[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.''
____________________