Because, unfortunately, there are those that want to come into our country illegally, and they don't have the same feelings as we do about our public lands. When they come through illegally, in many cases, they trash those lands. We're simply giving the Border Patrol more tools to protect those public lands and to provide for our national security. I don't know why anybody on the floor of this House should be opposed to that aspect. That's all that title XIV does, as was explained very well by the author of that provision, Mr. Bishop of Utah.

So, Mr. Chairman, this bill is worth supporting. It has been developed in a bipartisan method. It has been developed in a transparent method, having gone through the committee process.

I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment makes some technical, clarifying, and conforming changes to the underlying bill. It amends title IV to delete a portion of the land that the National Park Service does not want to acquire for the San Antonio missions and which would expose it to liability for cleanup costs.

It conforms the text of title VI to match what the House passed in the 111th Congress in H.R. 2806.

And it conforms title VIII with the leadership protocols regarding length and amount of authorizations.

And, finally, it clarifies what funds States may use to increase access to target ranges under title XII.

With that, I urge adoption and I reserve the balance of my time.

I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, obviously, to this amendment because this amendment would single out one particular group of Native Alaskans for restrictions that currently only apply to timber harvested from certain Federal lands in the lower 48.

Now, the irony here, as was pointed out by the gentleman from Alaska, is that the Forest Service in the Tongass allows for 100 percent export of red cedar harvested in the Tongass and 50 percent of old growth harvested in the Tongass. So I think it is, in all honesty, Mr. Chairman, a bit hypocritical to impose the domestic limitations on Natives while the Forest Service is doing just exactly the opposite.

Now, I'll also add that this amendment does not affect other landowners on the Tongass; it only affects the Natives of Sealaska. Now, I don't think that's really what we should be doing here on the floor of the House is singling out one group for a penalty, and that's precisely what this amendment does.

So I urge rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador), the author of the title of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I've had an opportunity several times to come down here to debate the motions to recommit, and I've prefaced virtually every time I've come down here with, history repeats itself.

Mr. Speaker, history is repeating itself one more time. Why do I say that? Because probably the biggest issue that Americans are concerned about is jobs. This is another effort that deals with American jobs by dealing with regulation that slows down economic activity.

So what does the other side do? They try to put up another impediment to a bill that is straightforward, had transparency in committee, had a full debate in committee, and put together to debate on the floor. It's the same arguments that we have that, frankly, are meaningless.

Now, to the essence of what the gentleman's amendment does. All of this is essentially redundant. It's in law right now.

Is this just a political move on the minority's part? Is that what it is?

If the issue is really trying to deal with firefighting in the West, I would remind this body, Mr. Speaker, that 2 weeks ago, we passed legislation to allow the Forest Service to buy tankers to fight forest fires. We've already done that.

All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that history repeats itself. Let's vote down this motion to recommit and let's vote for the jobs bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the House, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2578.

Now, some of you may recall the old Rod Serling television show, ``The Twilight Zone.'' At the beginning of each episode, Serling would explain that viewers were ``about to enter another dimension--a dimension not only of sight and sound, but of mind, a journey into a wondrous land of imagination. Next stop, the Twilight Zone.''

Well, that is very much where we are this week on the House floor. We are truly entering another dimension--a wondrous land of paranoid imagination. Republicans call it the ``Operational Control Zone,'' but it is really the ``Drone Zone.''

Submitted for your consideration are the following facts:

This week, world leaders are gathering in Rio to deal with the threat of global warming. Meanwhile, the majority has us gathered here to address the threat sea lions pose to salmon. Right now, firefighters are working day and night to try to contain wildfires in forests in Colorado and New Mexico, and the majority has us working here to give away old-growth Alaskan forest.

We have just 2 weeks before the transportation authorization bill expires and student loan rates double. And what are we doing? We are spending an entire day on a piece of legislation that has zero chance of being enacted into law. It is a package of bad ideas that are largely irrelevant to the real issues facing our Nation.

Title I of this bill would flood part of a Wild and Scenic River. Title III is an earmark to an Alaskan Native corporation that will facilitate clear-cutting in the Tongass National Forest. Titles IV and V appear to create new parks, but include harmful provisions that would cripple the management of these parks. Title VII would authorize the death penalty for sea lions whose only crime is eating fish. Title X would overturn the protections for endangered turtles from being run over by off-road vehicles. Title XI would extend the practice of below- cost grazing on public lands--a bargain-basement discount for cattlemen all across this country not paying their fair share. Actually, being a type of Federal welfare for cattlemen. And unbelievably, title XIV would create a 100-mile ``drone zone'' along our northern and southern borders within which the Border Patrol could suspend 36 environmental laws and seize control of all public land management.

Let me spend a moment here talking about what I find to be the most offensive part of this legislation: title XIV. This is the national map. What the Republicans do here today is they take a 100-mile area all along the northern border of the United States and the southern border of the United States and they create a new area. And this new area is really a drone zone. The reason that it's a drone zone is that it allows for 36 health and safety and environmental laws to be overridden, and it would expand the area where the Department of Homeland Security could use drones for surveillance. It allows the Department of Homeland Security to shut down national parks at a moment's notice. So all of a sudden the Department of Homeland Security can start using drones in this area.

Now, when you add up all of the space that is now included, it is equal to the total area of California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut combined, which will now be in this new special area that has the Department of Homeland Security determining where drones can be used. And as we know, that won't be just for ensuring environmental laws not being violated. They'll be over this whole area.

Now, if you take a look at this map, I understand why the gentleman from Utah introduced this bill. Utah is far away from the Republican drone zone. They're not within the hundred miles of the border of the Mexican or Canadian people. But what if you live in Maine? Nearly your entire State is in this drone zone. Want to go to Acadia National Park? Better check with the Department of Homeland Security and the Republicans first. Or Minnesota: maybe you want to take a trip up to the Boundary Waters. Better check with the Department of Homeland Security and the Republicans first. Or Olympia National Park in Washington State: better check with the Department of Homeland Security or the Republicans first.

Want clean air in the drone zone? Better make sure the Department of Homeland Security and the Republicans haven't exempted the Clean Air Act. Want to drink some water after a long hike? Better make sure the Department of Homeland Security and the Republicans haven't waived the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Make no mistake, this isn't a bill that actually addresses America's immigration issues. Neither the Department of Homeland Security nor its Customs and Border Protection division support this bill. They don't want this authority, but the Republicans are insisting on giving them this authority--100 miles along the Mexican and Canadian borders.

The GOP's drone zone bill does not increase resources for border agents, but instead turns over our natural resources to the Department of Homeland Security. Passing this bill does not increase the number of Border Patrol agent boots on the ground. It just ignores the protections against trampling on sovereign and sacred ground like tribal grave sites. It does not look for a path toward citizenship. It tells families on vacation or a picnic that the Department of Homeland Security can kick you off a path at any moment.

Under this bill, ranchers and their cattle can be herded away by border agents, jeopardizing their entire ranching operation. Families and visitors to public parks can have their trips canceled. And the water, the air, and the land will be left unprotected.

Instead of working to pass a DREAM Act to help solve the immigration challenge, House Republicans instead want to create a nightmare scenario at our borders. That's why more than 50 Hispanic and Latino groups have joined with environmental organizations,

tribal groups, and organizations representing sportsmen and hunters to oppose the Republican drone zone bill. Fifty Hispanic and Latino groups opposing this bill.

We might be spending 4 hours here today on the House floor in a legislative twilight zone created by the majority considering a bill that isn't grounded in reality. But as we do, let us not forget that there are millions of Americans outside of this alternative reality who are trying to make ends meet, trying to keep their families together and safe, and hoping to maintain the environmental protections which make our country great.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water and Power.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from the State of Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

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

Mr. Chairman, we're about to talk about grazing fees. For people in many parts of the country, they may not know what that is. That is that, on Federal lands across the country, cattlemen can bring their cattle onto Federal lands--that is, the public lands of the United States--and graze. And what are they charged? Well, they're charged $1.35. That's exactly what they were charged in 1986.

Now, right next to this Federal land, in many States, there is State land. That State land in Colorado is very valuable; but they ensure, the Governor of Colorado, that the cattlemen there in that State pay $10 to graze, not 1.35. In Montana, cattlemen have to pay $7.90. In Utah, they have to pay $7.30. But on the public lands in each of those States--that is, the Federal lands--it's 1.35, just hasn't increased. And who pays the price? Well, the Federal taxpayer pays the price because the cattlemen get to basically have this incredible subsidy.

So, just to use the analogy, when I started working, I got paid $1.35 when I was a kid. I'm sure there are many people who would still like to just pay $1.35 for a kid to work in the supermarket, but they can't do it because time moves on--unless you're a cattleman, where they have locked that minimum price into a hermetically sealed, cryogenically frozen price, $1.35. That's great, except for the Federal taxpayer who cannot collect all of the money they need.

Or should we just say, for the sake of discussion, that you happen to have a rent-controlled apartment in New York City. The rent was set back in 1986 or 1976, and now the markets have raised that price up to perhaps $4,000. The Republicans would say, well, rent control, that's good; we like keeping the price that way because it benefits a certain class of people. And I understand the Republican philosophy of freezing in prices that way--keeping the minimum wage as low as possible, keeping the rent control price for an apartment as low as possible. I understand the government intervention role of the Federal Government not allowing the free market to determine the price of something. But here what happens is that it balloons the Federal deficit because people aren't able to collect what we absolutely know to be the price to graze for a cow per day. We know what the price is because, in the adjoining land in Colorado or Utah or in Montana or in Washington State, we know what the State is charging on State public lands.

So this is just an attempt to give the Department of the Interior the ability to raise by $1--not all the way up to $10, not all the way up to $7, but just $1 from $1.35 up to $2.35--just as a little experiment just to see what happens out there in the market when people actually have to pay something that even remotely approximates what the price to graze would be.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the Chair please inform us as to how much time is remaining?

I will, at this point, continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the remainder of my time.

So this argument that's being made by the Republicans is nonsensical. What you're saying is, that in your home State, on State land, you charge 10 bucks or 7 bucks to the cattlemen to graze. But on Federal land it's only a buck 35 in your State. And your answer to raising the price for cattlemen is that we should be having a debate over whether or not the State of Colorado or Montana controls all of the Federal land in your State. Then you'll begin to debate whether or not cattlemen should get away with only a buck 35?

You know, you're giving new definition to the term ``free range beef.''

You're allowing for the cattlemen in these States to get away with murder, and you're not even debating the issue of how they get away with this.

That's all we want from you. Tell us why you think they deserve a buck 35. You don't even want to reach that issue. You want to go off on the secondary issue of how much land in each State is controlled by the Federal Government, which is not what we are debating. We're debating how cattlemen get away with this bargain basement price that then comes to every other State to make up the difference in the Federal deficit because you're unwilling to collect it.

Meanwhile, you say to Grandma, higher rates for Medicare. You say to kids in school, higher payback for the loans that you take out. But for the cattlemen in your home State, somehow or other you don't understand that this is a debate that goes to the heart of why it is the people are very unhappy with the way the Federal Government operates.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Chair

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

This amendment is just further evidence that the problem this drone zone bill claims to be solving does not exist and that the underlying bill is a dangerous overreach.

When this legislation was first introduced, we were told that it was necessary to establish this 100-mile drone zone around the entire United States--east coast, west coast, Hawaii, and Alaska. That version of the drone zone looked like a giant red belt surrounding the entire country. Then supporters of the bill decided that they'd gone too far. The bill was altered to say the drone zone would only cover a 100-mile stretch along our northern and southern borders and along the eastern border of Alaska. Even with that change, we were still assured that a blanket waiver of the full list of 36 bedrock environmental laws was absolutely necessary for our border security.

Now we have a further change.

This amendment will reduce the list of laws weighed by the drone zone from 36 environmental laws down to 16 environmental laws. This is the ever-shrinking bill. It gets smaller and smaller as people realize that environmental laws are not the problem when it comes to border security and that the zone created by this bill would harm the environment and individual freedoms for millions of Americans.

The Bishop amendment proves that the underlying bill has always been an extreme and extremely harmful solution to a problem that does not exist. Perhaps if we give supporters enough time, they can shrink this idea down to waiving parking enforcement in a small area around Tucson. This amendment reduces the damage this bill would do, but it does not begin to prevent that damage. Waiving 36 laws was an unnecessary overreach, and waiving 16 laws would be as well.

Limiting the scope of this terrible bill is a small step in the right direction, so there is no reason to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the Chair please inform the Members as to the time remaining on both sides.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I am the final speaker on our side if the gentleman from Utah is ready to conclude debate.

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

Mr. Chairman, the minority insists that we are creating some sort of drone zone in title XIV. Now, I understand the intent of that is to muddy the waters on what is otherwise a very clear issue. Can I tell you, I like that phrase, I'm going to use it in the future, but it is also as cute as it is totally inaccurate.

Members should understand that this title specifically and intentionally deals with Federal lands on the northern and southern borders. It does not include private property. The use of the size characteristics are as cute as they are inaccurate.

The legislation does not expand the current reach of the Border Patrol. The Border Patrol already has enforcement authority out to 100 miles today. That's why the 100-mile figure is in there.

The gentleman is also late in his authorization of drones. The use of drones is not authorized by this legislation. The fact is the Border Patrol already uses drones, regardless of what the Federal or the land designation happens to be. With passage of this title and this bill, the impact on drone use will be zero. Whether you support drones or are concerned with drones, this bill doesn't address it. Once again, it's cute as it is inaccurate.

This legislation does not increase or create new enforcement authority. It does not limit constitutional rights. The only source of this bill, this title, is to allow the Border Patrol to have on Federal property the same rights they exercise on State and private property.

These lands will still be managed and administered by the Departments of Interior and Agriculture, but border security will no longer be a second to the whims of Federal land managers. It becomes the priority.

The idea of rounding up cattle by the Border Patrol is as cute as it is inaccurate, but I am going to use it because it's cute.

This bill specifically protects legal uses, including recreation, and specifically prohibits the Border Patrol from limiting public access.

Now, some people have said on the other side they object to this operational control of these areas by the Border Patrol.

What does ``operational control'' mean? It's in the title. It is to prevent all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics and other contraband through the international land borders with the United States.

You're actually opposed to that? You're opposed to doing that? You're opposed to actually allowing our Border Patrol to make sure that is the purpose and that is what is happening?

This bill is about giving the Border Patrol access to Federal lands so they can do their Federal responsibility instead of being prohibited from fulfilling their Federal responsibility by certain Federal regulations. That's silly. That's wrong. It's cute, but it's also inaccurate.

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

Mr. Chairman, there are basically four elements that are involved in the amendment that I am proposing. The first one is to narrow the list of laws that can be waived by the Border Patrol on these areas to maintain operational control of the land. Presently, it lists 36 bills that could be waived.

Now I want you to know that that number was not irrational. It was not picked out of the air. Thirty-six bills have precedence of what this House has already done.

When the government was trying to finish the fence in California, there were litigations and environmental laws that were prohibiting them from doing that, so the Department of Homeland Security recommended the 36 laws that they thought did or could impede the building of that particular wall along our border. Congress agreed with them and, for the purpose of concluding that wall, we allowed them to waive those 36 rules, regulations, or laws.

Those are the same 36 in this bill. It's nothing additional to it. Well, I take that back. Democrats add one bill in committee that was not part of the original list, and that was fine as well.

What we are now trying to do is admit that about 20 of those really are not going to be a problem, but 16 still could be. So it limits it from 36 to 16, as those that can be waived for the purpose of allowing Border Patrol and Homeland Security to do the job for which they are paid to do.

The second thing, it specifically prohibits any additional access to private property. It eliminates the possibility of Border Patrol reducing public access to any Federal lands, and that includes for purposes of hunting or fishing or off-road vehicles.

It adds a provision to ensure that we are to protect tribal sovereignty, that nothing in this bill may supersede, replace, negate, or diminish treaty obligations or agreements with Indian tribes. Existing practices and negotiation cooperation between the Border Patrol and the tribes will continue.

It also clarifies what is the purpose of operation control, which is to prevent all unlawful entry into the United States, including entry by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband through the international land borders of the United States.

There are three reasons why this amendment, indeed, the underlying bill is important. Number 1, a sovereign country controls its own borders. We are not doing that here. We need to.

Number 2, we will never solve our overall immigration issue until we can guarantee that we can, in some way, lower the anger and the rage and the anxiety that is out there. If indeed we can look at our fellow citizens and, with a straight face, say we have control of the border, all of a sudden the ability of solving other problems, some of which are easy and some of which are complex, the ability to do that increases.

And third, and most importantly, the violence against women--the women who are raped along these trails, whose garments are left on these trees as a trophy to the coyote who raped these women, these woman who have absolutely no other source to go, they have no one to complain to, they have no one to ask for protection. This must stop.

The Border Patrol can't stop this practice. Right now, what we're doing is simply putting up signs saying areas are off limits to Americans, but that does not stop this practice. And unless we can give the Border Patrol access to this territory so they can stop this practice, we're not doing anything about it. We are not solving this particular issue.

I'll add one more time. We have talked about the ``drone zone'' in here, which is something, once again, it's cute and inaccurate. This amendment has nothing do with the ``drone zone.'' It does not authorize, nor does it stop drones. It doesn't authorize black helicopters or stop them, or red-headed stepchildren, or illegal Druids coming to this country as well.

But what it does do is allow our professional Border Patrol to have the same rights of access to Federal land that they have on private property and State land. And it says that we will control our border, we will solve our immigration problem, and we will stop the rape trees. We will stop this heinous practice from going forward, and we will do it positively. That's the purpose of this amendment to this title of the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I am prepared to close when you are ready to close.

The 36 laws that were originally placed were there when Homeland Security asked for those and when Congress agreed to it. It is the precedent. I am lowering it to 16 out of benefit to you.

I have been on the border. I have been on the border, and I have seen the rape trees. This must stop. I have also been on the border to see there are 48 different organizations that have endorsed the underlying bill, including the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, the National Border Patrol Council, the local Border Patrol Council in Arizona, and the National Association of Police Organizations. Those who work this realize the importance of this, and that's why they are supporting it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I hope I will not take the 5 minutes of this time.

With all due respect for my good friend from Arizona, for whom I have a great deal of admiration, I would emphasize again that the title of this section is National Security and Federal Lands Protection. It does not extend to any other property except those that belong to the Federal Government on our borders. It has a 5-year limitation on it. There is a sunset provision so it can be reviewed. But more importantly, the elements that are in this particular title are there for a reason, there is precedent for them. One hundred miles is what the legal definition of border land actually is. The 36 laws--I'm ready to go back to those. The 36 laws were the laws that were presented by the Department of Homeland Security as those potential laws that could cause them damage, and this Congress agreed to that precedent. Congress established that they could be waived for that specific purpose.

I want to once again tell you what Secretary Napolitano said about this particular issue of border security when she first came into office: The removal of cross-border violators from public lands is a value to the environment.

You want to protect the environment, get the drug cartels and the human traffickers off of that particular area. It is the removal of those violators from public lands that is a value to the environment, as well as to the mission of the land managers, which is once again the 48 groups that talk about and support this. They come from conservation groups, they come from agriculture groups, but more importantly, they come from the Border Patrol agents themselves. Those are the ones who have come forth and testified that they need special ability of having access to this land if we're going to control the border, which is what a sovereign country does.

Mr. Chairman, this is the word of what their responsibilities are. This is what we have told the Border Patrol they have to do: Prevent all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband through the international land borders

of the United States. That's in this title. That's their job. That's what the Border Patrol has requested to do.

All we need to do is give them the tools they need to be able to accomplish that, tools on Federal land that will mirror the tools they have on private and State lands. Let them do their job. They need access to this area to patrol it and to apprehend the bad guys. Give them that opportunity.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, can I just inquire if there is any time left from either side?

Let me just say once again, I appreciate the arguments that are given.

When I have been on the border and have been able to talk to the people who work on the border about what they need to protect the border, once again they're telling us that they need the access. The ability to waive these law, these rules, these regulations is what we have done in the past. Congress already did it once before. There is precedent. This is not something that is new, but this is what is definitely needed. This is the right thing to do.

I urge you to reject this particular amendment.

And in all fairness, Mr. Chair, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona so he has a chance to close on his particular amendment.

Will the gentlelady yield?

Yes, Hawaii was taken out in committee. It is not put in with the amendment that was just passed.

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.

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