Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mental Illness Awareness Week. Every year the American Psychiatric Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the National Mental Health Association designate one week in October to put the spotlight on mental illness and the associated policy issues. This year we recognize this important time on October 7th through 13th.

Mental illness doesn't discriminate. One in five Americans bear mental illness, ranging from mild depression to severe disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. One in five children endures a diagnosable disorder and one in ten children suffers from a serious disorder which, if unaddressed, can lead to poor school performance, social anxiety and seclusion and even violence against themselves and other people. Unfortunately, less than one-third of adults and less than half of children receive treatment for diagnosed serious disorders, leading to an average lifespan 25 years less than the general population.

Organizations like the American Psychiatric Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the National Mental Health Association and their field partners work with municipal and state governments to make sure those who need care have access to it. In my district and around the country, local governments such as the Pima County Board of Supervisors are working diligently to ensure high-quality, cost- efficient community mental healthcare is available.

However, there is still much work to be done. When there is a lack of mental healthcare in a community, we see more lost jobs, more people out on the streets and more broken families. Often these communities see more emergency room visits, larger prison populations and higher social services costs all around. We must stay diligent in addressing mental illness and always stay focused on the individual.

Again, I want to recognize these organizations for their important work, and I urge those who need help to ask for it.

Mr. Speaker, this week marks the United States Constitution's 225th anniversary.

Our Constitution is a product of realistic compromise and intelligent consensus--a trait, I might add, sorely missing in this Chamber.

It lays out the central principles for a democratic government and the rights that citizens can expect to enjoy in that government. With the inclusion of six voting rights amendments, we have formed a more solid democracy.

The voting rights amendments fundamentally changed our system of government--outlawing poll taxes in Federal elections, giving ordinary Americans the right to elect their Senators, allowing the citizens of our Nation's Capital to vote for President, and guaranteeing that all Americans--regardless of race, religion, gender, or age--would enjoy these protections.

With these protections and these amendments, we affirmed the inherent values of our Constitution and our democracy.

The right to vote is still, to this day, the essential piece of our democracy.

Think about it. To deny an eligible voter the opportunity to vote is to undermine the very freedom that defines us as a Nation. The right to vote is essential to our democracy.

However, while the marches of student demonstrators and religious leaders once drove electoral reform in the United States, a new and dark movement is sweeping across the country. State lawmakers have been pushed by corporate interests and driven by a cynical point of view that says: We must deny other people the right to vote in order to continue to keep our power, and we must target those groups and individuals who may not agree with our point of view. With this cynical selective process, we keep power and we only concentrate on the people and extend the privileges to those that agree with our point of view.

New voter laws that are now being proposed and have passed in State legislatures make voter registration more difficult and cumbersome, cut the availability of early voting, and require voters to present current government-issued identifications as a prerequisite to casting a ballot. These efforts threaten the integrity of our democratic system and are very clearly targeted.

The new restrictions on voting would disproportionately burden African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, young voters, and Americans new to the political process.

Plain and simple, these restrictive voter laws threaten to disenfranchise young, poor, minority, and elderly voters who lack formal government-issued IDs despite the fact that it is more likely that an American will be struck and killed by lightning than he would impersonate another voter at the polls. We know exactly what these voter suppression laws mean.

In Texas, a Federal court recently found that the Texas voter ID law violated the Voting Rights Act because it made it harder for African Americans and Latinos to vote. The court stated that evidence conclusively shows that the cost of obtaining a qualified ID will fall more heavily on the poor, and a disproportionate number of African Americans and Latinos in Texas live in poverty.

In Pennsylvania, a July 5 Philadelphia Inquirer article reported that 758,000 registered voters in Pennsylvania do not have an ID, a new State law requirement for voting. That figure represents 9.2 percent of the State's voters that could be stopped from voting.

A report by the Brennan Center for Justice found that allegations of widespread voter fraud often proved greatly exaggerated. Moreover, these claims of voter fraud are frequently used to justify policies that do not solve the alleged wrongs but could well disenfranchise legitimate voters.

In some States, veterans' ID cards won't be sufficient as a photo ID to vote.

In the last 12 months in my State of Arizona, there has been an accelerated effort to suppress the vote. These new efforts represent a coordinated effort clearly designed to suppress the vote of those people who need to make sure that their government is paying attention to their needs.

People of color, women, young people literally risked, and some lost, their lives to gain the right to vote in this Nation of ours. Throughout its history, our country has tried to remove obstacles to voter participation, making the right to vote accessible to all eligible citizens.

We cannot turn our back on that fundamental right. Our legacy as a Nation demands better of us.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 6060 authorizes the use of power revenues to fund two recovery programs in the Upper Colorado and San Juan Rivers. Since 2011, Reclamation has continued to fund these programs at a cost of about $3 million annually, using its existing authority.

We support the intent of H.R. 6060 to recover listed species while allowing water and power operations to continue. We share the administration's commitment to this program. We also welcome the majority's recognition that compliance with the Endangered Species Act does not mean that water and power projects in the West go dry or go dark. This program provides ESA compliance for 2,320 water projects. These projects deliver more than 3.7 million acre-feet of water per year to Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico.

We are concerned, however, that the Republican rules only allow for the reauthorization of this program to 2019 versus the original goal of 2023. While we agree this legislation should move, it should be clear that, at least on our side of the aisle, our commitment to this program through 2023 has not changed.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1461, legislation that would authorize the Mescalero Apache Tribe of New Mexico to lease its adjudicated and quantified water rights for up to 99 years, pursuant to State law.

There is a tremendous need for water in south central New Mexico among the Mescalero Apache Tribe's non-Indian neighbors. The tribe has approximately 2,300 acre-feet of water to meet this need, which it is ready to lease to the surrounding communities. Revenue generated by such leasing would be used to fund basic tribal government services such as a senior care center, infrastructure development, and academic scholarships.

Because the tribe's water rights were quantified by adjudication, legislation is necessary to authorize the tribe to lease its water. H.R. 1416 provides this simple authorization that would not only make the tribe's valuable resource available to those in need, but also give the tribe a much-needed source of additional government revenue.

During the subcommittee hearing on the bill the administration expressed concern that H.R. 1461 did not limit tribal authority for leasing water to off-reservation locations and that such a clarification was needed to prevent

possible application of State law to on-reservation water leases. Committee staff worked together to amend H.R. 1461 to clarify that the tribe's authorities are limited to off-reservation water leases. The tribe can now be assured that State law will never apply to on- reservation water leases, pursuant to H.R. 1461.

Mr. Speaker, we support H.R. 1461, and I reserve the balance of my time.

No, I don't, Mr. Chairman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate Chairman Bishop's indulgence at this point.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3319, a bill that would authorize the Pascua Yaqui Tribe to set its own membership criteria by replacing congressionally mandated criteria that artificially limited enrollment to certain Yaqui people based on application deadlines and other requirements that do not reflect tribal input.

H.R. 3319 reflects the modern congressional policy of allowing federally recognized tribes to set their own membership criteria. The bill eliminates current membership requirements imposed by statute and replaces them with a requirement that members possess any degree of Indian blood as determined by the tribe. The Pascua Yaqui Tribe, like all federally recognized tribes, has the inherent right to determine its own membership without restrictions imposed by the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 3319, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for women and families affected by ovarian cancer. In 2012, it is estimated that approximately 22,280 women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer and 15,500 will die of the disease. In my state, Arizona,

an estimated 11,090 women will die from ovarian cancer this year. Too many American women--sisters, daughters, nieces, wives, friends, neighbors, and coworkers--are losing their lives to this disease.

Because ovarian cancer screening or early detection test do not currently exist, organizations stress that ``until there's a test, awareness is best.'' I commend the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance for its steadfast commitment to make women aware of the risk factors, signs, and symptoms of ovarian cancer and for its advocacy on behalf of women and families touched by this devastating disease. I also would like to commend the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance's Partner Member groups in Arizona.

Experts recommend that women see a gynecologist if they experience any of the often subtle symptoms of ovarian cancer daily for more than a few weeks. Four major symptoms of ovarian cancer include bloating, pelvic or abdominal pain, difficulty eating or feeling full quickly, and frequent or urgent need to urinate. I ask all of my colleagues to become familiar with these symptoms and to share the information with their friends, family, staff, and constituents.

Ovarian cancer is the ninth most common cancer among women and the fifth leading cause of cancer-related deaths, making it the deadliest of gynecologic cancers. If ovarian cancer is treated before it has spread outside the ovary, the five-year survival rate is 93 percent. Currently, only 15 percent of ovarian cancers are found at such an early stage and overall the relative five-year survival rate is 46 percent. I urge my colleagues to help make women aware of the potential warning signs to prevent future deaths. Experts acknowledge that symptoms can be vague and may be associated with other medical conditions, however, as the saying goes, it is better to be safe than sorry.

September is National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month--an important time during which ovarian cancer organizations, advocates, and others will be helping to raise awareness about the disease and its symptoms. Teal is the official color for ovarian cancer, like pink is for breast cancer. My staff and I will be wearing teal or teal ribbons to indicate our support of the ovarian cancer community and their efforts, including increasing awareness of the symptoms, boosting federal funding for ovarian cancer awareness, and expanding federal research to improve treatments and support the development of a desperately needed screening or early detection test.

I urge my colleagues and their staffs to join me in recognizing September as National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month and to join with us in wearing teal throughout September to increase public knowledge about this deadly disease.

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.

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

Mr. Chairman, part of the argument is that the Forest Service is dragging its feet and will not allow this process to continue. I would suggest that the Minnesota Legislature came to the realization it was something they needed to do. That process was initiated, legislation was passed, and that process continues. The role of the Federal Government in hindering that does not exist. This was a volition and a decision that Minnesota and its representatives had to take.

On June 22, 1948, President Truman signed legislation into law to authorize the acquisition of private lands within what is now known as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. The legislation was promoted as a way to protect important natural resource values from commercialization and to compensate Cook, Lake, and St. Louis Counties for the loss of private tax revenue.

During the legislative process, Congressman Blatnik argued that counties should receive 12 cents per acre of Federal land for compensation of lost property tax revenues. The Truman administration, arguing that the 12 cents per acre figure was excessive, negotiated compensation to three-quarters of 1 percent of fair market value, which is the way the law was enacted and stands today.

Each year since, these counties have received mandatory payments, adjusted periodically to reflect increased property values. Last year, these payments totaled over $6 million. Under the funding formula, more Federal lands mean more Federal money. Absent the Hastings amendment, Lake, Cook, and St. Louis Counties, all within the sponsor of this legislation's district, stood to receive another $1 million annually.

We raised questions regarding this payment from the time the bill was heard in subcommittee until the bill was reported from full committee. In fact, I sent letters to each county commissioner in these counties trying to learn more about how these funds were used. I received two responses. Both indicated they support the current Thye-Blatnik formula and relied on these payments to compensate for lost property tax revenue. Surprisingly, no one wants to talk about these payments because they would be considered earmarks--earmarks which the sponsor voted against supporting, along with many other members of his caucus.

I represent a district with a lot of Federal lands. My counties get payments through PILT and through Secure Rural Schools. We have to fight like crazy to extend payments every time these bills come for reauthorization. Yet today, we have a bill that purports to be about education funding for Minnesota kids. What kind of role models are we if we can't even have an educated conversation about what Federal money is currently going to Minnesota?

Let's just look at the arithmetic. Minnesota State Representative Denise Dittrich testified before the committee that the State was losing $650,000 annually from foregone revenues because the State trust lands were within the wilderness area. She supports the enactment of this legislation to make up for the revenue. Yet, because of the Hastings amendment, this legislation actually takes $1 million in revenue away from the Counties of Lake, Cook, and St. Louis.

Are we robbing Peter to pay Paul? That's the question.

I reserve the balance of my time.

September 6, 2012.

To: Amelia Jenkins.

Subject: Request from Ranking Member Grijalva related to Thye

Blatnik.

Dear Amelia, As a county commissioner in Cook County

Minnesota I am opposed to any change in the long standing,

reasonably established (with the Boundary Waters legislation

many years ago) legislation that has, in effect, the Federal

Government making payments to Cook, Lake, and St. Louis

counties that makes up for property taxes that were lost by

locking this land into the federal wilderness system.

There was much local opposition and controversy surrounding

the establishment of this wilderness, which was for the

benefit of the whole country, and these payments were

established to offset taxes lost and create a more positive

relationship between these 3 counties and the federal

government.

This is one case where the history of the legislation needs

to be revisited and reasons for it need to be properly

understood.

Thanks,

Jim Johnson,

Cook County Commissioner (District 4, which includes Cook

Counties portion of the boundary waters).

Mr. Chairman, among the many flaws in the legislation is a provision waiving compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NEPA. NEPA has been under attack by the Republicans for years. Most famously, former Chairman Pombo led a yearlong effort to undermine the law before leaving Congress.

NEPA stands for two very simple principles: The first is that the Federal Government should think before it acts, and the second is that the Federal Government should listen to the American people before it acts.

NEPA does not dictate outcome. It requires Federal agencies to gather information, consider alternatives, and seek public input before taking action that would significantly impact the environment.

Waiving NEPA means waiving educated decisionmaking, waiving NEPA means waiving transparency, and waiving NEPA means waiving the possibility that the American people should play a role in managing the natural resources which they own.

In the case of H.R. 5544, waiving NEPA means waiving any process for determining which Federal lands will be given to the State, what lands will be traded away, and how will they be chosen. Apparently, that information is to remain secret.

Will lands currently used for recreation or to protect water quality or to preserve critical habitat be traded to the State for logging and mining? We have no way to know.

Waiving NEPA shrouds this land deal in secrecy and insulates it from any public input. Why should any Member in this House oppose allowing his or her constituents to have input in the management of Federal natural resources? Cutting out public input is undemocratic, unwise, and unfair.

Now we have heard claims that NEPA should be waived because it leads to so-called ``frivolous'' legislation. Of course, ``frivolous'' is often in the eye of the beholder.

The facts are that NEPA is more than 40 years old, its regulations are flexible and well-settled, and NEPA litigation is fairly rare. What's more, timber companies, cattlemen, mining companies, and other industry plaintiffs file NEPA litigation just as often, if not more, than environmental groups.

We are also told that NEPA causes too much delay. This accusation is also unfounded. NEPA regulations allow for agreed-upon timeframes and page limits to move the process along. Instances when the NEPA process appears to drag on are often the result of an applicant who fails to provide necessary information in a timely fashion or changes the parameters of their project midstream. These anti-NEPA claims are not based on fact and they are a smokescreen, a smokescreen designed to hide the fact that the real goal of exempting this land deal from NEPA is to shield this exchange from public scrutiny.

Later today, Mr. Holt will have an amendment to restore NEPA compliance for this land deal, and that amendment should be approved. A vote for NEPA is a vote for the idea that average Americans might have something valuable to say about the management of their natural resources. A vote for the bill without NEPA is a vote to shroud this deal in darkness so that its potential impacts on habitat or water quality or recreation remain hidden from public view.

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

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. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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. 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.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

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. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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. 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. 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 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 continue to 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.

I continue to 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.

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.