[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 129 (Thursday, September 26, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H5848-H5863]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SOUTHEAST ARIZONA LAND EXCHANGE AND CONSERVATION ACT OF 2013
General Leave
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill H.R. 687.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Conaway). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 351 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 687.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1332
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 687) to facilitate the efficient extraction of mineral resources
in southeast Arizona by authorizing and directing an exchange of
Federal and non-Federal
[[Page H5849]]
land, and for other purposes, with Mr. Terry in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 687, the Southeast Arizona
Land Exchange and Conservation Act. As our Nation continues to suffer
from high unemployment, a rising national debt, and annual deficits,
Congress's top priority should be advancing solutions that put
Americans back to work and help to strengthen and grow the economy. The
bill before us does just that.
Mr. Chairman, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation
Act, sponsored by our colleague and Natural Resources Committee member,
Mr. Gosar from Arizona, is a bipartisan measure that will create
thousands of new American jobs and boost our economy through increased
U.S. mineral production.
The bill authorizes an equal-value land exchange between Resolution
Copper and the Federal Government that will open up the third largest
undeveloped copper resource in the world. The bill requires that the
cost of the land exchange be fully paid for by the mine developer--
Copper Resolution, in this case--ensuring that there will be fair
treatment for taxpayers.
This project will provide substantial benefits to the United States
and the State of Arizona in the form of job creation, economic growth,
and for increased national security for the United States. The mining
project is estimated to support 3,700 new jobs. These are good-paying,
family-wage American jobs that will equate to more than $220 million in
annual wages.
At a time when our economy continues to struggle, this mining project
will provide a much-needed boost through private investment. This
mining activity will have over a $60 billion economic impact and will
generate an estimated $20 billion in total Federal, State, county, and
local tax revenue through the life of the project. This bill is a
perfect example of how safely and responsibly harnessing our resources
will generate revenue and get our economy back on track.
The importance of increased U.S. copper production cannot be
overstated. Our Nation has become increasingly reliant on foreign
countries for our mineral resources--placing our economic
competitiveness and national security at risk. The U.S. currently
imports 30 percent of the copper we need, and we will continue to be
dependent on foreign countries if we fail to develop our own resources
here at home.
The copper produced from this single project is estimated to meet 25
percent of the United States' entire copper demand. This copper could
be used for a variety of items, ranging from medical devices, plumbing,
computers, and even, Mr. Chairman, hybrid cars. It's also essential for
our national defense equipment and technology, including satellites,
space and aviation, and weapons guidance and communications systems.
The benefits and reasons to pass this bill are plentiful. However, we
are likely to hear several inaccurate claims from those who are opposed
to mining in the United States. I would like to take a moment to set
the record straight right from the beginning.
First, this bill follows the standard Federal land appraisal process
procedures issued by the Department of Justice, which has been in use
for decades. The appraisal requires full market value to be paid for
both the land and the minerals located within the land. If, by chance,
there is copper production beyond the appraised value, the mine
developer will be required to pay the United States the difference.
This, Mr. Chairman, would be assessed annually. This is an added
guarantee to ensure that taxpayers get a fair return for these copper
resources.
Second, as I mentioned earlier, this bill is about creating nearly
3,700 American jobs. It's not about helping foreign mining interests at
home, as some have charged. Opposing this mine and not producing copper
in the U.S. is what truly benefits foreign nations, by sending American
jobs overseas and making us increasingly reliant on foreign sources of
critical minerals.
Finally, the bill requires full compliance with environmental laws
and tribal consultation prior to constructing the mine. This bill
provides more conservation and protection of culturally sensitive,
riparian, and critical habitat than otherwise would occur. This bill
does not, Mr. Chairman, waive any existing laws or protections for
sacred sites under Federal law. It upholds the Native American Graves
Preservation and Repatriation Act, or NAGPRA, and the American Indian
Religious Freedom Act. It will not allow the desecration of any sacred
area. It does, Mr. Chairman, specifically and permanently protect a
site called Apache Leap that is well known and special to Arizonans and
the area tribes.
H.R. 687 is about creating new American jobs, strengthening our
economy, and decreasing our dependence on foreign minerals. The bill
has broad support from over 50 local and national organizations and
government entities, including Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, the Arizona
Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National
Association of Manufacturing, and the National Mining Association.
Furthermore, the Arizona Republic Editorial Board has endorsed this
bill. They highlighted the bipartisan support from the Arizona
congressional delegation and noted that ``it has the potential to be an
economic bonanza for our State and a national security boon to our
country.''
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill to put Americans
back to work and end our dependency on foreign minerals.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise to oppose H.R. 687. At a time when the majority in this
Congress has brought our Nation to the brink of potential shutdown, a
looming hardship and economic crisis with regard to the debt ceiling,
no progress on the jobs plan, no progress on immigration reform, here
we are today, debating a sweetheart piece of legislation that hurts
taxpayers and comforts, yes, foreign multinational mining corporations.
One has to wonder about what the priorities for this Congress really
are.
We have seen at least five different versions of this legislation
over the past 10 years. Originally filed in the 109th Congress as H.R.
2681, sponsored by our former colleague from Arizona, Congressman
Renzi, that version begat H.R. 3301 in the 110th Congress by our
colleague, Congressman Pastor. That begat H.R. 2509 in the 111th
Congress by Congresswoman Kirkpatrick. And then that begat the version
in the 112th Congress, H.R. 1904, by my friend from Arizona,
Congressman Gosar, which begat this present version, H.R. 687 in the
113th, again sponsored by my colleague, Mr. Gosar.
If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over
again and expecting different results, we all might need to spend some
time getting our heads examined.
H.R. 687 facilitates a land exchange so that a subsidiary of two
foreign-owned mining companies can build a massive block cave copper
mine on Federal land set aside by President Eisenhower for recreation
in 1955. The town of Superior has been torn apart by this legislation.
The city attorney issued a legal opinion that section 9 of this bill,
which was stripped during the markup process, was not something legally
the town could approve. The opinion raised grave concerns about the
financial obligations the town would be under if they accepted the
arrangement with Resolution Copper as written.
The town was willing to negotiate with Resolution Copper, but the
company demanded support for the legislation as a precondition to any
further talks. They also stated rather flatly that there would be no
additional money coming to Superior from Resolution Copper from these
negotiations.
Resolution Copper continues to oppose any requirement of filing a
mining plan of operation before this legislation is passed. It's been
10 years since this project was proposed--and we still have no mining
plan. This community
[[Page H5850]]
has been driven by boom-and-bust promises of mining companies for
decades. Retired miners have become accustomed to losing the pensions
that they earned in contract negotiations from mining corporations,
especially when dealing with foreign entities.
This is not an economic miracle waiting to happen. Even if the town
were to reverse its position, the legal and political issues that have
already been raised cannot be ignored. The town, climbing and
environmental organizations and Native American nations will be
severely impacted by this trade, particularly when the mine is built.
Resolution Copper, after 10 years of pushing and pushing, has yet to
acknowledge those impacts.
{time} 1345
There are just too many unanswered questions and shortcuts.
Opposition to this bill from the community that it will impact the most
is a clear indication that the process needs to start over, but
Superior's withdrawal of support is just one of many red flags.
All Native American nations in Arizona overwhelmingly oppose the
bill. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona and the National Congress of
American Indians have both passed resolutions in opposition. Their
strong opposition stems from the outright violation of the consultation
protocol that mandates advanced, informed, and appropriate government-
to-government consultation with Indian tribes, nations, and
communities.
H.R. 687 trades away Federal lands that contain significant cultural
resources without complying with NEPA. This means that there will be no
environmental review or formal consultation with affiliated tribal
governments before the land becomes private property.
The sponsor's insistence to postpone environmental review until after
the land exchange is one of the main reasons local support for this
bill has eroded. Once the land is exchanged, as mandated by the bill,
there is no guarantee a full EIS under NEPA will occur. That means no
independent hydrology study to assess the impacts to local water
resources. That means no mining plan of operation and independent jobs
and economics report. That means no objective appraisal of the lands to
be exchanged. We're stuck relying on the company's numbers to
guesstimate the value added for the American taxpayer. That doesn't
seem like a good deal to me, no matter what way you look at it.
I was astounded that the majority decided to shield the company from
testifying at the hearing held on this bill. We all would have
benefited greatly from the ability to hear from Resolution Copper on
the record about their support for the bill, the validity of their
economic study, the lack of a mining plan of operations, the lack of an
independent hydrology study associated with a real mining plan of
operations, and the negligent disregard for NEPA standards and Native
American tribal consultation processes.
How is the House expected to make an informed decision on this deeply
controversial bill when the committee of jurisdiction didn't even
bother to question the owners and proponents, Resolution Copper? This
doesn't make sense to me and to a great deal of people.
All we know about the proposed mine is purely speculative and comes
from data and reports produced by Resolution Copper, itself. And the
common refrain from supporters to trust without validation--don't
worry, it will all work out--those are not the due diligence
requirements that this Congress has on a major land exchange as we are
facing today.
The number of jobs they claim the project will create is a moving
target. The number is always changing. At one point, the company
claimed the mine would create 5,000 jobs. The last estimate on their
Web site project the mine will support 1,400 direct jobs through the
life of the mine.
Again, these numbers come from a study conducted by Resolution Copper
and are not supported by a mining plan of operation. Until we have a
plan, there is really no way to know. The numbers tossed around by the
majority come from a study that assume the mine would produce the same
amount of copper and support the same amount of jobs year after year
for its entire 50-year life span. We know this won't be the case.
Mining operations react to market demand.
One number not tossed around by the proponents of H.R. 687 is
royalties for the extraction of this very valuable mineral on Federal
land, royalties to deal with remediation, to deal with any mitigation
likely to occur after the fact, and to deal with some level of return
to the American taxpayer.
The boom and bust cycles of mining's history can't be washed away
with a public relations document masquerading as an economic study that
assumes the very best and brushes aside any reality.
Construction of this mine will benefit two large foreign
corporations. It will not diversify the local economy or even guarantee
any real jobs for the local people in the area. It will, on the other
hand, diminish the recreation value of the area, jeopardize the
availability of water, and threaten a sacred site, all for cents on the
dollar.
H.R. 687 is not in the best interest of the American taxpayer, and I
urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless, expedited land exchange. A
wolf in sheep's clothing, regardless, is still a wolf.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the author of this
legislation.
Mr. GOSAR. Thank you, Chairman Hastings. I appreciate the House
spending time to consider this important jobs legislation this week.
My home State of Arizona is known for its five Cs: cattle, citrus,
climate, cotton, and, ultimately, copper. People have been digging in
Arizona for precious metals like copper for centuries. In the 1850s,
nearly one in every four people in Arizona were miners. Without a
doubt, miners fueled the growth that makes Arizona the State it is
today.
Today, the Arizona mining industry is alive, but it's not what it
used to be. Nevertheless, a wide array of other minerals, such as
copper, coal, uranium, lime, and potash, are mined throughout my
district. These projects employ hundreds of my constituents with high-
paying jobs, jobs that pay over $50,000 to $60,000 a year, plus
benefits. In rural Arizona, those types of jobs are few and far
between.
Rural Arizonans recognize the major benefits this project will bring
to our region and our State, which is why it was one of the first
initiatives brought to my attention when I came to Congress. The
Southwest Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act is a bill that
protects important, environmentally sensitive lands in the State and
opens up over 3,700 jobs at Resolution Copper Mine.
My legislation is the result of years of negotiation and compromise
that achieves a careful balance between conservation and resource
utilizations, and Arizonans just want Congress to get it done. That is
why my colleague on the other side of the aisle, Congresswoman Ann
Kirkpatrick, and I came together at the beginning of this Congress and
jointly introduced this legislation.
In fact, just last week, the largest paper in the State of Arizona,
The Arizona Republic, issued an op-ed on House consideration of our
bill. In the column, entitled, ``Stop Dawdling on Resolution Copper,''
the editorial board stated:
Congress needs to get this done. A copper mine proposed
near Superior is a winner. It has bipartisan support from
Arizona's congressional delegation. (How often does that
happen?) It also has the potential to be an economic bonanza
for our State and a national security boon to our country.
The proposal has been around so long it has old-timer status
in Arizona. Congressional approval is overdue for the land
swap necessary to make this happen.
I guess that says it all. Our bill is a win-win for Arizona. That is
why it has strong bipartisan support in Arizona and across the Nation.
That support includes Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, four-fifths of the
highly polarized Arizona Legislature, nearly every municipal government
in central and southern Arizona, national business interests like the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the general contractors, the truckers and the
manufacturers, and conservation organizations like the Sonoran
Institute and the Arizona Game and Fish Commission.
Why so much buzz about this project, you ask? It's called jobs, jobs,
and jobs.
[[Page H5851]]
Upon passage of the bill, Resolution Copper estimates it will be able
to employ nearly 3,000 workers during a 6-year construction period, and
that's just the start. The mine, given the company's mine plan of
operation when it complies with all environmental laws, will directly
employ around 1,400 people. These are high-paying jobs ranging from
$40,000 to $120,000 salaries per year in a region that is struggling
economically.
As many people familiar with mining communities know, an influx of
over 1,000 mining jobs will spur additional economic growth in a
community. These mine workers need restaurants to eat at, convenience
stores to shop at, and homes to live in. A recent economic study
estimates an additional 2,300 jobs could be created due to these
demands. That brings the estimated total number of permanent jobs
resulting from this legislation to about 3,700.
Overall, independent analysis estimates that the total economic
impact of the project will be around $61 billion. That is over $1
billion per year over the life of the mine, which equates to over $19
billion in Federal, State, county, and local tax revenue--$19 billion
in tax revenue. In these tough fiscal times, I think we can all agree
that local governments, and certainly the U.S. Treasury, could use
those funds.
This legislation also has national security implications. The U.S.
currently imports 30 percent of its copper, and its demand is
skyrocketing. This critical mineral is used in virtually all modern-day
technology, ranging from renewable energy and hybrid cars to your
everyday electronics like cell phones and iPods. Our country must use
domestic resources to meet this growing demand, and this project, as
was said earlier, could yield enough cooper to yield 25 percent of our
current demand.
This legislation is not only a jobs bill, it's a conservation bill.
The lands the Federal Government acquires in the exchange are highly
coveted recreational and conservation lands. It protects one of the few
remaining undammed rivers in Arizona, the San Pedro River. The Dripping
Springs property is a superb hiking and climbing location. The Cave
Creek property will protect a riparian corridor, as well as numerous
archaeological sites.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman from Arizona an
additional 1 minute.
Mr. GOSAR. And nearly 100 acres of private land adjacent to the
culturally important Apache Leap is being placed into Federal
stewardship.
This proposal truly has bipartisan support on the ground in our State
and across the country. We can preserve lands that advance the public
interests and objectives of protecting wildlife habitat, cultural and
historical resources, while enabling development of a project that will
generate significant economic and employment opportunities for State
and local residents. I hope it will garner your support.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 687, the Southeast
Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the
Resources Committee.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague for
yielding that time.
Well, another day, another giveaway. Pretty ironic: here we are,
we're about to get into a massive fight over whether or not we should
increase the debt limit of the United States or default on our
obligations, which involves many trillions of dollars, and today we're
going to give away a taxpayer asset that is worth billions of dollars.
We're going to give it away. Oh, we're going to get some pretty land in
exchange. That's valuable. That's nice. But, you know, for many
billions of dollars, we could probably buy a lot more land if we wanted
it, or we could have a little debt reduction.
I had a simple amendment. My amendment would have said that we would
charge an 8 percent royalty. Eight percent of the value of the copper
coming from these publicly-owned lands would be paid to the Treasury of
the United States of America. And guess what? The Republicans didn't
allow the amendment. What are they afraid of? They're afraid that maybe
some of their Tea Party types over there might vote for it? You want to
run government like a business, don't give away assets. That's what
we're doing here. You would still get the jobs.
Now, you know, this bill contains sort of a bizarre--they're saying,
oh, we're going to get some money maybe, sort of, kind of. Except
Treasury--nobody can interpret the language of this bill. It's a rather
unique and very speculative--potential, future, possible--payment
scheme, which would be controlled entirely by the company using
proprietary information. Of course they're going to volunteer to pay
money. Yeah, I don't think so. It's not going to happen.
So we're going to trade away a multibillion-dollar asset for a few
thousand acres of recreation land. I would say on any other day I
wouldn't hear from the Republican side of the aisle that that was a
good idea--give away billions of dollars of Federal assets for some
recreation lands.
Now, this isn't about the surface. It's just about the fact that Rio
Tinto, a foreign corporation, is not going to pay anything, or very
little, for the value of the minerals that are extracted from this
land. In fact, I understand that they've pretty much stopped any other
exploration around the world because this is the richest copper load in
North America, one of the richest in the world. They don't want to go
to these other piddly places where they've been--Indonesia, Australia
and all that. They're just focusing all their energy for copper right
here.
And guess where the copper is going to go after it's mined and after
they don't pay anything to us for taking it out of the ground? It's
going to go to China. Foreign corporation, ship it to China. Yeah,
we'll get some jobs. And if they paid a royalty, we would still get the
jobs and we would make the taxpayers whole.
Now, the oil and gas industry pays 12.5 percent royalty to the
government for the value of the resources they extract. Why shouldn't
the mining industry pay? Well, they don't pay because we're operating
under an 1872 law signed by Ulysses S. Grant. That's what governs
mining here. Now, come on. It's time to update that law. And if they
don't want to update the law, they could at least begin to charge some
royalties for the extraction of these minerals.
We have given away billions of dollars of gold mines to foreign
corporations--platinum, everything. Now we're going to give away our
greatest copper resource to a foreign corporation with no royalties, no
charge--and they will shelter most of their earnings overseas. They
will pay little, if anything, in U.S. taxes. Yes, their employees will
pay taxes--oh, they will pay taxes. Yeah, of course. We're going to
extract that out of the employees, but the company isn't going to pay.
They will find a way to shelter that overseas. It's a foreign
corporation.
{time} 1400
This is outrageous, absolutely outrageous. There are the issues
regarding the environmental waivers and the other things that Mr.
Grijalva talked about. We are going to evaluate this after the asset is
transferred to the mining company. The mining company will some day go
through this bizarre speculative scheme and they might pay us something
in the future.
Let's have a plain and simple and fair 8 percent royalty, make the
taxpayers whole and run this government a little bit more responsibly,
guys.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
3 minutes to another gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, you've already heard that this is a very
bipartisan measure that is supported by people on both sides of the
aisle.
In fact, I would like to point out a little story that I think is
kind of interesting. I think Mr. Gosar might be a little embarrassed,
and his partner on the other side of the aisle in getting this through,
Ann Kirkpatrick. But I think it's really interesting to note that Mr.
Gosar beat Mrs. Kirkpatrick in a campaign a few years ago, yet they
were able to put all differences aside to come together for what's best
for the State and what's best ultimately for the Nation.
We are talking about 3,700 jobs. Every town hall meeting that I've
held
[[Page H5852]]
this year--and I think the same thing could be said for most folks in
this body on both sides of the aisle--the number one issue that keeps
coming up is jobs, jobs, jobs. People want to get back to work again.
Arizona was hit really hard by this Great Recession, and the prospect
of getting 3,700 jobs in our State for this great project that's going
to provide 25 percent of the copper for this country is phenomenal.
That's why The Arizona Republic, our State's largest newspaper, came
out and editorialized for it. That's why you see all these different
entities that really are on both sides of the aisle coming out in
support of this idea.
I really find it incredible that as we try to balance the budget, we
try to start whittling down the deficit, stop having to pay a third of
our debt to China, that we have folks on the other side of the aisle
that are not willing to either cut spending or create jobs. I find that
incredible.
This is a phenomenal opportunity. It's a win-win all the way across
the board and what I think a lot of our young people would call a ``no-
brainer.''
I would like to really commend the other gentleman from Arizona,
Representative Paul Gosar, for his undying support and his incredible
hard work to get this done, and I commend his colleague on the other
side of the aisle, Ann Kirkpatrick, for her great work on this.
I also want to just say in closing that this is extremely important
to the folks in Arizona. It's been going on since I left Congress the
first time, and that was 12 years ago. It's time to put this to bed.
It has passed the House on several occasions and it gets all caught
up in the Senate. I think we have the opportunity to get it done this
year, I think common sense will prevail, and I would like to again
compliment the gentleman from Arizona for his great work.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I think the great Senator Moynihan once
said that ``people are entitled to their own opinions, but they're not
entitled to their own facts.''
Allowing the immediate exploration on and under Oak Flat prior to
NEPA review contemplated in section 4(j) of the act will constitute an
irretrievable commitment of resources. That is part of what has already
been the legislation.
What's also in the legislation is section 4(c) of H.R. 687 that
requires consultation only after enactment of the act, making any
consultation with Native communities a mere formality.
Secretary Vilsack said it in prior written comments:
It is important that this bill engage in a process of
formal tribal consultation to ensure both tribal
participation and the protection of the sacred sites.
This is his principal concern with regard to H.R. 687, and that's why
it did not receive the support of the Department.
I mention those things because they're part of the legislation. This
legislation was written for the convenience of the company and to
facilitate a trade that at the end of the day doesn't offer not only
any benefit but circumvents any protections we have to deal with
intended and unintended consequences.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan,
Congressman Kildee, for his comments.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, Mr. Grijalva, for his
leadership and for yielding the time.
I rise in strong opposition to this bill. I have consulted with many
Native American tribes, including the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, which I
represent. This bill simply does not rise to the standard that allows
me to support it. I have talked to the tribes. Their concern is that
this bill does not adequately support the protection of sacred lands,
nor does it adequately confer with Native Americans on these critical
issues.
The gentleman mentioned that the two cosponsors of this legislation
have set aside their differences. I have great respect for both Members
that offer this legislation. It is commendable that they have set aside
their differences.
Unfortunately, what this bill does is also set aside the objections
of the Native American tribes of this Nation--of this country--who
object to the bill.
It's bad for a couple of reasons:
First, it waives NEPA protections that require mining companies to
publicly disclose the environmental impacts they will create, including
on our water resources.
Second, basically this bill provides a multibillion dollar giveaway
to a foreign mining conglomerate that is engaged in mining uranium in
Iran.
Third, this bill would potentially destroy sacred and religious
lands.
I know something firsthand about the importance of preserving sacred
tribal sites. When I was the president of the Genesee County Land Bank
back home in Flint, Michigan, we discovered sacred ancestral remains on
a worksite. Instead of simply continuing on the project, as many would
have had us do, we did the right thing. We stopped the development,
worked with local and tribal officials, identified and protected the
sacred remains and returned the land to the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe.
The Federal Government has a legal and trust responsibility to Indian
tribes and to protect and preserve sacred tribal lands, and we should
take that role very seriously.
I suggest and implore my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the
subcommittee chairman on the Natural Resources Committee that deals
with this issue.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the full
committee, Representative Hastings, for his leadership on this and many
other resources issues. I want to thank the sponsors of the bill, and
particularly point out to the American people that Representative Paul
Gosar has been working night and day on this issue for years. It is
amazing to me, and a sign of his dedication to his district and the
people of Arizona that brought this bill to where it's at right now.
It's taken a lot of work and dedication, and I admire that as I witness
it.
A lot has been said about the good that will come to Arizona, the
3,700 well-paying jobs. But I want to talk about the good that's going
to come to America.
Copper is the second-most-needed defense material that the Department
of Defense has. I'm on the Armed Services Committee, and I'm sensitive
to making sure that our men and women in uniform have the best weapons
and supplies that they can have. The DOD says that copper is the
second-most-necessary mineral to meeting the needs of the military. The
first happens to be aluminum.
Also, this is the third-most-rich site of copper in the entire world,
in my understanding. It would supply up to one-quarter of this Nation's
copper needs. We are right now importing 30 percent of our needs, so it
almost wipes out our trade deficit in copper. Copper is a critical
metal. If you want to have a growing economy, you've got to have
copper. I just want to say this is good for America, it's good to have
this resource, and it's good for the jobs that it produces in Arizona.
Finally, I'm just going to conclude by saying it amazes me when I
hear people who profess to be for the working families--the working men
and women of this country--stumble over a golden opportunity like this
that would create thousands of great jobs and they just throw it away.
I would urge that we not listen to them, we look at the good that
comes from this bill and the resources and the jobs that this would
produce and the good that it does to our national economy, including
our defense industry.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my colleague from Utah,
it should be noted that 1/14th of 1 percent is the impact copper has on
the Arizona economy. It used to be 4 percent about 10 or 15 years ago.
Conversely, $421 million annually is spent in Pinal County and the
surrounding area around Oak Flat and Apache Leap in terms of ecotourism
and visitorship revenue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Matheson).
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Grijalva for his generosity
in yielding me the time.
I rise in support of H.R. 687, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange
and Conservation Act.
Copper is such a critical part of our economy. It is used in
electronics,
[[Page H5853]]
plumbing, cars, renewable energy. Yet, according to the latest data
from the U.S. Geological Survey, the United States remains a net
importer of copper, with over a third of copper consumed in this
country coming from foreign sources.
This piece of bipartisan legislation offers a chance to develop one
of the largest undeveloped copper resources in the world. It is
estimated that once fully developed, this project will produce enough
copper annually to meet 25 percent of U.S. demand. It will create 3,500
high-paying jobs. The average income in this industry is over $65,000.
This has been the product of a lengthy stakeholder negotiation
process. It has been supported by local elected officials of both
parties.
I commend Mr. Gosar for his leadership on this issue and for working
with Congresswoman Kirkpatrick as well. I urge passage of this bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me, if I may, talk a little bit about the proponent's claim that
H.R. 687 will boost the U.S. economy.
The copper will likely benefit China more than the United States.
Nine percent of the parent company of Resolution Copper, Rio Tinto, is
owned by the state-controlled Aluminum Corporation of China. Rio Tinto
has a long-established partnership to supply copper to China--they
repeatedly stated--and at a hearing refused to say what percentage of
the copper generated from Federal lands would be retained and processed
in the United States.
They will continue to market and supply their mine copper and other
ores to meet the greatest needs. At this point, Rio Tinto's own
international copper study group forecast a 377-ton global shortage
this year alone, driven not by U.S. demand but by that of China. The
bill does not even require that the ore extracted from this mine be
processed in the United States, much less marketed or sold here.
Our time and our focus should be on supporting U.S. industries
maintaining jobs. We should not trade away billions and billions of
dollars and tonnage of copper to supply China's ever-growing need.
I also would like to point out another issue that my friend,
Congressman Kildee, pointed out. At one point, we continued a very
important inquiry that has not been finalized or formalized, and that
is the parent company is in violation of the resolution by this
Congress and by previous Congresses on sanctions against Iran because
of their development of potential weapons, nuclear weapons. Any company
doing business with Iran was not to be able to do business with the
United States.
Rio Tinto co-manages in partnership a mine--a uranium mine of all
things--in Namibia in Africa. I think that merits we look into it
before we are in violation of our own resolution and, more importantly,
that we are not violating a resolution that we passed. It is an issue
of asking Commerce and Treasury, who are responsible for that sanction
enforcement, to do so. I think it would satisfy many of us to know the
results of that, and it would satisfy the American people to know that
their resource, a shared taxpayer resource, copper on Federal land, is
not in violation of a sanctions resolution by this Congress against
Iran.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1415
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests
for time on general debate and would ask my friend from Arizona if he
is prepared to yield back his time on general debate, as I am prepared
to close?
Mr. GRIJALVA. At this point, I don't have any further speakers.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me summarize three important points from this
debate.
H.R. 687 reflects all five of the previous variations of this
legislation. You are doing a post-NEPA with no enforcement. You are
turning the regulatory process and the oversight process to the State
of Arizona, which has weak mining laws and which is also not in a
position to meet the requirements that have to be part of this prior to
any land exchange: that would be hydrology; that would be sacred-site
consultation; that would be a NEPA review as to water issues that could
occur and subsurface damage. To the area around Apache Leap and Oak
Flat, those become important issues.
The sanctions issue is important to resolve against Iran--that we are
not in violation by creating a partnership in an exchange with a
foreign corporation that is doing business with Iran.
I think the most important issue is the taxpayer issue. We here in
this Congress--certainly many of my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle and on this side of the aisle as well--talk so much about the
taxpayer; talk so much about budget cuts and how to relieve the
taxpayer; talk so much about deficits and how we need to reduce those
deficits to the benefit of the taxpayer. We have no jobs bill, but we
talk about helping the taxpayer.
Then here we have before us our trading away of Federal land in an
exchange, not knowing what the real value is, because that's
proprietary, not knowing what the real production is going to be by the
company because that's proprietary, not requiring the same regulatory
NEPA process required of any other land exchange because this is a
special deal.
At the end of the day, as to exported copper that is processed
outside the United States--one, no gain to the taxpayer; no royalty
requirement--lost to the taxpayer; no real understanding of the full
value of what's underneath that ground and what protections and
mitigations would have to be put in place in order to make sure that
those areas are taken care of--not a problem; violation of the
government-to-government consultation on sacred sites and cultural
sites--we ignore that, too.
I think this is a rush to judgment, and it has been 10 years of a
rush to judgment. If the company 10 years ago would have agreed to do a
post-NEPA, we would have had all the information this Congress needed
in order to make an informed, due diligence decision. If 10 years ago
they would have sat down with the tribes and honestly and forthrightly
and equally done a government-to-government consultation, we could have
been on our way. If 10 years ago they would have made the guarantees
about a fair return to the taxpayer--how much ore is going to be
domestically marketed and remain in the United States and how much is
going to be processed--we could have been on our way. That was 10 years
ago.
This is the same piece of legislation, the same insistence on the
company. I think it is a bad deal for the taxpayers, and it is a bad
deal for the State of Arizona. We would be the poster child for one of
the worst expedited, sweetheart deals at the expense of the American
taxpayer and at the expense of the people of Arizona, of the tribes of
Arizona, and of the revenue that that County of Pinal enjoys.
Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Meadows). The gentleman from Arizona has 5
minutes remaining.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Arizona (Mrs.
Kirkpatrick).
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
legislation.
I thank my colleague, Mr. Grijalva, for yielding time to me, and I
thank him for his work and his comments. I also want to thank my
colleague from across the aisle, Congressman Gosar, for working with me
in a bipartisan way on this legislation.
I just want people to know that the town of Superior is a small town.
It's in the Copper Corridor of Arizona. Arizona's unemployment is
higher than the national unemployment; but in our rural communities,
it's even higher. This is an area in which people have been miners for
generations, and they want these jobs.
If the folks in a small town like Superior can come together, we as
Members of Congress can come together. I urge my colleagues to vote for
this legislation. It's an opportunity for us as Members of Congress to
show the American people that, yes, we can work together and get things
done. Let's make sure that this gets done.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
[[Page H5854]]
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, with this, I will close.
At some point, we as Members of this august body have to really
define what ``bipartisanship'' is. The last time that this bill was
before us and passed the House, seven Members from this side of the
aisle--Democrats--voted for it, and eight Members on the other side of
the aisle voted against it.
I mention that because this bill is about precedence. It is about the
kind of precedence that we are going to set as Members of this body--
ignoring our due diligence, ignoring the fact that we have before us a
piece of legislation that has failed to get out of the Senate and, more
importantly, that on two occasions the administration has strongly
indicated it does not support it. So we will go on with this exercise
of futility at the expense of real business that this Congress should
be doing for the American people.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a few comments here in response to
what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been saying
regarding this legislation. Certainly, there is a great deal of
hyperbole going on that, I think, simply doesn't meet the ``straight
face'' test in many respects.
First of all, it has been implied--and maybe said specifically--by
one of my colleagues that this legislation waives environmental laws.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say very specifically that this does not waive
any environmental laws. Let me walk back to how this works, because my
friends on the other side of the aisle are talking about the NEPA
review. NEPA is a pretty important environmental law--I certainly
understand that--but let's put this in context.
This legislation is a land exchange legislation--you exchange this
piece of land for this piece of land. Now, that is a policy decision
that we are debating and making here on the floor of the House. We are
making a policy decision on exchanging this piece of land for another
piece of land. If that exchange is done and if this becomes law, then,
yes, there will be a copper mine on that land that's exchanged--we
acknowledge that--but my friends on the other side of the aisle suggest
that we should have a NEPA review before we make a law.
How absurd is that? Are we going to have a NEPA review on every law?
Mr. Chairman, don't we make the policy here in this country? Their
criticism is that we are not allowing a NEPA review before we make a
law. I did not know that the NEPA policy said that, before there is a
land exchange or before Congress passes a statute, you have to have a
NEPA review. Yet, that's what their argument is in this case. After the
land exchange, the process starts of developing a mine, and then you go
through all of those environmental hoops that you normally go through
in this sort of activity.
So I just wanted to clarify that. I hope that my friends on the other
side of the aisle aren't suggesting by their argument of a NEPA review
that we should have a NEPA review on Congress' action. A NEPA review on
a statute? That doesn't make sense.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good piece of legislation. It has been worked
on very hard, on a bipartisan basis, by Mr. Gosar and others from the
Arizona delegation. Obviously, Arizonans broadly support this, at least
by the evidence that we see in the media and so forth. I think it's a
good bill. We have several amendments. We will debate those, and we
will address those issues during that debate; but I urge my colleagues
to vote for this legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources, printed in the bill,
shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 687
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Southeast
Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2013''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purpose.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Land exchange.
Sec. 5. Conveyance and management of non-Federal land.
Sec. 6. Value adjustment payment to United States.
Sec. 7. Withdrawal.
Sec. 8. Apache leap.
Sec. 9. Miscellaneous provisions.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the land exchange furthers public objectives referenced
in section 206 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716) including--
(A) promoting significant job and other economic
opportunities in a part of the State of Arizona that has a
long history of mining, but is currently experiencing high
unemployment rates and economic difficulties;
(B) facilitating the development of a world-class domestic
copper deposit capable of meeting a significant portion of
the annual United States demand for this strategic and
important mineral, in an area which has already been subject
to mining operations;
(C) significantly enhancing Federal, State, and local
revenue collections in a time of severe governmental budget
shortfalls;
(D) securing Federal ownership and protection of land with
significant fish and wildlife, recreational, scenic, water,
riparian, cultural, and other public values;
(E) assisting more efficient Federal land management via
Federal acquisition of land for addition to the Las Cienegas
and San Pedro National Conservation Areas, and to the Tonto
and Coconino National Forests;
(F) providing opportunity for community expansion and
economic diversification adjacent to the towns of Superior,
Miami, and Globe, Arizona; and
(G) protecting the cultural resources and other values of
the Apache Leap escarpment located near Superior, Arizona;
and
(2) the land exchange is, therefore, in the public
interest.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to authorize,
direct, facilitate, and expedite the exchange of land between
Resolution Copper and the United States.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Apache leap.--The term ``Apache Leap'' means the
approximately 807 acres of land depicted on the map entitled
``Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of
2013-Apache Leap'' and dated February 2013.
(2) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means the
approximately 2,422 acres of land located in Pinal County,
Arizona, depicted on the map entitled ``Southeast Arizona
Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2013-Federal Parcel-Oak
Flat'' and dated February 2013.
(3) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
(4) Non-federal land.--The term ``non-Federal land'' means
the parcels of land owned by Resolution Copper that are
described in section 5(a) and, if necessary to equalize the
land exchange under section 4, section 4(e)(2)(A)(i).
(5) Oak flat campground.--The term ``Oak Flat Campground''
means the approximately 50 acres of land comprising
approximately 16 developed campsites depicted on the map
entitled ``Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation
Act of 2013-Oak Flat Campground'' and dated February 2013.
(6) Oak flat withdrawal area.--The term ``Oak Flat
Withdrawal Area'' means the approximately 760 acres of land
depicted on the map entitled ``Southeast Arizona Land
Exchange and Conservation Act of 2013-Oak Flat Withdrawal
Area'' and dated February 2013.
(7) Resolution copper.--The term ``Resolution Copper''
means Resolution Copper Mining, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, including any successor, assign,
affiliate, member, or joint venturer of Resolution Copper
Mining, LLC.
(8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(9) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Arizona.
(10) Town.--The term ``Town'' means the incorporated town
of Superior, Arizona.
SEC. 4. LAND EXCHANGE.
(a) In General.--Subject to the provisions of this Act, if
Resolution Copper offers to convey to the United States all
right, title, and interest of Resolution Copper in and to the
non-Federal land, the Secretary is authorized and directed to
convey to Resolution Copper, all right, title, and interest
of the United States in and to the Federal land.
(b) Conditions on Acceptance.--Title to any non-Federal
land conveyed by Resolution Copper to the United States under
this Act shall be in a form that--
(1) is acceptable to the Secretary, for land to be
administered by the Forest Service and the Secretary of the
Interior, for land to be administered by the Bureau of Land
Management; and
(2) conforms to the title approval standards of the
Attorney General of the United States applicable to land
acquisitions by the Federal Government.
(c) Consultation With Indian Tribes.--If not undertaken
prior to enactment of this Act, within 30 days of the date of
enactment of this
[[Page H5855]]
Act, the Secretary shall engage in government-to-government
consultation with affected Indian tribes concerning issues
related to the land exchange, in accordance with applicable
laws (including regulations).
(d) Appraisals.--
(1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary and Resolution Copper
shall select an appraiser to conduct appraisals of the
Federal land and non-Federal land in compliance with the
requirements of section 254.9 of title 36, Code of Federal
Regulations.
(2) Requirements.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), an
appraisal prepared under this subsection shall be conducted
in accordance with nationally recognized appraisal standards,
including--
(i) the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land
Acquisitions; and
(ii) the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice.
(B) Final appraised value.--After the final appraised
values of the Federal land and non-Federal land are
determined and approved by the Secretary, the Secretary shall
not be required to reappraise or update the final appraised
value--
(i) for a period of 3 years beginning on the date of the
approval by the Secretary of the final appraised value; or
(ii) at all, in accordance with section 254.14 of title 36,
Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation),
after an exchange agreement is entered into by Resolution
Copper and the Secretary.
(C) Improvements.--Any improvements made by Resolution
Copper prior to entering into an exchange agreement shall not
be included in the appraised value of the Federal land.
(D) Public review.--Before consummating the land exchange
under this Act, the Secretary shall make the appraisals of
the land to be exchanged (or a summary thereof) available for
public review.
(3) Appraisal information.--The appraisal prepared under
this subsection shall include a detailed income
capitalization approach analysis of the market value of the
Federal land which may be utilized, as appropriate, to
determine the value of the Federal land, and shall be the
basis for calculation of any payment under section 6.
(e) Equal Value Land Exchange.--
(1) In general.--The value of the Federal land and non-
Federal land to be exchanged under this Act shall be equal or
shall be equalized in accordance with this subsection.
(2) Surplus of federal land value.--
(A) In general.--If the final appraised value of the
Federal land exceeds the value of the non-Federal land,
Resolution Copper shall--
(i) convey additional non-Federal land in the State to the
Secretary or the Secretary of the Interior, consistent with
the requirements of this Act and subject to the approval of
the applicable Secretary;
(ii) make a cash payment to the United States; or
(iii) use a combination of the methods described in clauses
(i) and (ii), as agreed to by Resolution Copper, the
Secretary, and the Secretary of the Interior.
(B) Amount of payment.--The Secretary may accept a payment
in excess of 25 percent of the total value of the land or
interests conveyed, notwithstanding section 206(b) of the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1716(b)).
(C) Disposition and use of proceeds.--Any amounts received
by the United States under this subparagraph shall be
deposited in the fund established under Public Law 90-171
(commonly known as the ``Sisk Act''; 16 U.S.C. 484a) and
shall be made available, in such amounts as are provided in
advance in appropriation Acts, to the Secretary for the
acquisition of land for addition to the National Forest
System.
(3) Surplus of non-federal land.--If the final appraised
value of the non-Federal land exceeds the value of the
Federal land--
(A) the United States shall not make a payment to
Resolution Copper to equalize the value; and
(B) the surplus value of the non-Federal land shall be
considered to be a donation by Resolution Copper to the
United States.
(f) Oak Flat Withdrawal Area.--
(1) Permits.--Subject to the provisions of this subsection
and notwithstanding any withdrawal of the Oak Flat Withdrawal
Area from the mining, mineral leasing, or public land laws,
the Secretary, upon enactment of this Act, shall issue to
Resolution Copper--
(A) if so requested by Resolution Copper, within 30 days of
such request, a special use permit to carry out mineral
exploration activities under the Oak Flat Withdrawal Area
from existing drill pads located outside the Area, if the
activities would not disturb the surface of the Area; and
(B) if so requested by Resolution Copper, within 90 days of
such request, a special use permit to carry out mineral
exploration activities within the Oak Flat Withdrawal Area
(but not within the Oak Flat Campground), if the activities
are conducted from a single exploratory drill pad which is
located to reasonably minimize visual and noise impacts on
the Campground.
(2) Conditions.--Any activities undertaken in accordance
with this subsection shall be subject to such reasonable
terms and conditions as the Secretary may require.
(3) Termination.--The authorization for Resolution Copper
to undertake mineral exploration activities under this
subsection shall remain in effect until the Oak Flat
Withdrawal Area land is conveyed to Resolution Copper in
accordance with this Act.
(g) Costs.--As a condition of the land exchange under this
Act, Resolution Copper shall agree to pay, without
compensation, all costs that are--
(1) associated with the land exchange and any environmental
review document under subsection (j); and
(2) agreed to by the Secretary.
(h) Use of Federal Land.--The Federal land to be conveyed
to Resolution Copper under this Act shall be available to
Resolution Copper for mining and related activities subject
to and in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and
local laws pertaining to mining and related activities on
land in private ownership.
(i) Intent of Congress.--It is the intent of Congress that
the land exchange directed by this Act shall be consummated
not later than one year after the date of enactment of this
Act.
(j) Environmental Compliance.--Compliance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) under this Act shall be as follows:
(1) Prior to commencing production in commercial quantities
of any valuable mineral from the Federal land conveyed to
Resolution Copper under this Act (except for any production
from exploration and mine development shafts, adits, and
tunnels needed to determine feasibility and pilot plant
testing of commercial production or to access the ore body
and tailing deposition areas), Resolution Copper shall submit
to the Secretary a proposed mine plan of operations.
(2) The Secretary shall, within 3 years of such submission,
complete preparation of an environmental review document in
accordance with section 102(2) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4322(2)) which shall be used as
the basis for all decisions under applicable Federal laws,
rules and regulations regarding any Federal actions or
authorizations related to the proposed mine and mine plan of
operations of Resolution Copper, including the construction
of associated power, water, transportation, processing,
tailings, waste dump, and other ancillary facilities.
SEC. 5. CONVEYANCE AND MANAGEMENT OF NON-FEDERAL LAND.
(a) Conveyance.--On receipt of title to the Federal land,
Resolution Copper shall simultaneously convey--
(1) to the Secretary, all right, title, and interest that
the Secretary determines to be acceptable in and to--
(A) the approximately 147 acres of land located in Gila
County, Arizona, depicted on the map entitled ``Southeast
Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2013-Non-
Federal Parcel-Turkey Creek'' and dated February 2013;
(B) the approximately 148 acres of land located in Yavapai
County, Arizona, depicted on the map entitled ``Southeast
Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2013-Non-
Federal Parcel-Tangle Creek'' and dated February 2013;
(C) the approximately 149 acres of land located in Maricopa
County, Arizona, depicted on the map entitled ``Southeast
Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2013-Non-
Federal Parcel-Cave Creek'' and dated February 2013;
(D) the approximately 640 acres of land located in Coconino
County, Arizona, depicted on the map entitled ``Southeast
Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2013-Non-
Federal Parcel-East Clear Creek'' and dated February 2013;
and
(E) the approximately 110 acres of land located in Pinal
County, Arizona, depicted on the map entitled ``Southeast
Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2013-Apache
Leap South End'' and dated February 2013; and
(2) to the Secretary of the Interior, all right, title, and
interest that the Secretary of the Interior determines to be
acceptable in and to--
(A) the approximately 3,050 acres of land located in Pinal
County, Arizona, identified as ``Lands to DOI'' as generally
depicted on the map entitled ``Southeast Arizona Land
Exchange and Conservation Act of 2013-Non-Federal Parcel-
Lower San Pedro River'' and dated February 2013;
(B) the approximately 160 acres of land located in Gila and
Pinal Counties, Arizona, identified as ``Lands to DOI'' as
generally depicted on the map entitled ``Southeast Arizona
Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2013-Non-Federal
Parcel-Dripping Springs'' and dated February 2013; and
(C) the approximately 940 acres of land located in Santa
Cruz County, Arizona, identified as ``Lands to DOI'' as
generally depicted on the map entitled ``Southeast Arizona
Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2013-Non-Federal
Parcel-Appleton Ranch'' and dated February 2013.
(b) Management of Acquired Land.--
(1) Land acquired by the secretary.--
(A) In general.--Land acquired by the Secretary under this
Act shall--
(i) become part of the national forest in which the land is
located; and
(ii) be administered in accordance with the laws applicable
to the National Forest System.
(B) Boundary revision.--On the acquisition of land by the
Secretary under this Act, the boundaries of the national
forest shall be modified to reflect the inclusion of the
acquired land.
(C) Land and water conservation fund.--For purposes of
section 7 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965
(16 U.S.C. 4601-9), the boundaries of a national forest in
which land acquired by the Secretary is located shall be
deemed to be the boundaries of that forest as in existence on
January 1, 1965.
(2) Land acquired by the secretary of the interior.--
(A) San pedro national conservation area.--
(i) In general.--The land acquired by the Secretary of the
Interior under subsection (a)(2)(A) shall be added to, and
administered as part of, the San Pedro National Conservation
[[Page H5856]]
Area in accordance with the laws (including regulations)
applicable to the Conservation Area.
(ii) Management plan.--Not later than 2 years after the
date on which the land is acquired, the Secretary of the
Interior shall update the management plan for the San Pedro
National Conservation Area to reflect the management
requirements of the acquired land.
(B) Dripping springs.--Land acquired by the Secretary of
the Interior under subsection (a)(2)(B) shall be managed in
accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and applicable land use plans.
(C) Las cienegas national conservation area.--Land acquired
by the Secretary of the Interior under subsection (a)(2)(C)
shall be added to, and administered as part of, the Las
Cienegas National Conservation Area in accordance with the
laws (including regulations) applicable to the Conservation
Area.
(c) Surrender of Rights.--In addition to the conveyance of
the non-Federal land to the United States under this Act, and
as a condition of the land exchange, Resolution Copper shall
surrender to the United States, without compensation, the
rights held by Resolution Copper under the mining laws and
other laws of the United States to commercially extract
minerals under Apache Leap.
SEC. 6. VALUE ADJUSTMENT PAYMENT TO UNITED STATES.
(a) Annual Production Reporting.--
(1) Report required.--As a condition of the land exchange
under this Act, Resolution Copper shall submit to the
Secretary of the Interior an annual report indicating the
quantity of locatable minerals produced during the preceding
calendar year in commercial quantities from the Federal land
conveyed to Resolution Copper under section 4. The first
report is required to be submitted not later than February 15
of the first calendar year beginning after the date of
commencement of production of valuable locatable minerals in
commercial quantities from such Federal land. The reports
shall be submitted February 15 of each calendar year
thereafter.
(2) Sharing reports with state.--The Secretary shall make
each report received under paragraph (1) available to the
State.
(3) Report contents.--The reports under paragraph (1) shall
comply with any recordkeeping and reporting requirements
prescribed by the Secretary or required by applicable Federal
laws in effect at the time of production.
(b) Payment on Production.--If the cumulative production of
valuable locatable minerals produced in commercial quantities
from the Federal land conveyed to Resolution Copper under
section 4 exceeds the quantity of production of locatable
minerals from the Federal land used in the income
capitalization approach analysis prepared under section 4(d),
Resolution Copper shall pay to the United States, by not
later than March 15 of each applicable calendar year, a value
adjustment payment for the quantity of excess production at
the same rate assumed for the income capitalization approach
analysis prepared under section 4(d).
(c) State Law Unaffected.--Nothing in this section
modifies, expands, diminishes, amends, or otherwise affects
any State law relating to the imposition, application,
timing, or collection of a State excise or severance tax.
(d) Use of Funds.--
(1) Separate fund.--All funds paid to the United States
under this section shall be deposited in a special fund
established in the Treasury and shall be available, in such
amounts as are provided in advance in appropriation Acts, to
the Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior only for the
purposes authorized by paragraph (2).
(2) Authorized use.--Amounts in the special fund
established pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be used for
maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation projects for Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management assets.
SEC. 7. WITHDRAWAL.
Subject to valid existing rights, Apache Leap and any land
acquired by the United States under this Act are withdrawn
from all forms of--
(1) entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land
laws;
(2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
(3) disposition under the mineral leasing, mineral
materials, and geothermal leasing laws.
SEC. 8. APACHE LEAP.
(a) Management.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall manage Apache Leap to
preserve the natural character of Apache Leap and to protect
archeological and cultural resources located on Apache Leap.
(2) Special use permits.--The Secretary may issue to
Resolution Copper special use permits allowing Resolution
Copper to carry out underground activities (other than the
commercial extraction of minerals) under the surface of
Apache Leap that the Secretary determines would not disturb
the surface of the land, subject to any terms and conditions
that the Secretary may require.
(3) Fences; signage.--The Secretary may allow use of the
surface of Apache Leap for installation of fences, signs,
monitoring devices, or other measures necessary to protect
the health and safety of the public, protect resources
located on Apache Leap, or to ensure that activities
conducted under paragraph (2) do not affect the surface of
Apache Leap.
(b) Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with
affected Indian tribes, the Town, Resolution Copper, and
other interested members of the public, shall prepare a
management plan for Apache Leap.
(2) Considerations.--In preparing the plan under paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall consider whether additional measures
are necessary to--
(A) protect the cultural, archaeological, or historical
resources of Apache Leap, including permanent or seasonal
closures of all or a portion of Apache Leap; and
(B) provide access for recreation.
(c) Mining Activities.--The provisions of this section
shall not impose additional restrictions on mining activities
carried out by Resolution Copper adjacent to, or outside of,
the Apache Leap area beyond those otherwise applicable to
mining activities on privately owned land under Federal,
State, and local laws, rules and regulations.
SEC. 9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
(a) Revocation of Orders; Withdrawal.--
(1) Revocation of orders.--Any public land order that
withdraws the Federal land from appropriation or disposal
under a public land law shall be revoked to the extent
necessary to permit disposal of the land.
(2) Withdrawal.--On the date of enactment of this Act, if
the Federal land or any Federal interest in the non-Federal
land to be exchanged under section 4 is not withdrawn or
segregated from entry and appropriation under a public land
law (including mining and mineral leasing laws and the
Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.)), the
land or interest shall be withdrawn, without further action
required by the Secretary concerned, from entry and
appropriation. The withdrawal shall be terminated--
(A) on the date of consummation of the land exchange; or
(B) if Resolution Copper notifies the Secretary in writing
that it has elected to withdraw from the land exchange
pursuant to section 206(d) of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1716(d)).
(3) Rights of resolution copper.--Nothing in this Act shall
interfere with, limit, or otherwise impair, the unpatented
mining claims or rights currently held by Resolution Copper
on the Federal land, nor in any way change, diminish,
qualify, or otherwise impact Resolution Copper's rights and
ability to conduct activities on the Federal land under such
unpatented mining claims and the general mining laws of the
United States, including the permitting or authorization of
such activities.
(b) Maps, Estimates, and Descriptions.--
(1) Minor errors.--The Secretary concerned and Resolution
Copper may correct, by mutual agreement, any minor errors in
any map, acreage estimate, or description of any land
conveyed or exchanged under this Act.
(2) Conflict.--If there is a conflict between a map, an
acreage estimate, or a description of land in this Act, the
map shall control unless the Secretary concerned and
Resolution Copper mutually agree otherwise.
(3) Availability.--On the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretary shall file and make available for public
inspection in the Office of the Supervisor, Tonto National
Forest, each map referred to in this Act.
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A
of House Report 113-215. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report,
shall be considered 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.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Grijalva
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part A of House Report 113-215.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of section 4 (page 14, after line 14), add the
following new subsection:
(k) Requiring Mining Plan for Conveyed Federal Lands to
Support Local Workforce.--As an additional condition of the
land exchange under this Act, and to ensure compliance with
the findings and purpose of this Act specified in section 2,
Resolution Copper shall agree--
(1) to locate in the town of Superior, Arizona, or a
contiguous, neighboring mining community the remote operation
center for mining operations on the Federal land; and
(2) to maintain such remote operation center for the
duration of the mining operations on the Federal land.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 351, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, repeatedly we have heard this bill is
about jobs. We've heard it a lot, and we continue to hear it. We have
to pass this bill, so goes the refrain, because it's about jobs in a
part of Arizona that really needs jobs.
I understand how important it is to help rural parts of the State. I
understand how important it is to help rural
[[Page H5857]]
communities across the country. I talk about this all the time--trying
to work to advance a policy agenda that translates into real,
meaningful opportunities for all Americans and for those sectors of our
State, as was previously pointed out by my colleague, Congresswoman
Kirkpatrick, in which unemployment is very, very severe. That's why I
think it's important to make sure this bill translates into real and
meaningful jobs for the communities that will bear the biggest burden
of the proposed mine.
My amendment would require that the Remote Operations Center for the
mine be located in the town of Superior, Arizona, or adjacent to
another mining community within the Copper Triangle. Modern blockade
mines use a range of automation technology, and most of the human labor
is done off site at the Remote Operations Center. Like other mines
operated by Rio Tinto, which is Resolution Copper's parent company, the
Remote Operations Center will likely be in a metro area. Rio Tinto is
presently operating its Pilbara, Australia, mine from 800 miles away in
a large metro center. Our amendment will ensure that this is not the
case in Superior.
If this legislation is really about jobs and lifting up the local
economy, it is important to guarantee that local residents will have
access to the jobs that were promised and the jobs that were created.
My amendment guarantees that the jobs this mine does create will
benefit the local community. This amendment, at the very minimum, will
realize some real jobs if this legislation is to ever be implemented.
When one reads and hears Rio Tinto brag about automation and
technology and the progress in mining, where less labor is needed, and
when one listens to the wild variations about jobs from 3,700 to 5,000
to 1,200 to 1,400--and the recent one from the company's own Web site
is 1,400--one asks: What is the real number?
{time} 1430
Since no mining plan of operation has been submitted, it's impossible
to analyze or estimate. So how do we know?
There is nothing in H.R. 687 that guarantees jobs for Superior,
Arizona, or any other nearby mining community. With my amendment, we
can at least make sure the remote operating center isn't in Utah, where
Resolution Copper is headquartered, or some other far-flung place. As
part of this legislation, my amendment would require that that center
be located in Superior and that the opportunities promised and the jobs
created would go into that area.
I urge adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
The fundamental purpose of H.R. 687 is to facilitate a land exchange;
then after that land exchange was done, there would be a production and
mining of copper, which of course would create thousands of American
jobs.
Mr. Chairman, I have to say that the way this amendment is written,
it would make it impossible by creating mandates that just simply
couldn't be achieved.
I have to give my friend from Arizona credit. He has made no bones
about the fact that he does not like this bill. He said that very well.
I don't agree with him, but he has said it very well.
Generally, when you offer an amendment to a bill, however, you offer
an amendment to improve the bill. Believe me, Mr. Chairman, this will
not improve the bill. In all likelihood, if adopted, it would probably
kill the bill because it dictates a precise town where the mine
operations should be.
I suspect that the company will have some offices in those areas.
That stands to reason if you're going to invest some money. But the
Federal Government should not be dictating specifically what town
somebody should set up an enterprise.
Mr. Chairman, if you want to go to the absurd, if the idea is to help
a distressed area by dictating where you should locate some facility or
manufacturing or some company, one could say, Gee, whiz, what city in
the United States is really hurting? The first city that comes to mind,
of course, is Detroit, Michigan. Are we going to suggest, for example,
that the Federal Government dictate that Apple from Cupertino,
California, should be relocated to Detroit? Of course that's absurd.
Yet, when you start this precedent here that is suggested in this
amendment, one could lead to that conclusion in the future.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, pass the underlying
bill, and reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Interestingly enough, H.R. 687 does mandate that the Federal
Government decide when and how NEPA is applied, that the Federal
Government mandate what the valuation of the exchange is--independent
of a process driven by the company--and it mandates that we deal with
water issues after the fact, who gets water protection and who doesn't.
Whether it is 10 jobs or 1,000 jobs, all my bill does is hold the
company's feet to the fire. You have talked about jobs; you have talked
about providing them, saving that community, and rebounding the Arizona
economy. Here's an opportunity by guaranteeing that that claim will
indeed be a reality if this bill is implemented. I think my amendment
actually improves it because it takes some of the rhetoric of promoting
the mine and makes it language and legislation that makes the company
back it up.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the sponsor of this
legislation.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate that this isn't a new
mine. This mine of operations exists currently there today.
The modern-day practices Resolution Copper plans to implement at the
Pinal County site are not new. Many mines across the world implement
them. In fact, there is a similar project, albeit half the size of our
proposed project, that uses the same strategy and technology and
employs nearly 1,000 people. That is real-life proof that humans will
work at this mine at the site in Arizona.
I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in part A of House Report 113-215.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at
the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 14, after line 14, insert the following new
subsection:
(k) Exclusion of Native American Sacred and Cultural
Sites.--The Federal land to be conveyed under this section
shall not include any Native American sacred or cultural
site, whether surface or subsurface, and the Secretary shall
modify the map referred to in section 3(2) to exclude all
such sacred and cultural sites, as identified by the
Secretary in consultation with affected Indian tribes to
determine appropriate measures necessary to protect and
preserve sacred and cultural sites. Nothing in this Act shall
limit access of affected tribes to these sacred and cultural
sites.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 351, the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer
an amendment that would protect Native
[[Page H5858]]
American sacred and cultural sites associated with the land conveyance
outlined in the bill. This bill transfers land out of the public domain
and into the hands of a private mining company with no guarantee of
protecting sacred sites.
Currently, the cultural and sacred sites of Apache Leap and Oak Flat
are located on public land and not on an Indian reservation. Although
these sites are not on an Indian reservation, they're still sacred to
the San Carlos Apache, Yavapai Indian Tribe, and other tribes in
Arizona, just as a Catholic church, where I practice my faith, is
considered a holy place even though it's not located in Vatican City.
Because these sacred and cultural sites are currently on public land,
they are protected under certain Federal laws. This bill would transfer
the lands that contain these sacred sites to a private company for
private ownership, effectively taking away any protections under
Federal law.
Additionally, it is important to protect the subsurface area of these
sacred sites, which this bill does not do. Native American sacred
sites, just as a church or temple, have both surface and subsurface
religious quantities. Would we allow subsurface mining below the
National Cathedral? I would say not.
I have heard from my colleagues the mining would take place below the
ground and therefore leave the sacred sites undisturbed, but this is a
rather absurd argument and, quite honestly, not factual.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the sponsor of the bill.
Mr. GOSAR. I thank the chairman for allowing me to briefly address
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the Lujan amendment is well-intentioned but misguided.
It would put forth a policy that would undermine existing law that
ensures tribal consultation and protection of sacred sites. By giving
the Secretary of the Interior unilateral discretion to determine what a
sacred site is, Congress would unwittingly undermine a variety of
public laws Congress put in place to protect verified sacred sites.
Let me be clear that this land exchange is crafted in such a way as
to protect relevant Native American historical and cultural sites.
Section 4(i) and 4(j) explicitly require compliance with Federal
environmental laws and regulations pertaining to conveyances of Federal
land and approval of mine plan of operation. That includes the National
Historic Preservation Act, Endangered Species Act, and executive orders
pertaining to wetlands, floodplains, and hazardous material surveys.
I see my colleague may have a picture of Apache Leap. My bill
explicitly protects Apache Leap. The bill protects Apache Leap by the
following:
It conveys 110 acres of Apache Leap currently owned by Resolution
Copper to the U.S. Forest Service, section 5(a)(e); it explicitly
prohibits any type of extraction activity at Apache Leap, section 5(c);
withdrawing Apache Leap and any land acquired by the U.S. under this
act, section 7; requiring the Secretary to develop a management plan
for Apache Leap that preserves the natural character of the site and
protects agricultural and cultural resources, section 8.
Before I conclude, I want to underscore, H.R. 687 does not exchange
any reservation lands. The next Federal parcel is located over 20 miles
from the boundaries of the San Carlos Apache Tribe's reservation. While
well-intentioned, the Lujan amendment actually undermines that very
mission.
Please join me in opposing the amendment.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to
the very distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), one
of the cochairs of the Native American Caucus.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment.
The United States has an obligation to protect and preserve Native
American sacred sites located on Federal lands. It is a responsibility
we have established through Federal laws, including the American Indian
Religious Freedom Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
Mr. Lujan's amendment would make sure that we follow these laws.
That's what his amendment does; it protects these laws. That's why over
80 tribal organizations support our amendment. My colleagues who oppose
this amendment, they claim that all sacred spaces have been protected
in this bill. Those claims are simply false.
The San Carlos Apache Tribe is currently working with the Tonto
National Forest to conduct a survey of their sacred sites. They have
found artifacts and cultural materials and may still discover burial
sites in areas that are proposed for exchange in this bill.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that the survey
process and tribal consultation can continue.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I inform my friend from New Mexico that I
am prepared to close on this amendment if the gentleman is prepared to
close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
I don't know where to begin with the comments suggested by one of my
colleagues whom I respect, Mr. Gosar. I don't know how to be more
clear.
These sacred sites are on public land. I think it would be a new low
for this Congress to go and tell tribes across America that sacred
sites that are not located on a reservation are no longer sacred. I'm
surprised. I'm appalled. I think tribes across the country would be, as
well.
With regard to sections 4(i) and 4(j), I ask the author of the
legislation to come back and read it with me. The way that I read this,
there's only one section of law that is referred to that can't be
enforced because this is on private lands, not on public lands; and the
area that's identified in the law is the National Environmental Policy
Act.
What happens when this land is given from a public perspective back
to a private perspective is we lose the opportunity and ability to
enforce the National Historic Preservation Act, the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the American Indian Religious
Freedom Act, and the administration's December 2012 memorandum of
understanding to protect sacred sites.
Mr. Chairman, I submit into the Record all the organizations across
America, including all the tribes from Arizona, that are opposed to
this underlying legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I have here not a picture of Apache Leap, but a picture
of what happens with blockade mining. So even in the poor attempt that
talks about trying to address Apache Leap, the author of the
legislation failed to include Oak Flat, which is a sacred site that
would be covered here.
This is what happens with blockade mining. Don't take my word for it,
as I will submit into the Record a presentation by Resolution Copper
Mining. In this, which I wish I would have blown up, Resolution Copper
shows pictures of how this starts to cave in. It will eventually look
like this.
Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense piece of legislation. In your
words, this will improve the law. This will improve what we're trying
to do here. This doesn't give the Secretary blanket authority to do
anything.
Let's just protect sacred sites and work together. The Congress has
always done this. There's a reason why Democrats and Republicans have
come together to create a Native American Caucus and to advocate for
tribes across America. The Congress has always stood strong.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to please give due consideration
and support this amendment. I hope to work with the majority and
Chairman Hastings, whom I respect very much, to try to get this
addressed.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Tribes and Organizations Opposed to H.R. 687, SE AZ Land Exchange
Tribal Organizations
National Congress of American Indians--the oldest and
largest organization representing tribes across the country
[[Page H5859]]
National Indian Gaming Association--represents 184 tribes
across the country
Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona--represents 20 tribes in
Arizona
Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada--represents 27 tribes in
Nevada
United South and Eastern Tribes--represents 26 tribes in
Maine, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi,
Louisiana, Florida, and Texas and based in Tennessee
California Association of Tribal Governments--represents
tribal governments in California
Midwest Alliance of Sovereign Tribes--represents 35 tribes
in Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa
Affiliated Tribes of the Northwest Indians--represents 57
tribes located in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Southeast
Alaska, Northern California, and Western Montana
All Indian Pueblo Council--represents 20 pueblos located in
New Mexico and Texas
Eight Northern Indian Pueblos of New Mexico
Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association--represents 16
tribes in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska
Coalition of Large Tribes--represents 14 tribes in North
Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico,
Utah, Washington
Alaska Inter-Tribal Council
Alabama
Poarch Band of Creek Indians, Alabama
Arizona
San Carlos Apache Tribe, Arizona
Hopi Tribe, Arizona
Ak-Chin Indian Community, Arizona
Ft. McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona
White Mountain Apache Tribe, Arizona
Colorado River Indian Tribes, Arizona
Cocopah Indian Tribe, Arizona
Hualapai Tribe, Arizona
Tohono O'odham Nation, Arizona
Quechan Indian Tribe, Arizona
Tonto Apache Tribe, Arizona
Ft. Mojave Indian Tribe, Arizona, California, and Nevada
Navajo Nation Council, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah
California
Susanville Indian Rancheria, California
Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians, California
Hopland Band of Pomo Indians, California
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, California
California Valley Miwok Tribe, California
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, California
Connecticut
Mohegan Tribe, Connecticut
Florida
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida
Idaho
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Idaho
Kansas
Kickapoo Indian Nation, Kansas
Louisiana
Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, Louisiana
Tunica-Biloxi Tribe, Louisiana
Maine
Penobscot Indian Nation, Maine
Massachusetts
Aquinnah Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head, MA
Michigan
Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, Michigan
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe, Michigan
Minnesota
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, Minnesota
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Indian Community, Minnesota
Nevada
Shoshone-Paiute Tribe, Nevada
Walker River Paiute Tribe, Nevada
New Mexico
Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico
Mescalero Apache Tribe, New Mexico
Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico
Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico
Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico
Oklahoma
Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma
Osage Nation, Oklahoma
Rhode Island
Narragansett Tribe
South Carolina
Catawba Indian Nation, South Carolina
South Dakota
Oglala Sioux Tribe, South Dakota
Washington
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington
Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Washington
Quinault Indian Nation, Washington
Hoh Indian Nation, Washington
Samish Indian Nation, Washington
Wisconsin
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians
Oneida Nation, Wisconsin
Sokaogan Chippewa Community, Wisconsin
Stockbridge-Munsee Community, Band of Mohican Indians,
Wisconsin
Environmental and Religious Groups Opposing H.R. 687/S. 339, SE AZ Land
Exchange
Town of Superior
Queen Valley Golf Association, Queen Valley, Arizona
Queen Valley Homeowners Association, Queen Valley, Arizona
Arizona Mining Reform Coalition
American Lands
Access Fund
Arizona Mountaineering Club
Arizona Native Plant Society
Arizona Wildlife Federation
The American Alpine Club--Golden, CO
Center for Biological Diversity
Chiricahua-Dragoon Conservation Alliance
Comstock Residents Association--Virginia City, NV
Concerned Citizens and Retired Miners Coalition--Superior,
AZ
Concerned Climbers of Arizona, LLC
Earthworks
Endangered Species Coalition
Environment America
Environment Arizona
Friends Committee' on National Legislation
Friends of Ironwood Forest--Tucson, AZ
Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness
Friends of The Cloquet Valley State Forest
Friends of the Kalmiopsis--Grants Pass, OR
Friends of Queen Creek
Gila Resources Information Project
Grand Canyon Chapter--Sierra Club
Great Basin Mine Watch
Groundwater Awareness League--Green Valley, AZ
High Country Citizens' Alliance--Crested Butte, CO
Information Network for Responsible Mining--Telluride, CO
Keepers of the Water--Manistee, MI
League of Conservation Voters
Maricopa Audubon Society--Phoenix, AZ
Ministers' Conference of Winston-Salem, North Carolina &
Vicinity
The Morning Star Institute--Washington, D.C.
Mount Graham Coalition--Arizona
Natural Resources Defense Council
National Wildlife Federation
Progressive National Baptist Convention
Religion and Human Rights Forum for the Preservation of
Native American Sacred Sites and Rights
Rock Creek Alliance--Sandpoint, ID
San Juan Citizens Alliance--Durango, CO
Save Our Cabinets--Heron, MT
Save Our Sky Blue Waters--Minnesota
Save the Scenic Santa Ritas
Sierra Club
Sky Island Alliance
The Lands Council--Spokane, WA
Tucson Audubon Society
Water More Precious Than Gold
Western Lands Exchange Project--Seattle, WA
Wilderness Workshop
Wisconsin Resources Protection Council--Tomahawk, WI
Yuma Audubon Society
Block Cave Mining
Block caving is an efficient technique that uses gravity to
extract ore. A series of tunnels is developed below the
orebody to ensure that rock will fall by gravity into a
series of collection points. Loaders then collect the ore and
transport it to an underground crusher, and the crushed ore
is conveyed through shafts for processing. The orebody at the
Resolution Copper project is very deep, approximately 7,000
feet underground, and the ore is dispersed in nature (1%-2%
copper). Because of this, we have determined that the block
caving method is the most practical and environmentally
sensitive approach to our mine. Please read on to learn more
about block caving--the mining method of choice for the
Resolution Copper project.
BLOCK CAVING AND SUBSIDENCE
The positive aspects of a block cave mine include no
overburden waste piles on surface, and no large open pits.
One consequence of block cave mines, however, is the
potential for surface subsidence or settling. Surface
subsidence is caused as the material above the orebody
gradually moves downward to replace the ore that has been
mined.
Using industry standard engineering practices, we are able
to predict both the cave and subsidence zones based on
orebody knowledge gained during our pre-feasibility drilling
work. However, the best understanding of caving and
subsidence will come once mining begins.
Protecting Apache Leap
Our commitment to protecting Apache Leap is absolute, and
we are taking a variety of steps to ensure that the area is
not harmed as a result of our mining activities.
Keeping a close watch on subsidence
Mining will start at a point away from Apache Leap. This
will allow us to gather technical information over a period
of years to reassess the cave and subsidence angles. This
data will be used to ensure the Apache Leap easement is not
impacted as mining progresses to the west
This information will allow us to identify any possible
threat to Apache Leap as a result of our mining activities.
If a threat is identified, we will change our mining
practices to ensure the Leap is protected.
Why the mine would be affected before Apache Leap
It is important to note that the way the mine will be
constructed adds to the protection of Apache Leap. Here's
why:
A series of three shafts is required to provide fresh air
to the underground workers and equipment. This will include
the existing #9 Shaft and two new shafts in the same
[[Page H5860]]
area. These shafts will be the main lifeline to the mine and
will cost in excess of $500 million to build. The mine could
not operate without these shafts.
The way we plan to mine means that the subsidence zone
would approach the boundary of the shaft complex after 15
years of mining. At that point in time, the subsidence zone
would still be more than 3,000 feet from the boundary of the
Apache Leap easement and would take another 25 years to reach
the boundary of the conservation easement that will protect
the Leap. In simple terms, subsidence would jeopardize the
mining operation long before it affected Apache Leap or Queen
Creek Canyon.
Summary
Subsidence evaluations and predictions will be regularly
updated as more geological information is gathered and more
powerful predictive tools are developed. Once caving
commences, a comprehensive continuous monitoring system will
be used to track the progression of the cave, validate
subsidence predictions and check the suitability of the mine
plan.
For more information on our block caving approach please
visit our website at www.resolutioncopper.com, email
[email protected], or call our Resolution project
hotline at 520-689-3409.
AN OVERVIEW OF BLOCK CAVING
While block caving is not a new concept, it is gaining
popularity as a safe and cost-effective method of mining deep
orebodies. Resolution Copper's goal is to not only create a
profitable and thriving mining operation in Superior, but
also to meet or exceed today's environmental and social
standards. Block caving helps us achieve this by keeping the
mining footprint small and reducing the amount of waste rock.
How it works
Block cave mining in its simplest form operates in the same
way sand falls through an hourglass.
Block caving involves a three phase process of blasting and
tunneling to form the shape of an hourglass out of rock.
Phase A involves blasting an upper cavern of broken rock.
Phase B involves drilling a tunnel underneath the broken
rock cavern.
Phase C involves blasting a narrow neck (drawbell) that
allows broken cavern rock to fall through the drawbell down
into the underlying tunnel.
In block caving where the base of the hourglass shape is a
confined tunnel, the speed of rock falling through the
hourglass neck (drawbell) is controlled by the speed at which
rock is removed from the tunnel.
As broken rock in the upper cavern falls through the neck
or drawbell, the roof of the cavern gradually collapses
further to create more broken rock within the cavern. This
process is continued until all the rock ore is removed via
the tunnel.
The end result? Block caving could allow a valuable natural
resource to be developed using a proven mining method that is
safe, financially viable and minimizes impact to the
environment. At the same time, the mine and the businesses
that support it would bring social and economic benefits to
the region for generations.
{time} 1445
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
It is critical that the Congress listen to and show respect to Indian
tribes and their elected leaders. And, Mr. Chairman, it's for that
reason that when I had the privilege of becoming chairman of the
Natural Resources Committee, a new Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska
Native Affairs was established. That hadn't been the case prior to my
assuming the chairmanship of that committee. And the purpose was to
ensure a special forum for issues and concerns important to Indian
tribes and to native people.
It's important that Indian tribes have a role and are consulted on
decisions that affect their land and their reservation lands.
But I just want to make a couple of points: this bill does not waive
any existing laws dealing with Native Americans, none whatsoever.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Will the chairman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If I have time, I will be more than happy
to yield.
But probably more specific on this, this area that we're talking
about in Arizona known as the Copper Triangle has been mined for--well,
a long time. And this particular land exchange is right kind of in the
middle of this Copper Triangle. And the closest Indian reservation is
some 20 miles away.
Now I understand that, as in my area in central Washington, I know
that Native Americans moved around, and that's certainly the case in
Arizona. I understand that. But the effect of this amendment, the
effect of this amendment would undermine our responsibility in Congress
by giving total authority, total authority to the Secretary of the
Interior to make determinations on whether sacred sites or other things
important to Native Americans are violated. I think that's contrary to
what our role is here.
And again, this law does not waive any--any--existing laws. None at
all. In fact, we specifically, notwithstanding the fact that the
nearest reservation is 20 miles away, we specifically say there should
be consultation before this project goes forward. So I think this
amendment is unnecessary.
I would be happy to yield to my friend from New Mexico.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that anyone is suggesting that items
are being waived.
The fact of the matter is, when land is transferred from a public
domain to a private domain, it goes away. And that's the problem here.
And I am glad to hear--and I know the profound respect that Chairman
Hastings has for tribes across the country and the sacred sites,
protections--
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, just to make the
point that the gentleman's amendment, the intent is to address Native
American issues. That's what we should be debating.
And I am just simply saying, if you affect Native American issues by
implication, you would be waiving them. We are not waiving anything. We
are respecting the laws that are in place right now.
I urge rejection of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded
vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mrs. Napolitano
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part A of House Report 113-215.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (page 25, after line 12), add the
following new section:
SEC. 10. SAVINGS CLAUSE.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect any other
provision of law protecting water quality and availability.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 351, the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Napolitano) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. On page
25, after line 12, it adds a new section. Section 10, the savings
clause, would require that there be no adverse impacts on water
quantity and water quality in the development of this project.
This year, over half of our Nation is experiencing moderate to severe
drought. As of last week, 75 percent of the State of Arizona is in
moderate to severe drought.
The lifeblood of any nation, of any country, is water. We must do
everything we can to protect this precious resource. The mining
activities of Resolution Copper, a joint subsidiary of Australian BHP
Billiton and of Anglo Australian Rio Tinto Group, would require an
enormous amount of water, estimated to be more than 20,000 to 40,000
acre-feet per year. In fact, the Forest Service testified that
understanding the impact of this mine on the water supplies of local
communities is still ``outstanding.'' On average, 1 acre-foot of water
is enough water for a family of four for a year. Resolution Copper's
water could be equivalent to at least 20,000 households' water supply
for a year.
They also erroneously suggest that their own water demands could be
[[Page H5861]]
solved by the use of Central Arizona Project water, called the CAP.
However, as with most of the West, demand often exceeds supply, and the
bulk of the Central Arizona Project water is already dedicated and
committed to other uses and users in Arizona. This includes for use in
future Arizona Indian water rights settlements.
The proposed mining operation would also require significant
excavation thousands of feet below the surface. H.R. 687 does not
require an environmental review, does not include consideration of
mitigation measures to the mining project before the land exchange is
completed. And I repeat: it does not require an environmental review,
consideration of mitigation measures of the mining project before the
land exchange is completed.
The mining company is also not required to submit a plan of
operations until 3 years--3 years--after the land exchange is codified.
Absent the NEPA process, the impacts to water would not be known prior
to the land exchange. Neighboring communities have already seen an
impact to their water resources from other mining activities.
Chairman Rambler of the San Carlos Apache tribe testified in March of
this year, right here in Washington, D.C., that a neighboring
community's water supply had been significantly depleted since
Resolution Copper began pumping groundwater to de-water parts of the
Magma Mine. H.R. 687's permitting of the mine at Oak Flat brings up
similar concerns for the tribe.
We should not be considering this legislation now since we do not
know the impacts to water resources for area tribes. At the very least,
we should ensure that we do not violate existing laws to protect water
quantity and water quality. That is what my amendment does. It protects
water quality and water quantity.
My amendment seeks to protect our most precious resource, water. And
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in
opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment because
this amendment in no way risks water supply or safety. In fact, it
upholds existing laws that protect water quality and availability. And
probably the best way to illustrate that is to simply look at the
support for this bill, especially from those that reside in the State
of Arizona and represent people in the State of Arizona.
We all know that Arizona is a very diverse State. I have a very
diverse State in Washington. And certainly California is diverse
geographically. But there are certain areas in that State that are very
dry. Water is very, very important.
Now, I daresay that no Member from Arizona would support a bill that
would jeopardize water in Arizona. Yet we have heard on the floor here
the bipartisan support of those from Arizona, representing Arizonans
that support this bill. So I think that that issue, frankly, is simply
not valid at all.
This amendment may sound like it's well intended. But what it really
will do, there would be red tape involved with this because of the
vagueness of the language in this amendment. And I think really what
this amendment is, in deference to my good friend from California, it's
an open invitation. In fact, Mr. Chairman, you might call it an
ambulance siren for lawyers to start filing lawsuits in this issue. One
more area. Goodness knows, there are going to be lawsuits anyway. This
would be one more, in my view, if this amendment is passed.
And finally, I would just say this: 100 percent of the water needs of
this mine will be secured before production commences.
So with that, I urge rejection of the amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I might add that the town near the
mine, Superior, opposes this bill, and I believe the mayor was recently
recalled because he also opposed it.
We have businesses and other entities supporting it. But the
residents in the nearby areas, especially tribal areas, are opposed to
it for a majority of reasons, which have been brought up before, but
also, especially because they are in drought conditions, and they are
not assured that their water will be protected or that they will be
able to have enough water for their own needs. So I request that this
amendment be included.
I include in the Record the current Drought Monitor dated September
24, including the areas which indicate the current drought conditions.
I do not have any further speakers, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
U.S. DROUGHT MONITOR--ARIZONA
[Drought Conditions (Percent Area)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None D0-D4 D1-D4 D2-D4 D3-D4 D4-D4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current........................... 14.80 85.17 61.91 25.28 0.00 0.00
Last Week (09/17/2013 map)........ 12.81 87.19 66.82 30.35 1.94 0.00
3 Months Ago (06/25/2013 map)..... 0.00 100.00 92.49 74.44 23.48 0.00
Start of Calendar Year (01/01/2013 0.00 100.00 97.91 37.78 8.68 0.00
map).............................
Start of Water Year (09/25/2012 0.00 100.00 100.00 31.93 5.67 0.00
map).............................
One Year Ago (09/18/2012 map)..... 0.00 100.00 100.00 31.93 5.67 0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intensity:
D0 Abnormally Dry
D1 Drought-Moderate
D2 Drought-Severe
D3 Drought-Extreme
D4 Drought-Exceptional
The Drought Monitor focuses on broad-scale conditions.
Local conditions may vary. See accompanying text summary for
forecast statements. http://droughtmonitor
.unl.edu.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the sponsor of this
legislation.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, this is another amendment that's well-
intentioned but misguided. An amendment to include a savings clause
assumes that my legislation circumvents existing laws protecting water
quality and availability. That is simply not the case.
The NEPA process on the mine plan of operation required by my
legislation will be managed by the United States Forest Service, where
they oversee an independent third-party consultant to assess all
environmental impacts of the proposed resolution project, including
impacts to groundwater and surface water.
The NEPA process allows for considerable public as well as other
Federal EPA, State, county, and local input all along the way. Any
issues pertaining to water will be addressed once Resolution Copper
files a mine plan of operation and the subsequent State and Federal and
environmental analysis is conducted, in accordance with existing law.
This is like government overseeing government. That's ludicrous.
And I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to
reject this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
[[Page H5862]]
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in part A of House Report
113-215 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order.
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Grijalva of Arizona.
Amendment No. 3 by Mrs. Napolitano of California.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Grijalva
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Grijalva) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 180,
noes 227, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 489]
AYES--180
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--227
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Himes
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoho
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--25
Alexander
Becerra
Buchanan
Costa
Dingell
Frankel (FL)
Gingrey (GA)
Gowdy
Hall
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Kind
Labrador
Maloney, Sean
McCarthy (NY)
Paulsen
Perlmutter
Roby
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Schwartz
Scott, Austin
Waxman
Yoder
Young (AK)
{time} 1524
Messrs. STOCKMAN, ISSA, CASSIDY, GOHMERT, GARDNER, and Mrs. BACHMANN
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. ELLISON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 489, had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mrs. Napolitano
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191,
noes 217, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 490]
AYES--191
Amash
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
[[Page H5863]]
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--217
Aderholt
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoho
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--24
Alexander
Buchanan
Cicilline
Costa
Dingell
Fattah
Frankel (FL)
Gingrey (GA)
Gowdy
Hall
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Kind
Maloney, Sean
McCarthy (NY)
Perlmutter
Roby
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Schwartz
Scott, Austin
Waxman
Yoder
Young (AK)
{time} 1533
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee
do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
McHenry) having assumed the chair, Mr. Meadows, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 687) 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, had come to no resolution
thereon.
____________________