[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 161 (Tuesday, October 25, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H7036-H7043]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1904, SOUTHEAST ARIZONA LAND 
                 EXCHANGE AND CONSERVATION ACT OF 2011

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 444 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 444

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1904) to facilitate the efficient extraction 
     of mineral resources in southeast Arizona by authorizing and 
     directing an exchange of Federal and non-Federal land, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Natural Resources. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Natural Resources now printed in the bill modified by the 
     amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Capito). The gentleman from Utah is 
recognized for 1 hour.

[[Page H7037]]

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 
5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, this resolution provides for a 
structured rule of H.R. 1904, the Southeast Exchange and Conservation 
Act of 2011. It makes in order every amendment that was filed with the 
Rules Committee.
  So this is, like the Texas victory last night, a very fair rule and 
continues the record of the Rules Committee in this Congress of making 
as many amendments in order as possible which otherwise conform to the 
House rules. That's been the goal of Chairman Dreier in his continuing 
record of fairness and openness in the formulation of this open rule.
  Madam Speaker, this Resolution provides for a structured rule for 
consideration of H.R. 1904, the ``Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and 
Conservation Act of 2011, and makes in order every amendment that was 
filed with Rules Committee.
  So this is a very fair rule, and continues the record of the Rules 
Committee in this Congress of making as many amendments in order as 
possible which otherwise conform to House Rules, which has been the 
goal of our Chairman, Mr. Dreier, in continuing the record of fairness 
and openness in the formulation of this rule.
  H.R. 1904, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act 
of 2011, introduced by the Gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar, would 
authorize a fair value exchange and conveyance of land between the U.S. 
Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Arizona Town 
of ``Superior,'' and the Resolution Copper Mining LLC in Southeast 
Arizona, for the multiple purposes of protection of sensitive habitat 
and cultural areas, as well as facilitating the development of the 
largest undeveloped copper resource in the world right here in the 
United States.
  One of the key pillars of a viable economy, and job creation, is the 
sound and environmentally responsible development of our own domestic 
natural resources. This bill does that. Its passage will facilitate 
responsible copper mining within our own country, putting thousands of 
Americans to work with good paying jobs, and, over time, bringing 
billions in return for both the federal government and state and local 
governments.
  In spite of predictable interest group scare tactics against this 
legislation, H.R. 1904 does not waive any existing environmental rules 
or regulations regarding mining. The companies involved not only must 
pay fair market value for the equal value exchange, but must comply 
with all mining laws and regulations regarding the environment.
  Passage of this bill will result in a higher amount of habitat 
acreage being protected than before, so the environmental community 
should be on board with this bill.
  Copper is one of the key components used in virtually all 
manufacturing and electronics. For those concerned with so-called 
``green energy,'' nearly 5 tons of copper is necessary to manufacture a 
single 3 megawatt wind turbine. And that is just one example to show 
how copper is used nearly everywhere. For our country develop our own 
God-given natural resources not only helps our own economy, creates 
jobs, but also reduces our dependence on foreign sources and helps with 
our balance of trade with other nations.
  This bill is strongly supported by state and local government 
officials in Arizona including Governor Jan Brewer, the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, the National Mining Association, and the Associated General 
Contractors of America.
  This is a good bill, and a fair Rule. I urge their adoption.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Today's bill continues an effort started by the Republican majority 
earlier this year, an effort to give away valuable American resources 
to foreign companies. Today the majority is proposing to take sacred 
land from Native American tribes and give it away to foreign 
corporations, one of which is partly owned by the Chinese Government. I 
stand here today in fierce opposition to this attempted fire sale of 
American resources that is being conducted under the guise of job 
creation.
  Today's bill is not written for the American worker. It was written 
for foreign mining giants that hope to profit from our generosity. 
These firms are hoping that this Congress will be charitable enough to 
give away millions of tons of copper to foreign companies that have no 
responsibility to create American jobs. Indeed, one of those companies 
is a leader in robotics and say that they can control a mine from 600 
miles away. The likelihood that they plan to create a number of jobs 
does not hold together.
  Copper is one of the most scarce resources on the globe, and yet the 
majority is proposing to give this asset away. Let me say that again--
give this asset away. Under this bill, the United States receives no 
royalties from these foreign companies for any copper found in our 
soil.
  Furthermore, today's bill is not the solution to our jobs crisis. The 
proposed legislation gives federally protected land to companies that 
specialize in replacing miners with robots that do the same job. The 
majority hopes this will create jobs at some unnamed point in the 
future. But in addition to this approach being naive, the majority 
could be doing more to create jobs than simply relying on hope.
  The truth is that we could be standing here today actually doing job 
creation. We could be voting to put money directly into the hands of 
firefighters, police officers, and teachers. We could be investing in 
new roads, railroads, and schools and creating thousands of jobs for 
construction workers across our country.
  But once again, the majority seems to believe that their job is to 
help foreign corporations grow their bottom line. It is not. Giving 
away our natural resources to foreign companies will do nothing but 
leave American workers in the dust and we much poorer.
  I strongly oppose today's proposed legislation. I urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying legislation. More than 
ever, we need to take tangible action to create jobs, not sell our 
national interests to the highest foreign bidder.
  Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Florida will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I am so accustomed to coming here and making repeated assertions 
regarding my friends on the Republican side. But today, we are really 
about the business of undertaking added emphasis on regulation and 
doing nothing about jobs.
  Let me refer to an article that occurred in The New York Times on 
October 4, written by Bruce Bartlett, an editorial opinion. Mr. 
Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and the George H.W. 
Bush administrations and served on the staff of the distinguished 
former Member of this House of Representatives, the departed Jack Kemp, 
and on the staff of Ron Paul. He says, ``Republicans have a problem. 
People are increasingly concerned about unemployment, but Republicans 
have nothing to offer them.''
  And I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle don't jump up 
and start about their 15 forgotten bills. They're not only forgotten; 
they're forgettable. And they're forgettable for the reason that they 
don't create jobs. But here we are today dealing with three suspensions 
and one other measure, and we've been out almost as much as we've been 
in session, and we still aren't addressing the subject of jobs.
  Continuing with Mr. Bartlett, he says, ``The GOP opposes additional 
government spending for jobs programs and, in fact, favors big cuts in 
spending that would be likely to lead to further layoffs at all levels 
of government.''
  He goes on, but the specific takeaway that impressed me in his 
article that I wish to share is, ``In my opinion, regulatory 
uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use 
current economic problems to pursue

[[Page H7038]]

an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. In 
other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a 
serious effort to deal with high unemployment.''
  I want to address the subject of regulation because it seems that I 
keep hearing this thing that the business community needs certainty. 
Well, the American people need certainty as well, and certainty about 
their health and certainty about employment and certainty about 
housing. And toward that end, I don't just distinguish one little 
category, it's a hole here in this country. And in the period when we 
did not have regulation, my recollection of the no-regulation period 
led us to what we see and have experienced on Wall Street when there is 
no regulation.
  What do we think caused this great downturn in the economy? Was it 
because students weren't going to school? Was it because people weren't 
going to work? Was it because we had coal ash gas? Or did it occur 
because we didn't have regulation that we should have had that would 
have manifested itself?

                              {time}  1420

  Madam Speaker, I believe I may be the only speaker, and toward that 
end, rather than continue, I will reserve the balance of my time and 
have my colleague know that I will be prepared to close when he is 
finished.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As the gentleman from Florida knows, I do like baseball this time of 
year. One of the statistics that I saw the other day is that Pete Rose 
had 29 of his 4,000-plus hits off of pitchers who would eventually 
become dentists. It is a true statement. It has almost no impact on 
anything, but it is a true statement. Some of the rhetoric we've heard 
so far is true, but has no impact on what we're talking about.
  Madam Speaker, 15 different times Republicans have come on the floor 
of this House and have introduced jobs bills. Those jobs bills are 
still sitting over in the Senate. Thousands of jobs would be up and 
available right now if the Senate were actually to move on any of those 
15. This is the 16th jobs bill that we have brought to the floor.
  One of the issues we have here is there is a need in our lives for 
copper. The business community needs copper. Individuals need copper. 
In our personal lives we need copper. If you want to build a three-
megawatt turbine for wind generation power, you need five tons of 
copper to do that. If you want to build a hybrid car or an electric 
car, you need at least 55 pounds of copper to build the car. The 
average home has 435 pounds of copper in that home. In fact, the study 
I looked at said each individual in his lifetime will consume 935 
pounds of copper. I'm not quite sure how we do that. I certainly hope 
the verb ``consume'' was not literal, but more a hypothetical word, 
because I really have not had much copper on my Cornflakes lately.
  But we will consume copper. Whether we produce copper or not, we 
consume copper. We need copper. The fact of the matter is the United 
States now imports 30 percent of all the copper. We are relying upon 
other countries to produce copper.
  Why is this a jobs bill? For those people who vote for this bill, we 
will be establishing the opportunity to develop a mine that could 
produce a quarter of our needs for copper for the next 40 years. We 
will move us to self-sufficiency; and, more importantly, we will create 
jobs with this particular bill. Indirect and direct jobs are 3,700 for 
this mine; 3,000 jobs for the construction of this facility, 500 who 
are already in the pre-permitting phase right now. That's what the 
opportunity is.
  If we vote against this bill, we'll still be providing jobs, but jobs 
overseas for miners in Chile; for the smelting factories in China, 
where we have to send the stuff because we don't have enough smelters 
right here to do. We will produce jobs, but we have either the choice 
of producing jobs in America so that we can create American jobs and 
have American self-sufficiency, or we can create jobs abroad. It's our 
choice on this particular bill.
  This is a jobs bill. Whether you vote for it or against it, it is 
still a jobs bill. I just hope we vote for it because I hope our 
priority is creating American jobs for American need of copper, which 
there is no way to get around. We have to have this crucial mineral, 
and this is the place in which to do it.
  This particular bill will be a land transfer in which the Federal 
Government makes out like a bandit in it. The Federal Government will 
get 5,400 acres of land. The industry gets 2,400 acres to try and get 
this production going. The city of Superior gets 500 acres, 30 of which 
go to their cemetery. That's the purpose of this bill.
  This bill is viable for our economy, for our job creation, and for 
natural resources. It does it in a responsible way. And all the scare 
tactics out there that have been waved about before don't exist. There 
is not one single, solitary environmental rule that is waived for the 
creation of this mine. Not one.
  Twice this bill has been introduced before this Congress by a 
Democrat sponsor. It's the same bill, except this one doesn't provide a 
rock-climbing park for the State of Arizona. Other than that, it's the 
same bill with the same considerations and the same restrictions and 
the same guarantees.
  Madam Speaker, if the gentleman has another speaker or wishes to take 
some time, then I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank my good friend and colleague for the 
information.
  I would like to ask my friend a question. Is there anything in this 
measure that requires the copper that you just spoke about--and I don't 
disagree with many of the facts that you put forward--but is there 
anything in this bill that requires that copper to remain in the United 
States of America?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to my friend.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I will be happy to do it. In fact, I want the 
sponsor to respond specifically to that in just a second.
  But the answer is, clearly, we have a desire for copper. We have a 
demand for copper. The concept of free enterprise and the balance of 
trade that we need will demand that the majority of that copper be used 
here. If you want to try to come up with amendments to try and mandate 
that, there are some potential amendments that will be debated on this 
floor in this very good, fair structured rule. However, you have to be 
very careful that sometimes when you try and make these mandates and 
put them in law, it makes it very difficult to enforce those particular 
mandates.
  And I will tell you that one of the amendments that will be debated 
here on the floor has wonderful intention but is almost impossible to 
enforce. So will it happen? Of course, it will happen, because we have 
that need; we have that desire right now.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I appreciate the answer. I'll take that as a 
no, that there is nothing in the bill to cause the copper to remain in 
the United States.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to my friend.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. There is nothing in statute--only in reality--
that will force it to be used here.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I understand. But when you step up to the 
plate, you have to hit the ball. You can't fake like you're hitting the 
ball.
  The gentleman from Utah and I use baseball analogies. I don't know 
whether he has a dog in this World Series fight or not, but I 
appreciate he and I going back and forth on that.
  I do recognize that you did respond as I thought you would about the 
America's job creators provision that occurs. I do encourage that 
people--I normally don't advertise for the other side--but you have 
jobs.gop.gov. And what it says is: empower small businesses and reduce 
government barriers to job creation; fix the Tax Code to help job 
creators; boost the competitiveness for American manufacturers; 
encourage entrepreneurship and growth; maximize American energy 
production; and pay down America's unsustainable debt burden and start 
living within our means.
  All of that is practical. All of that seems to make sense. But in the 
final analysis, it's not putting a teacher, a firefighter, or a police 
officer to work. And we're talking about right now is when we have this 
problem. If we don't have this problem by the time we empower small 
businesses, then let's empower some of them then. Let's do

[[Page H7039]]

some things to make sure that some money gets in their hands, rather 
than dance around this issue.
  We need some direct programs from the United States Federal 
Government to help States, counties, and municipalities in this 
country, and to help individuals, particularly those that are on the 
front lines dealing with these particular issues. But you haven't done 
anything, which is almost laughable, and you put on your Web site that 
you have 15 ``forgettable'' bills.
  I guess what we're trying to do--and it does make a little bit of 
sense to me--that we should point to the other body and say that we 
have passed measures here in the House of Representatives that have 
gone to the other body and not become law. Well, my last recollection 
is that we passed over 400 measures when we were in the majority and 
they went over to the U.S. Senate; and here's where the catch is that 
people don't seem to understand. The arcane rules of the Senate require 
that they have 60 votes. And the majority does not have 60 votes. In 
almost every measure that may have helped this country, the Republicans 
stood in opposition and, quite frankly, obstructed the passage of 
legislation. I guess now you're joining us in saying that they're doing 
the same things to you in the House of Representatives.
  Well, I accept that if that's your argument. But let's make it very 
clear that it is in the United States Senate and that here we aren't 
originating nor are we evidently working with them to address the 
subject of the need for jobs, housing, and education in this country.

                              {time}  1430

  After another week away from Washington, thanks to my Republican 
friends, we're back here considering this bill on an issue that I think 
very few of my colleagues, myself included, fully understand.
  The Republicans have been in charge for 294 days, and they have not 
brought one job-creating bill to the floor in that time, not one. I do 
make an exception that I believe all of us recognize has been in the 
works through several administrations, and that is the various trade 
agreements, which in some respects are going to create jobs but in 
other respects are going to cause the loss of jobs. And I don't think 
that that equation is full yet; but, yes, that did pass the House of 
Representatives.
  While Americans continue to struggle to find work, this Republican 
majority has been more interested in going on recess than in passing 
legislation. The truth is, Madam Speaker, the House has only been in 
session 109 days, and we're almost in November--109 days. During this 
limited time, my friends on the other side haven't found time to send a 
single appropriations bill to the President, not one.
  When we are in Washington, look at the bills that my colleagues have 
debated passionately--defunding Planned Parenthood, defunding the 
National Public Radio, promoting the use of inefficient light bulbs. 
Madam Speaker, this would be comical if it weren't so serious.
  Let me also remind my colleagues that only a paltry 43 bills have 
been signed into law this year, less than half the average first-
session total for Congresses since 1991, even compared to other years 
following shifts in control of the House.
  I believe that Americans want action to help our economy now. They 
want us to consider the President's jobs bill now. They want us to quit 
wasting time on trivial issues that are only meant for 30-second 
political sound bites. They want us to do our jobs. But these friends 
on the other side just don't get it.
  Four years ago, their Presidential nominee talked about ``country 
first.'' But in the House of Representatives, time after time after 
time we see the Republican leadership ignore the needs of out-of-work 
Americans. And the bill before us today is more of the same, another 
enormous rip-off for struggling American workers disguised as a jobs 
bill. In fact, this time it's not even disguised very well.
  The underlying bill is a massive land giveaway to foreign companies 
looking to mine copper on American land. And that's why I put the 
question to my good friend about whether that copper was going to stay 
in the United States. Let me repeat that. This bill benefits foreign 
mining giants, first and foremost, at a time when millions of Americans 
are unemployed and families right here in this country are struggling 
to pay their bills.
  The two companies that stand to benefit the most from this bill--
British-owned Rio Tinto and Australian-owned BHP Billiton--are highly 
profitable titans in the mining world. As the bill is currently 
written, American taxpayers will receive no share of the expected 
billions in profits generated by this mining. All profits will be 
enjoyed by foreign companies.
  And claims that H.R. 1904 will lead to the creation of thousands of 
good-paying American jobs are dubious at best. Both companies, the two 
I mentioned, are pioneers in developing automated and remote-control 
mining technologies. Seriously? We're creating jobs for foreign robots 
instead of American workers? No offense to R2-D2, but there are 
American workers who need help. On top of that, any American jobs that 
may be created will be years in the future. This bill does nothing to 
create good jobs right now when we need them the most.
  My friends in the majority want this process to seem fair. Yes, they 
made in order all the amendments submitted, but that's not the same as 
an open rule. Let me be crystal clear: This is not an open rule. Once 
again, the Rules Committee is breaking the promises of this new 
majority. Clearly, the Republican leadership is more interested in 
shutting down debate and fostering a more closed House rather than 
living up to their campaign promises of a more open House of 
Representatives.
  Despite these broken promises, Madam Speaker, I'm pleased that the 
Democratic amendments--that my good friend mentioned are made in 
order--will insert some common sense into H.R. 1904 if they are in fact 
adopted. And as I heard him say that they ought to be debated and what 
have you, but they are not real in terms of their mandate.
  Mr. Grijalva and Mr. Garamendi have offered an amendment to try to 
create more than just jobs for robots. Their amendment would require 
that these foreign companies actively recruit and hire local 
employees--and I hope everybody votes for that amendment--that all the 
oil produced, they say, from the mine be processed in the United 
States, and that all equipment used at the mine will be made in the 
United States. I hope everybody supports that amendment.
  Mr. Markey's amendment would require that these foreign companies pay 
a simple royalty to the United States on all minerals extracted from 
this site. If mining is done on U.S. land, the American people should 
be able to share in the profits.
  Finally, what is most disturbing about H.R. 1904 is a complete lack 
of respect for sacred Native American sites that will be swept into 
mining operations. Native people won't even be able to comment on the 
land transfer until after it has occurred.
  Now, I've seen that often in our area--I represent Native Americans, 
Seminoles and Miccosukee--and repeatedly where developers have gone 
forward, not just in mining but the artifacts of our great history in 
this country, and have caused us to pause. And we should be very 
careful with this particular measure because we don't want to repeat 
that that I've seen happen time and again in Florida. That's insulting 
and completely disrespectful to native traditions and culture.
  And my friends on the other side of the aisle should be ashamed by 
the blatant mistreatment of Native Americans by this bill. Mr. Lujan's 
amendment to exempt all Native American sacred and cultural sites from 
land conveyance under this bill is not just commendable, it is 
critically important and deserves the support of every Member in this 
body.
  Madam Speaker, this is not a jobs bill, and there's no effort by this 
Republican majority to bring up a jobs bill. We shouldn't be wasting 
our time. We should not be wasting the American people's time with 
trivial bills that benefit foreign countries while our own citizens 
struggle to find work.
  I urge a ``no'' vote. And on this business of the ``forgettable 15,'' 
I urge that we do something to create jobs and not just try to give the 
impression that we are creating jobs.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Minnesota Twins pitcher Jim Kaat, who should be

[[Page H7040]]

in the Hall of Fame--so for today we'll call it ``Coppers Town'' Hall 
of Fame--once said to a reporter that he was working on a new pitch. He 
called it a strike. You've heard a lot of accusations so far about this 
particular bill, most of which are balls, low, outside and in the dirt.
  I now yield 4 minutes to the sponsor of this bill, a Representative 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), to actually pitch some strikes about what 
this bill actually will do.
  Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman from Utah, and I appreciate the 
House spending time to consider this important jobs bill legislation 
this week.
  The need for this land exchange legislation and ensuing copper mine 
was one of the very first initiatives brought to my attention by the 
people of my district. Those folks are excited about the economic 
development and sustainable growth that this project will bring.

                              {time}  1440

  They are anxious for these high-priority conservation lands to be 
placed in Federal stewardship. And they are sick of waiting for 
Congress to act.
  H.R. 1904 may be new legislation, but this initiative is not. Over 
the past 6 years, this land exchange has been subject to intensive 
review, public consideration, and modification. It has been introduced 
in four separate Congresses, twice by Democrats, twice by Republicans. 
This proposal truly has bipartisan support on the ground in our State 
and across the country. The mayor of the town of Superior, an elected 
Democrat, testified in support of H.R. 1904. Democrat and Republican 
county supervisors in each affected economy endorse my bill. The 
governor supports my bill. This legislation is a win-win.
  H.R. 1904 specifically facilitates a land exchange that will bring 
into Federal stewardship 5,500 acres of high-priority conservation 
lands in exchange for 2,600 acres of national forest system lands 
containing the third-largest undeveloped copper resource in the world. 
It is the richest copper ore body in North America ever discovered.
  The United States currently imports over 30 percent of the country's 
copper demand. This project could produce enough copper to equal 25 
percent of our demand, contributing significantly to U.S. energy and 
mineral independence.
  Let me be clear. This is not going to be a new mine. The majority of 
the infrastructure is already in place. We are simply opening up the 
resource to the country's vital needs.
  Today, more than 500 employees and contractors are at work in Arizona 
on this project as they prepare for us to take action on this bill. 
Upon passage, the private company will be able to employ 3,000 workers 
during the 6-year construction period. And ultimately, the project will 
support over 3,700 jobs, providing for $220 million in annual wages 
over the life of the project. These are good-paying jobs.
  This is good old Superior right here who needs this. The total 
economic impact of the project is estimated to be over $61.4 billion, 
over $1 billion per year, and another $19 billion in Federal, State, 
county, and local tax revenues. Fourteen billion dollars in Federal tax 
revenue--in these tough fiscal times, I think we can all agree that the 
Treasury could use that.
  This bill is not only a jobs bill, it's a conservation bill. In 
exchange for opening up the third-largest undeveloped copper resource 
in the world, the Federal Government acquires 5,500 acres of high-
priority conservation lands containing endangered species, sensitive 
ecosystems, recreational sites, and historical landmarks. Many of these 
lands being conveyed are landlocked by Federal lands, and the 
consolidation of the Federal lands will also contribute to better, more 
economically efficient Federal land management.
  Today, The Arizona Republic, the largest newspaper in the State, 
issued an editorial in support of H.R. 1904. In that article, the 
editorial board highlights the big benefits of my legislation: jobs, 
tax revenue, and conservation. In the article they state, ``The bill, 
with its combination of benefits, has every reason to get bipartisan 
support.''
  They continue, ``In today's economy, it's hard to imagine that 
Members of Congress would fail to give this bill a resounding approval 
in the House.''
  Madam Speaker, I would like to submit the full editorial for the 
Record.
  My legislation strikes the right balance between resource utilization 
and conservation. We can preserve lands that advance the important 
public objectives of protecting wildlife habitat, cultural, and 
historical resources, while enabling an economic development project to 
go forward that will generate economic and employment opportunities for 
the State and local residents.
  Pass the rule and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1904.

               [From the Arizona Republic, Oct. 25, 2011]

                    A Bill To Launch 1,000-Plus Jobs

       Congress has a rare opportunity to create jobs, preserve a 
     ribbon of river in the desert, raise tax revenue and boost 
     production of a strategic mineral. Without spending a dime.
       All it takes is a ``yes'' vote on a land exchange that 
     would allow the Resolution Copper project to go forward. The 
     proposed mine, near Superior, is at the site of the third 
     largest undeveloped copper resource in the world.
       The projected annual production volume is huge: enough to 
     meet more than 25 percent of the current U.S. demand for 
     copper over the next 40 years.
       Resolution Copper, jointly owned by Rio Tinto and BHP 
     Billiton, plans to put $6 billion into building and running 
     the mine.
       Now that's economic stimulus.
       But the project requires swapping private and federal 
     property. A bill to approve it is scheduled to go to the 
     floor of the U.S. House of Representatives this week.
       The Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 
     2011 is sponsored by Rep. Paul Gosar, a Flagstaff Republican. 
     This is the third version of the swap, which was proposed by 
     his predecessors, Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick and Republican 
     Rick Renzi.
       The bill, with its combination of benefits, has every 
     reason to get bipartisan support. Democratic Rep. Ed Pastor 
     grew up in a mining town and knows the importance of this 
     industry to rural Arizona.
       Rep. Raul Grijalva has stood in the way of the land 
     exchange over the years. It's time for him to step aside.
       The concerns he raised have been answered. The one 
     remaining issue is the opposition of the San Carlos Apaches, 
     and Resolution Copper has committed itself to extensive 
     consultation with tribes.
       Here's what a ``yes'' vote brings:
       Jobs: 3,000 during construction and 1,400 when the mine is 
     at full production.
       Taxes: $19 billion in federal, state and local revenues.
       Conservation: Nearly 7 miles of the lower San Pedro River, 
     named one of the ``Last Great Places on Earth'' by the Nature 
     Conservancy, transferred from private into public ownership.
       Ripple effect: An additional 2,300 jobs in the Superior 
     area generated by mining needs and worker spending.
       In today's economy, it's hard to imagine that members of 
     Congress would fail to give this bill a resounding approval 
     in the House.
       With the able help of Arizona Sens. Jon Kyl and John 
     McCain, it should get a ``yes'' in the Senate, as well.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I would ask the gentleman from Arizona to respond.
  Rio Tinto, the company from Australia, has a mine that is controlled 
by people that are 800 miles away from the mine.
  Now, I heard you distinctly, and let me make it very clear. I 
remember this measure being offered by the lady that you won office 
from previously as well. And I'm one who seriously encourages that we 
protect our congressional areas.
  But when you say it's going to create 3,000 jobs, let me give you a 
``for example'' of how the local community does not work, and then ask 
you to respond. In the Everglades, we, many Members of this Congress, 
rightly have dealt with trying to preserve this area. So we have, with 
the Army Corps of Engineers and a variety of other people, a lot of 
earth moving and a variety of undertakings that are taking place.
  In the meantime, one of my cities, Pahokee, has gone almost out of 
business. They're doing a remarkable job trying to stay afloat, and the 
area has diminished while all of this work is going on around them.
  Now, how are you going to stop Rio Tinto, who can operate mines with 
robots, how are you going to stop them from bringing their Australian 
people? How are you going to stop the British from bringing their 
workers? Because, as in my city and counties that I'm talking about, 
when these big companies come in to do all of this work, they bring 
their workers with them, and we don't have the kind of jobs that are 
needed. And in this instance, you're talking about robots running large 
measures of it.

[[Page H7041]]

  So how does that create jobs?
  Mr. GOSAR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. You're talking about robots. What I am talking about is 
trust. Trust is a series of promises kept. And what we see is right 
here in this picture. We have over 500 jobs that have been established 
here. We have seen the investment of this company in the local 
communities helping job creators, as far as truckers, independent 
construction organizations, trying to stay in business because, as you 
saw before, this is Superior, Arizona. This is what we've done to Main 
Street America. You see all the boarded up streets, all the buildings 
that are here.
  What they've done is come in and established trust because what 
they've done is actually put people back to work. You talk about 
robots, but what I'm talking about is trust, which is actually what's 
happening on the ground.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, and I will yield to you 
additionally, I still didn't hear you address how you are going to 
cause these foreign companies--I'm not talking about that immediate 
amount of cement, and I'll grant you, 500 workers, but I heard you say 
3,000.
  I'll also grant you that it's temporary, and I'll make you a bet, and 
I hope you and I are here that when and if this measure passes and it 
does all the things that you say it's going to do, I'd like for you to 
come with me and I'll go with you, you come with me to Pahokee, where 
we passed all of these things and all of these people came from other 
areas and they made money, but the people in the area didn't.
  Now I understand that you have to have somebody to hammer a nail and 
to drive a truck to get something put up. But when it's all said and 
done, your area isn't going to have anything other than robots that are 
going to be controlling this, with the exception of a handful of 
people.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. GOSAR. That's absurd. I've gone into the mine. I have actually 
seen the company. I've actually seen the work forces in here. I've 
actually gone down to the bottom of the mine. I got suited up and have 
been part of that. That's not appropriate.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. You mean a copper mine or Rio Tinto's mine?
  Mr. GOSAR. I have been in this copper mine. I have been in the shaft.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. You mean the one in Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. I have been in the one in Arizona.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I'm not quarreling with that. I'm talking 
about when Rio Tinto comes and this bill allows them to go forward in a 
way that allows them to robotize many of the--look, I'm not against 
technology. But what I'm saying to you is I don't see as how 
ultimately, that foreign companies are going to cause local communities 
to have increased employment that's sustainable.
  Do you understand what I'm saying?
  Mr. GOSAR. But I'm pointing back to the same purpose that I've 
actually seen trust exhibited here where they've actually hired people. 
I've seen the native people being hired. I've seen the local people 
being hired here, and that's a part of trust that we've got to get back 
to in this country.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. All right. At least we had a fair exchange, 
and perhaps if we had more time with measures like this we could do 
similar. But I would hope then my argument about the Native American 
measures does not fall on deaf ears when you take into consideration 
the need to preserve our cultural heritage and artifacts that might be 
swept up in mining.
  Mr. GOSAR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. GOSAR. We've spent an exorbitant amount of time trying to discuss 
this with our Native Americans. We actually have law that we've gone 
through the area in exchange that shows no actual artifacts at all.
  So the thing about it is that we want to make sure that that has 
occurred. And for the better part, since the 109th Congress, we've 
actually dialogued with the Native Americans, and what we have seen is 
an over-and-over exchange. So what has transpired is actually----
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time just to ask you one more 
question that requires a ``yes'' or a ``no,'' and that is: You support 
Mr. Lujan's measure then that will make sure that that happens, an 
amendment that's coming up. Are you going to vote for that?
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Lujan's amendment is immaterial because it's already 
been done and it's already been held up by the----
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. So you aren't going to vote for it?
  Mr. GOSAR. It's already been supported by documentation already 
presented. It's duplicative.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I get the picture.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I'm just trying to envision in my 
own mind all those robots that are working in the Rio Tinto mine in my 
State that have also developed the land plan that have developed those 
communities there. They really have disguised themselves extremely 
well.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the chair 
for bringing this measure to the floor, and to the sponsor, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  This is an extremely important measure for the State of Arizona. I 
would invite those opposed to this legislation to walk down the streets 
of Superior or walk down the streets of Globe or Miami, Arizona, and 
see those empty streets, empty classrooms, and to try to say that these 
jobs aren't real, that mining jobs are not real; or to meet the 
hundreds of people, as I have, as well, who have gone to this mine and 
have toured it, and not one robot did I meet, not one, that I'm aware 
of. And the notion that a mine is going to be operated by robots owned 
by some foreign company somewhere rather than local workers who will 
pay a lot of taxes, who will generate other jobs that are ancillary is 
just unbelievable.
  The notion that a foreign company can't have a significant investment 
in this country just runs afoul of everything we know about what has 
gone on for centuries here. The gentleman talks about a foreign company 
and they would only employ foreign workers. How about BMW in South 
Carolina, for example? Do they only employ foreign workers? No. Other 
car companies, other mining companies--part of the reason we have so 
few U.S. mining companies is because regulations here have driven them 
out of business. And so we relied on foreign mining companies to come 
in and actually make the investment to hire American workers. And make 
no mistake, there will be thousands of American workers hired here.
  Walk the streets of Superior right now and meet the hundreds of 
people already working on this venture and try to convince them that 
these jobs are not real. I would invite anybody opposing this 
legislation, just try to do that. Try to tell somebody who finally has 
a paycheck to take home that that is not a real job or that other jobs 
that are going to be created here are not real.
  It's all fine and dandy for people in Washington to try to tell 
people in a local community that have seen mining jobs in the past that 
have gone that when new mining jobs come that those jobs somehow are 
not real or that because a foreign company happens to have some 
ownership here that that makes it less of a job for them and that we 
should be able to tell them, ``I'm sorry, you can't have your job 
because a foreign corporation has made an investment here.'' How 
arrogant is that? That's just wrong. We shouldn't have that.
  So I applaud the gentleman for bringing this to the floor. This has 
been a long time in coming. Many of us have worked for years on this to 
get this land exchange to go. And the gentleman is right. This is a 
win-win for everyone. It is a win for the Federal Government and others 
who want to see pristine lands preserved because far more acres are 
actually preserved here, sensitive, environmentally sensitive acres, 
than are actually given up to the mine. Most of the mining here will 
take place between 4,000 and 7,000 feet underground.

[[Page H7042]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.
  This is good for everyone and it means real jobs. The notion that 
these jobs are not real, that this bill does not create jobs is simply 
not the case. It doesn't square with the facts.
  I urge adoption of this rule so we can debate this bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1904, the 
Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act. It's one of the 
40 bills that we have highlighted in the Western Jobs Caucus Frontier 
Report. The Jobs Frontier is our report of 40 different bills that will 
create jobs immediately.
  I find the conversation curious. For my good friend from Florida, I 
wonder, the administration has just approved for the sale of Cirrus 
Aviation, that will be producing airplanes in this country owned by a 
foreign country, and so maybe the argument could be made, well, maybe 
those jobs aren't created and run by robots. So I now would direct our 
attention to maybe Daimler, Toyota, and maybe Honda. All have 
manufacturing facilities here, and I know they use robots, and I don't 
see the gentleman from Florida trying to shut them down.
  What we're doing at this point in our history is driving the 
unemployment off the scale high because we're making ludicrous 
arguments against jobs creation bills across the spectrum.
  In 1993 the U.S. accounted for 20 to 21 percent of all mining 
exploration. Today we are at 8 percent. It's because people have 
blocked the new mines throughout the West.
  All we're trying to do here is make a land exchange, and the company 
giving up land is giving up twice the amount of land they are receiving 
in order to account for the value of the copper underground. We're 
trying to put about 1,500 long-term mining jobs in place in Arizona. 
Those jobs are going to be in the $60,000 to $85,000 a year range. 
They'll pay taxes. They'll come off unemployment. They'll come off of 
welfare and food stamps. So we cut the cost of government 
simultaneously with increasing the revenues. That's a business model 
that always succeeds.
  The price of copper is what's driving this to be a mine site that is 
now economic. Previously, 10, 15 years ago, the price of copper was 
about 75 cents. Today, it's almost $4. So it's those economics that are 
encouraging us in this country to start producing from mines where we 
have not previously. This mine, by itself, would account for about 25 
percent of the production in this country, needed in this country, for 
the next 50 years.
  It's a good project. Let's approve the rule. Let's get on to debate 
of the underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, 
and I will be the final speaker.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I tell my colleague that I am prepared to close.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. With that in mind, Madam Speaker, I yield 
myself the balance of my time, which I will not use.
  I want to make it very clear to my colleagues that I'm not against 
foreign investment in the United States of America. I'm not against 
real jobs being created in the United States of America, including 
Arizona and including Superior. I'll tell Mr. Gosar, I'll give you one 
Superior and I will match you with one Pahokee and one South Bay, 
Florida, where the jobs didn't come when the other circumstances that 
would take place in the community did.
  I respect the mining industry, and I believe the mining industry can 
do their job in an environmentally and culturally sensitive way; and 
there are demonstrative evidences that take place all over this Nation 
that show that. But what I'm trying to get across here is that my 
colleagues on the other side are still not in the business of seeing to 
it that we immediately do something about firefighters, police 
officers, and school teachers in this country. And I assure you that 
that's something that we have not done in the 109 days that we have 
been here and almost 104 days that we have not.
  Please, let's get about the business of doing something about the 
massive unemployment in this country that is desperately in need of the 
attention of this institution--the House and the other body.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, in closing, this is the map of the 
area which we're talking about. Everything that's orange there--or 
copper color--are historic or existing mines in this particular area. 
The yellow one is where this mine would take place. This is the mining 
district of the State of Arizona. Actually, even Arizona has the color 
copper in its State flag.
  We are talking about jobs in Arizona versus jobs in where we are 
importing copper from now. We are importing copper from Chile, Canada, 
Peru, and Mexico--in that order.

                              {time}  1500

  We can either create jobs there or we can create jobs in Arizona. We 
can either develop our own resources or we can allow ourselves to rely 
on resources from foreign places. We can go forward in what we are 
trying to do here, realizing that even firemen and policemen need 
copper before they can actually do their work. All of us are going to 
have to have this mineral. We might as well get our minerals here, 
develop our jobs here, use our future here.
  This is a great bill, and it is a fair rule in which all of the 
amendments--one technical and three which have nice sounds to them but 
which are going to be very difficult to put into reality if they 
actually are to pass--will be debated here on the floor.
  Madam Speaker, in closing, I wish to reiterate once again the 
fairness of this structured rule. I urge this rule's adoption, and I 
urge the adoption of the underlying legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on House Resolution 444 will be followed by a 5-minute vote 
on suspending the rules on H.R. 2447.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 245, 
nays 178, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 803]

                               YEAS--245

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)

[[Page H7043]]


     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--178

     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Ackerman
     Bachmann
     Buerkle
     Capps
     Giffords
     Lewis (GA)
     Paul
     Polis
     Renacci
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1529

  Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois, RANGEL, CARNAHAN, Ms. HAHN, Messrs. 
RICHMOND, FRANK of Massachusetts, and ELLISON changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. BARTLETT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Ms. BUERKLE. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 803, had I been present, 
I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________