[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.

                          ____________________