To grant the congressional gold medal to the Montford Point Marines.

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

I am so accustomed to coming here and making repeated assertions regarding my friends on the Republican side. But today, we are really about the business of undertaking added emphasis on regulation and doing nothing about jobs.

Let me refer to an article that occurred in The New York Times on October 4, written by Bruce Bartlett, an editorial opinion. Mr. Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and the George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staff of the distinguished former Member of this House of Representatives, the departed Jack Kemp, and on the staff of Ron Paul. He says, ``Republicans have a problem. People are increasingly concerned about unemployment, but Republicans have nothing to offer them.''

And I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle don't jump up and start about their 15 forgotten bills. They're not only forgotten; they're forgettable. And they're forgettable for the reason that they don't create jobs. But here we are today dealing with three suspensions and one other measure, and we've been out almost as much as we've been in session, and we still aren't addressing the subject of jobs.

Continuing with Mr. Bartlett, he says, ``The GOP opposes additional government spending for jobs programs and, in fact, favors big cuts in spending that would be likely to lead to further layoffs at all levels of government.''

He goes on, but the specific takeaway that impressed me in his article that I wish to share is, ``In my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue

an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.''

I want to address the subject of regulation because it seems that I keep hearing this thing that the business community needs certainty. Well, the American people need certainty as well, and certainty about their health and certainty about employment and certainty about housing. And toward that end, I don't just distinguish one little category, it's a hole here in this country. And in the period when we did not have regulation, my recollection of the no-regulation period led us to what we see and have experienced on Wall Street when there is no regulation.

What do we think caused this great downturn in the economy? Was it because students weren't going to school? Was it because people weren't going to work? Was it because we had coal ash gas? Or did it occur because we didn't have regulation that we should have had that would have manifested itself?

Madam Speaker, I believe I may be the only speaker, and toward that end, rather than continue, I will reserve the balance of my time and have my colleague know that I will be prepared to close when he is finished.

I thank my good friend and colleague for the information.

I would like to ask my friend a question. Is there anything in this measure that requires the copper that you just spoke about--and I don't disagree with many of the facts that you put forward--but is there anything in this bill that requires that copper to remain in the United States of America?

I yield to my friend.

I appreciate the answer. I'll take that as a no, that there is nothing in the bill to cause the copper to remain in the United States.

I understand. But when you step up to the plate, you have to hit the ball. You can't fake like you're hitting the ball.

The gentleman from Utah and I use baseball analogies. I don't know whether he has a dog in this World Series fight or not, but I appreciate he and I going back and forth on that.

I do recognize that you did respond as I thought you would about the America's job creators provision that occurs. I do encourage that people--I normally don't advertise for the other side--but you have jobs.gop.gov. And what it says is: empower small businesses and reduce government barriers to job creation; fix the Tax Code to help job creators; boost the competitiveness for American manufacturers; encourage entrepreneurship and growth; maximize American energy production; and pay down America's unsustainable debt burden and start living within our means.

All of that is practical. All of that seems to make sense. But in the final analysis, it's not putting a teacher, a firefighter, or a police officer to work. And we're talking about right now is when we have this problem. If we don't have this problem by the time we empower small businesses, then let's empower some of them then. Let's do

some things to make sure that some money gets in their hands, rather than dance around this issue.

We need some direct programs from the United States Federal Government to help States, counties, and municipalities in this country, and to help individuals, particularly those that are on the front lines dealing with these particular issues. But you haven't done anything, which is almost laughable, and you put on your Web site that you have 15 ``forgettable'' bills.

I guess what we're trying to do--and it does make a little bit of sense to me--that we should point to the other body and say that we have passed measures here in the House of Representatives that have gone to the other body and not become law. Well, my last recollection is that we passed over 400 measures when we were in the majority and they went over to the U.S. Senate; and here's where the catch is that people don't seem to understand. The arcane rules of the Senate require that they have 60 votes. And the majority does not have 60 votes. In almost every measure that may have helped this country, the Republicans stood in opposition and, quite frankly, obstructed the passage of legislation. I guess now you're joining us in saying that they're doing the same things to you in the House of Representatives.

Well, I accept that if that's your argument. But let's make it very clear that it is in the United States Senate and that here we aren't originating nor are we evidently working with them to address the subject of the need for jobs, housing, and education in this country.

After another week away from Washington, thanks to my Republican friends, we're back here considering this bill on an issue that I think very few of my colleagues, myself included, fully understand.

The Republicans have been in charge for 294 days, and they have not brought one job-creating bill to the floor in that time, not one. I do make an exception that I believe all of us recognize has been in the works through several administrations, and that is the various trade agreements, which in some respects are going to create jobs but in other respects are going to cause the loss of jobs. And I don't think that that equation is full yet; but, yes, that did pass the House of Representatives.

While Americans continue to struggle to find work, this Republican majority has been more interested in going on recess than in passing legislation. The truth is, Madam Speaker, the House has only been in session 109 days, and we're almost in November--109 days. During this limited time, my friends on the other side haven't found time to send a single appropriations bill to the President, not one.

When we are in Washington, look at the bills that my colleagues have debated passionately--defunding Planned Parenthood, defunding the National Public Radio, promoting the use of inefficient light bulbs. Madam Speaker, this would be comical if it weren't so serious.

Let me also remind my colleagues that only a paltry 43 bills have been signed into law this year, less than half the average first- session total for Congresses since 1991, even compared to other years following shifts in control of the House.

I believe that Americans want action to help our economy now. They want us to consider the President's jobs bill now. They want us to quit wasting time on trivial issues that are only meant for 30-second political sound bites. They want us to do our jobs. But these friends on the other side just don't get it.

Four years ago, their Presidential nominee talked about ``country first.'' But in the House of Representatives, time after time after time we see the Republican leadership ignore the needs of out-of-work Americans. And the bill before us today is more of the same, another enormous rip-off for struggling American workers disguised as a jobs bill. In fact, this time it's not even disguised very well.

The underlying bill is a massive land giveaway to foreign companies looking to mine copper on American land. And that's why I put the question to my good friend about whether that copper was going to stay in the United States. Let me repeat that. This bill benefits foreign mining giants, first and foremost, at a time when millions of Americans are unemployed and families right here in this country are struggling to pay their bills.

The two companies that stand to benefit the most from this bill-- British-owned Rio Tinto and Australian-owned BHP Billiton--are highly profitable titans in the mining world. As the bill is currently written, American taxpayers will receive no share of the expected billions in profits generated by this mining. All profits will be enjoyed by foreign companies.

And claims that H.R. 1904 will lead to the creation of thousands of good-paying American jobs are dubious at best. Both companies, the two I mentioned, are pioneers in developing automated and remote-control mining technologies. Seriously? We're creating jobs for foreign robots instead of American workers? No offense to R2-D2, but there are American workers who need help. On top of that, any American jobs that may be created will be years in the future. This bill does nothing to create good jobs right now when we need them the most.

My friends in the majority want this process to seem fair. Yes, they made in order all the amendments submitted, but that's not the same as an open rule. Let me be crystal clear: This is not an open rule. Once again, the Rules Committee is breaking the promises of this new majority. Clearly, the Republican leadership is more interested in shutting down debate and fostering a more closed House rather than living up to their campaign promises of a more open House of Representatives.

Despite these broken promises, Madam Speaker, I'm pleased that the Democratic amendments--that my good friend mentioned are made in order--will insert some common sense into H.R. 1904 if they are in fact adopted. And as I heard him say that they ought to be debated and what have you, but they are not real in terms of their mandate.

Mr. Grijalva and Mr. Garamendi have offered an amendment to try to create more than just jobs for robots. Their amendment would require that these foreign companies actively recruit and hire local employees--and I hope everybody votes for that amendment--that all the oil produced, they say, from the mine be processed in the United States, and that all equipment used at the mine will be made in the United States. I hope everybody supports that amendment.

Mr. Markey's amendment would require that these foreign companies pay a simple royalty to the United States on all minerals extracted from this site. If mining is done on U.S. land, the American people should be able to share in the profits.

Finally, what is most disturbing about H.R. 1904 is a complete lack of respect for sacred Native American sites that will be swept into mining operations. Native people won't even be able to comment on the land transfer until after it has occurred.

Now, I've seen that often in our area--I represent Native Americans, Seminoles and Miccosukee--and repeatedly where developers have gone forward, not just in mining but the artifacts of our great history in this country, and have caused us to pause. And we should be very careful with this particular measure because we don't want to repeat that that I've seen happen time and again in Florida. That's insulting and completely disrespectful to native traditions and culture.

And my friends on the other side of the aisle should be ashamed by the blatant mistreatment of Native Americans by this bill. Mr. Lujan's amendment to exempt all Native American sacred and cultural sites from land conveyance under this bill is not just commendable, it is critically important and deserves the support of every Member in this body.

Madam Speaker, this is not a jobs bill, and there's no effort by this Republican majority to bring up a jobs bill. We shouldn't be wasting our time. We should not be wasting the American people's time with trivial bills that benefit foreign countries while our own citizens struggle to find work.

I urge a ``no'' vote. And on this business of the ``forgettable 15,'' I urge that we do something to create jobs and not just try to give the impression that we are creating jobs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would ask the gentleman from Arizona to respond.

Rio Tinto, the company from Australia, has a mine that is controlled by people that are 800 miles away from the mine.

Now, I heard you distinctly, and let me make it very clear. I remember this measure being offered by the lady that you won office from previously as well. And I'm one who seriously encourages that we protect our congressional areas.

But when you say it's going to create 3,000 jobs, let me give you a ``for example'' of how the local community does not work, and then ask you to respond. In the Everglades, we, many Members of this Congress, rightly have dealt with trying to preserve this area. So we have, with the Army Corps of Engineers and a variety of other people, a lot of earth moving and a variety of undertakings that are taking place.

In the meantime, one of my cities, Pahokee, has gone almost out of business. They're doing a remarkable job trying to stay afloat, and the area has diminished while all of this work is going on around them.

Now, how are you going to stop Rio Tinto, who can operate mines with robots, how are you going to stop them from bringing their Australian people? How are you going to stop the British from bringing their workers? Because, as in my city and counties that I'm talking about, when these big companies come in to do all of this work, they bring their workers with them, and we don't have the kind of jobs that are needed. And in this instance, you're talking about robots running large measures of it.

So how does that create jobs?

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Reclaiming my time, and I will yield to you additionally, I still didn't hear you address how you are going to cause these foreign companies--I'm not talking about that immediate amount of cement, and I'll grant you, 500 workers, but I heard you say 3,000.

I'll also grant you that it's temporary, and I'll make you a bet, and I hope you and I are here that when and if this measure passes and it does all the things that you say it's going to do, I'd like for you to come with me and I'll go with you, you come with me to Pahokee, where we passed all of these things and all of these people came from other areas and they made money, but the people in the area didn't.

Now I understand that you have to have somebody to hammer a nail and to drive a truck to get something put up. But when it's all said and done, your area isn't going to have anything other than robots that are going to be controlling this, with the exception of a handful of people.

I yield to the gentleman.

You mean a copper mine or Rio Tinto's mine?

You mean the one in Arizona.

I'm not quarreling with that. I'm talking about when Rio Tinto comes and this bill allows them to go forward in a way that allows them to robotize many of the--look, I'm not against technology. But what I'm saying to you is I don't see as how ultimately, that foreign companies are going to cause local communities to have increased employment that's sustainable.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

All right. At least we had a fair exchange, and perhaps if we had more time with measures like this we could do similar. But I would hope then my argument about the Native American measures does not fall on deaf ears when you take into consideration the need to preserve our cultural heritage and artifacts that might be swept up in mining.

Reclaiming my time just to ask you one more question that requires a ``yes'' or a ``no,'' and that is: You support Mr. Lujan's measure then that will make sure that that happens, an amendment that's coming up. Are you going to vote for that?

So you aren't going to vote for it?

I get the picture.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I will be the final speaker.

With that in mind, Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, which I will not use.

I want to make it very clear to my colleagues that I'm not against foreign investment in the United States of America. I'm not against real jobs being created in the United States of America, including Arizona and including Superior. I'll tell Mr. Gosar, I'll give you one Superior and I will match you with one Pahokee and one South Bay, Florida, where the jobs didn't come when the other circumstances that would take place in the community did.

I respect the mining industry, and I believe the mining industry can do their job in an environmentally and culturally sensitive way; and there are demonstrative evidences that take place all over this Nation that show that. But what I'm trying to get across here is that my colleagues on the other side are still not in the business of seeing to it that we immediately do something about firefighters, police officers, and school teachers in this country. And I assure you that that's something that we have not done in the 109 days that we have been here and almost 104 days that we have not.

Please, let's get about the business of doing something about the massive unemployment in this country that is desperately in need of the attention of this institution--the House and the other body.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 444 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule of H.R. 1904, the Southeast Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011. It makes in order every amendment that was filed with the Rules Committee.

So this is, like the Texas victory last night, a very fair rule and continues the record of the Rules Committee in this Congress of making as many amendments in order as possible which otherwise conform to the House rules. That's been the goal of Chairman Dreier in his continuing record of fairness and openness in the formulation of this open rule.

Madam Speaker, this Resolution provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 1904, the ``Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011, and makes in order every amendment that was filed with Rules Committee.

So this is a very fair rule, and continues the record of the Rules Committee in this Congress of making as many amendments in order as possible which otherwise conform to House Rules, which has been the goal of our Chairman, Mr. Dreier, in continuing the record of fairness and openness in the formulation of this rule.

H.R. 1904, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011, introduced by the Gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar, would authorize a fair value exchange and conveyance of land between the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Arizona Town of ``Superior,'' and the Resolution Copper Mining LLC in Southeast Arizona, for the multiple purposes of protection of sensitive habitat and cultural areas, as well as facilitating the development of the largest undeveloped copper resource in the world right here in the United States.

One of the key pillars of a viable economy, and job creation, is the sound and environmentally responsible development of our own domestic natural resources. This bill does that. Its passage will facilitate responsible copper mining within our own country, putting thousands of Americans to work with good paying jobs, and, over time, bringing billions in return for both the federal government and state and local governments.

In spite of predictable interest group scare tactics against this legislation, H.R. 1904 does not waive any existing environmental rules or regulations regarding mining. The companies involved not only must pay fair market value for the equal value exchange, but must comply with all mining laws and regulations regarding the environment.

Passage of this bill will result in a higher amount of habitat acreage being protected than before, so the environmental community should be on board with this bill.

Copper is one of the key components used in virtually all manufacturing and electronics. For those concerned with so-called ``green energy,'' nearly 5 tons of copper is necessary to manufacture a single 3 megawatt wind turbine. And that is just one example to show how copper is used nearly everywhere. For our country develop our own God-given natural resources not only helps our own economy, creates jobs, but also reduces our dependence on foreign sources and helps with our balance of trade with other nations.

This bill is strongly supported by state and local government officials in Arizona including Governor Jan Brewer, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Mining Association, and the Associated General Contractors of America.

This is a good bill, and a fair Rule. I urge their adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As the gentleman from Florida knows, I do like baseball this time of year. One of the statistics that I saw the other day is that Pete Rose had 29 of his 4,000-plus hits off of pitchers who would eventually become dentists. It is a true statement. It has almost no impact on anything, but it is a true statement. Some of the rhetoric we've heard so far is true, but has no impact on what we're talking about.

Madam Speaker, 15 different times Republicans have come on the floor of this House and have introduced jobs bills. Those jobs bills are still sitting over in the Senate. Thousands of jobs would be up and available right now if the Senate were actually to move on any of those 15. This is the 16th jobs bill that we have brought to the floor.

One of the issues we have here is there is a need in our lives for copper. The business community needs copper. Individuals need copper. In our personal lives we need copper. If you want to build a three- megawatt turbine for wind generation power, you need five tons of copper to do that. If you want to build a hybrid car or an electric car, you need at least 55 pounds of copper to build the car. The average home has 435 pounds of copper in that home. In fact, the study I looked at said each individual in his lifetime will consume 935 pounds of copper. I'm not quite sure how we do that. I certainly hope the verb ``consume'' was not literal, but more a hypothetical word, because I really have not had much copper on my Cornflakes lately.

But we will consume copper. Whether we produce copper or not, we consume copper. We need copper. The fact of the matter is the United States now imports 30 percent of all the copper. We are relying upon other countries to produce copper.

Why is this a jobs bill? For those people who vote for this bill, we will be establishing the opportunity to develop a mine that could produce a quarter of our needs for copper for the next 40 years. We will move us to self-sufficiency; and, more importantly, we will create jobs with this particular bill. Indirect and direct jobs are 3,700 for this mine; 3,000 jobs for the construction of this facility, 500 who are already in the pre-permitting phase right now. That's what the opportunity is.

If we vote against this bill, we'll still be providing jobs, but jobs overseas for miners in Chile; for the smelting factories in China, where we have to send the stuff because we don't have enough smelters right here to do. We will produce jobs, but we have either the choice of producing jobs in America so that we can create American jobs and have American self-sufficiency, or we can create jobs abroad. It's our choice on this particular bill.

This is a jobs bill. Whether you vote for it or against it, it is still a jobs bill. I just hope we vote for it because I hope our priority is creating American jobs for American need of copper, which there is no way to get around. We have to have this crucial mineral, and this is the place in which to do it.

This particular bill will be a land transfer in which the Federal Government makes out like a bandit in it. The Federal Government will get 5,400 acres of land. The industry gets 2,400 acres to try and get this production going. The city of Superior gets 500 acres, 30 of which go to their cemetery. That's the purpose of this bill.

This bill is viable for our economy, for our job creation, and for natural resources. It does it in a responsible way. And all the scare tactics out there that have been waved about before don't exist. There is not one single, solitary environmental rule that is waived for the creation of this mine. Not one.

Twice this bill has been introduced before this Congress by a Democrat sponsor. It's the same bill, except this one doesn't provide a rock-climbing park for the State of Arizona. Other than that, it's the same bill with the same considerations and the same restrictions and the same guarantees.

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman has another speaker or wishes to take some time, then I will reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I will be happy to do it. In fact, I want the sponsor to respond specifically to that in just a second.

But the answer is, clearly, we have a desire for copper. We have a demand for copper. The concept of free enterprise and the balance of trade that we need will demand that the majority of that copper be used here. If you want to try to come up with amendments to try and mandate that, there are some potential amendments that will be debated on this floor in this very good, fair structured rule. However, you have to be very careful that sometimes when you try and make these mandates and put them in law, it makes it very difficult to enforce those particular mandates.

And I will tell you that one of the amendments that will be debated here on the floor has wonderful intention but is almost impossible to enforce. So will it happen? Of course, it will happen, because we have that need; we have that desire right now.

There is nothing in statute--only in reality-- that will force it to be used here.

Minnesota Twins pitcher Jim Kaat, who should be

in the Hall of Fame--so for today we'll call it ``Coppers Town'' Hall of Fame--once said to a reporter that he was working on a new pitch. He called it a strike. You've heard a lot of accusations so far about this particular bill, most of which are balls, low, outside and in the dirt.

I now yield 4 minutes to the sponsor of this bill, a Representative from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), to actually pitch some strikes about what this bill actually will do.

Madam Speaker, I'm just trying to envision in my own mind all those robots that are working in the Rio Tinto mine in my State that have also developed the land plan that have developed those communities there. They really have disguised themselves extremely well.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

I tell my colleague that I am prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, in closing, this is the map of the area which we're talking about. Everything that's orange there--or copper color--are historic or existing mines in this particular area. The yellow one is where this mine would take place. This is the mining district of the State of Arizona. Actually, even Arizona has the color copper in its State flag.

We are talking about jobs in Arizona versus jobs in where we are importing copper from now. We are importing copper from Chile, Canada, Peru, and Mexico--in that order.

We can either create jobs there or we can create jobs in Arizona. We can either develop our own resources or we can allow ourselves to rely on resources from foreign places. We can go forward in what we are trying to do here, realizing that even firemen and policemen need copper before they can actually do their work. All of us are going to have to have this mineral. We might as well get our minerals here, develop our jobs here, use our future here.

This is a great bill, and it is a fair rule in which all of the amendments--one technical and three which have nice sounds to them but which are going to be very difficult to put into reality if they actually are to pass--will be debated here on the floor.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I wish to reiterate once again the fairness of this structured rule. I urge this rule's adoption, and I urge the adoption of the underlying legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

I thank the gentleman from Utah, and I appreciate the House spending time to consider this important jobs bill legislation this week.

The need for this land exchange legislation and ensuing copper mine was one of the very first initiatives brought to my attention by the people of my district. Those folks are excited about the economic development and sustainable growth that this project will bring.

They are anxious for these high-priority conservation lands to be placed in Federal stewardship. And they are sick of waiting for Congress to act.

H.R. 1904 may be new legislation, but this initiative is not. Over the past 6 years, this land exchange has been subject to intensive review, public consideration, and modification. It has been introduced in four separate Congresses, twice by Democrats, twice by Republicans. This proposal truly has bipartisan support on the ground in our State and across the country. The mayor of the town of Superior, an elected Democrat, testified in support of H.R. 1904. Democrat and Republican county supervisors in each affected economy endorse my bill. The governor supports my bill. This legislation is a win-win.

H.R. 1904 specifically facilitates a land exchange that will bring into Federal stewardship 5,500 acres of high-priority conservation lands in exchange for 2,600 acres of national forest system lands containing the third-largest undeveloped copper resource in the world. It is the richest copper ore body in North America ever discovered.

The United States currently imports over 30 percent of the country's copper demand. This project could produce enough copper to equal 25 percent of our demand, contributing significantly to U.S. energy and mineral independence.

Let me be clear. This is not going to be a new mine. The majority of the infrastructure is already in place. We are simply opening up the resource to the country's vital needs.

Today, more than 500 employees and contractors are at work in Arizona on this project as they prepare for us to take action on this bill. Upon passage, the private company will be able to employ 3,000 workers during the 6-year construction period. And ultimately, the project will support over 3,700 jobs, providing for $220 million in annual wages over the life of the project. These are good-paying jobs.

This is good old Superior right here who needs this. The total economic impact of the project is estimated to be over $61.4 billion, over $1 billion per year, and another $19 billion in Federal, State, county, and local tax revenues. Fourteen billion dollars in Federal tax revenue--in these tough fiscal times, I think we can all agree that the Treasury could use that.

This bill is not only a jobs bill, it's a conservation bill. In exchange for opening up the third-largest undeveloped copper resource in the world, the Federal Government acquires 5,500 acres of high- priority conservation lands containing endangered species, sensitive ecosystems, recreational sites, and historical landmarks. Many of these lands being conveyed are landlocked by Federal lands, and the consolidation of the Federal lands will also contribute to better, more economically efficient Federal land management.

Today, The Arizona Republic, the largest newspaper in the State, issued an editorial in support of H.R. 1904. In that article, the editorial board highlights the big benefits of my legislation: jobs, tax revenue, and conservation. In the article they state, ``The bill, with its combination of benefits, has every reason to get bipartisan support.''

They continue, ``In today's economy, it's hard to imagine that Members of Congress would fail to give this bill a resounding approval in the House.''

Madam Speaker, I would like to submit the full editorial for the Record.

My legislation strikes the right balance between resource utilization and conservation. We can preserve lands that advance the important public objectives of protecting wildlife habitat, cultural, and historical resources, while enabling an economic development project to go forward that will generate economic and employment opportunities for the State and local residents.

Pass the rule and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1904.

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

A Bill To Launch 1,000-Plus Jobs

Congress has a rare opportunity to create jobs, preserve a

ribbon of river in the desert, raise tax revenue and boost

production of a strategic mineral. Without spending a dime.

All it takes is a ``yes'' vote on a land exchange that

would allow the Resolution Copper project to go forward. The

proposed mine, near Superior, is at the site of the third

largest undeveloped copper resource in the world.

The projected annual production volume is huge: enough to

meet more than 25 percent of the current U.S. demand for

copper over the next 40 years.

Resolution Copper, jointly owned by Rio Tinto and BHP

Billiton, plans to put $6 billion into building and running

the mine.

Now that's economic stimulus.

But the project requires swapping private and federal

property. A bill to approve it is scheduled to go to the

floor of the U.S. House of Representatives this week.

The Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of

2011 is sponsored by Rep. Paul Gosar, a Flagstaff Republican.

This is the third version of the swap, which was proposed by

his predecessors, Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick and Republican

Rick Renzi.

The bill, with its combination of benefits, has every

reason to get bipartisan support. Democratic Rep. Ed Pastor

grew up in a mining town and knows the importance of this

industry to rural Arizona.

Rep. Raul Grijalva has stood in the way of the land

exchange over the years. It's time for him to step aside.

The concerns he raised have been answered. The one

remaining issue is the opposition of the San Carlos Apaches,

and Resolution Copper has committed itself to extensive

consultation with tribes.

Here's what a ``yes'' vote brings:

Jobs: 3,000 during construction and 1,400 when the mine is

at full production.

Taxes: $19 billion in federal, state and local revenues.

Conservation: Nearly 7 miles of the lower San Pedro River,

named one of the ``Last Great Places on Earth'' by the Nature

Conservancy, transferred from private into public ownership.

Ripple effect: An additional 2,300 jobs in the Superior

area generated by mining needs and worker spending.

In today's economy, it's hard to imagine that members of

Congress would fail to give this bill a resounding approval

in the House.

With the able help of Arizona Sens. Jon Kyl and John

McCain, it should get a ``yes'' in the Senate, as well.

Will the gentleman yield?

You're talking about robots. What I am talking about is trust. Trust is a series of promises kept. And what we see is right here in this picture. We have over 500 jobs that have been established here. We have seen the investment of this company in the local communities helping job creators, as far as truckers, independent construction organizations, trying to stay in business because, as you saw before, this is Superior, Arizona. This is what we've done to Main Street America. You see all the boarded up streets, all the buildings that are here.

What they've done is come in and established trust because what they've done is actually put people back to work. You talk about robots, but what I'm talking about is trust, which is actually what's happening on the ground.

That's absurd. I've gone into the mine. I have actually seen the company. I've actually seen the work forces in here. I've actually gone down to the bottom of the mine. I got suited up and have been part of that. That's not appropriate.

I have been in this copper mine. I have been in the shaft.

I have been in the one in Arizona.

But I'm pointing back to the same purpose that I've actually seen trust exhibited here where they've actually hired people. I've seen the native people being hired. I've seen the local people being hired here, and that's a part of trust that we've got to get back to in this country.

We've spent an exorbitant amount of time trying to discuss this with our Native Americans. We actually have law that we've gone through the area in exchange that shows no actual artifacts at all.

So the thing about it is that we want to make sure that that has occurred. And for the better part, since the 109th Congress, we've actually dialogued with the Native Americans, and what we have seen is an over-and-over exchange. So what has transpired is actually----

Mr. Lujan's amendment is immaterial because it's already been done and it's already been held up by the----

It's already been supported by documentation already presented. It's duplicative.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor today to pay tribute to a remarkable group of African American trailblazers and patriotic servicemen, the Montford Point Marines.

These distinguished veterans did not just defend our Nation in a time of war; but through their courageous acts, they helped to spearhead a movement where the goals of achieving equal opportunity and respect for universal human rights are now more intricately woven into our society.

In 1942 President Roosevelt established a Presidential directive allowing African Americans to be recruited into the United States Marine Corps. These African American recruits were trained at a segregated compound known as Montford Point, a facility at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. Over 20,000 African Americans bravely served in the Marine Corps during World War II. They selflessly and voluntarily put themselves in harm's way to defend our homeland and to safeguard these freedoms.

This past summer, Mr. Speaker, I had the honor of attending the reburial ceremony of Montford Point Marine Private James Benjamin. Private Benjamin's remains and surviving family members were escorted by the Patriot Guard Riders and members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars from the West Mortuary in Montezuma, Georgia; and he was laid to rest with full military honors at the Andersonville National Cemetery this past Memorial Day weekend.

He was disinterred from a segregated cemetery because at the time of his service he could not be buried where white servicemen were buried.

When it comes to recounting our Nation's history and looking back at the trials and tribulations that were endured by the Montford Point Marines, I doubt there is a generation or group of World War II veterans who had it tougher than they did. People sometimes forget that they were fighting two wars, both foreign and domestic.

But I would like to commend the spirit of these brave men because they guide me in my duties to maintain our government's commitment to our fighting troops and for helping the troops who protect our freedoms at this time. Not only does that mean that we have to, today, maintain adequate salary and benefit levels for the military, but we've got to keep our promise to our veterans, our armed services retirees, and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague, Corrine Brown, who has championed this issue and brought the story of the Montford Point Marines to the attention of our entire Nation. I commend the Commandant and Marine Corps for their efforts in making sure that our Nation doesn't forget.

I urge my colleagues, therefore, to support H.R. 2447 and to honor the first black Marines with the recognition that they deserve and that they have patiently been waiting for.

Mr. Speaker, following is my statement in its entirety:

Mr. Speaker, I come to the House Floor today to pay tribute to a remarkable group of African-American trailblazers and patriotic servicemen--the Montford Point Marines. These distinguished veterans did not just defend our nation in a time of war; through their courageous acts they helped to spearhead a movement where the goals of achieving equal opportunity and respect for universal human rights are now more intricately woven into our society.

In 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt established a presidential directive allowing African-Americans to be recruited in the United States Marine Corps. These African-American recruits were trained at a segregated compound known as Montford Point, a facility at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

Approximately 20,000 African-Americans bravely served in the Marines Corps during World War II. These men selflessly and voluntarily put themselves in harm's way to defend our homeland and safeguard our freedoms.

This past summer, I had the honor of attending the reburial ceremony of Montford Point Marine PVT James Benjamin. PVT Benjamin's remains and surviving family members were escorted by the Patriot Guard Riders and members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars from the West Mortuary in Montezuma, Georgia, and he was laid to rest with full military honors at the Andersonville National Cemetery this past Memorial Day Weekend.

When it comes to recounting our nation's history and looking back at the trial and tribulations that were endured by the Montford Point Marines, I doubt there is a generation or group of World War II veterans who had it tougher than them. People sometimes forget that these Marines were fighting two wars, one foreign and one domestic. Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese Empire were not the only foes that the Montford Point Marines had to encounter. Every day they went into battle against Jim Crow, bigotry and racism here at home.

During World War II, there were some German and Italian prisoners of war that were treated better than the black soldiers serving in our Armed Services. Some American establishments that refused to serve blacks serving in the military would allow imprisoned German and Italian soldiers to patronize their facilities.

Not many people would have had the will to overcome such disparate treatment. But instead of harboring bitterness or vengeance, this group stood tall and remained above the fray.

The Montford Point Marines have demonstrated that patriotic service means more than just saying you love this country and the promise it offers. Their resilience and resolve show that true patriots are those individuals who prioritize the needs of their country ahead of their own, even if they do so at their own peril.

These Marines gave our nation a gift that extends beyond their heroic war service. In being the best of the very best, both on and off the battlefield, they helped to change perspectives and broaden peoples' horizons. They showed the entire world that when given an opportunity, people can meet any challenge and achieve any goal.

As a Member of Congress, I rely on the spirit of these brave men to guide me in my duties to maintain our Federal Government's commitment to our fighting troops and those who preceded them. That means not only maintaining adequate salary and benefit levels for our nation's military, but keeping our promise to our veterans, Armed Services retirees and military families.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague, Corrine Brown, who has championed this issue and brought the story of the Montford Point Marines to the attention of the entire nation.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2447 and to honor the first black Marines with the recognition they deserve and have patiently been waiting for.

Mr. Speaker, as I begin my remarks, I would like to acknowledge that many of the Montford Point Marines are here visiting us today in the Capitol. This is a picture of the Montford Point Marines.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on this great day for the Montford Point Marines. Today the House of Representatives will pass a resolution giving these marines their long-overdue recognition. I am pleased to join with so many of my colleagues, now 308, to support a resolution to grant the Montford Point Marines a Congressional Gold Medal, the highest civilian honor that can be bestowed for an outstanding deed or act of service to the security, prosperity, and national interest of the United States.

Since 1775, the United States Marine Corps has served our country in peace and war. Today the Marine Corps still serves the Nation as a force in readiness, prepared to serve whenever the Nation calls. It is befitting that as we celebrate on November 10 the 236th birthday of the Marine Corps, that we highlight and honor the Montford Point Marines.

On June 25, 1941, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued executive order 8802, opening the doors for the very first African Americans to enlist

in the United States Marines. From 1942 to 1949, 20,000 African Americans enlisted in the Marine Corps in a time of war when the military services were resistant to integration.

These African Americans, from all States, were not sent to the traditional boot camps in Parris Island, South Carolina and San Diego, California. Instead, African American Marines were segregated, experiencing basic training at Camp Montford Point near the New River in Jacksonville, North Carolina.

Years before Jackie Robinson and decades before Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr., these heroes joined the Marines to defend their country and do their job.

One specific marine is worth singling out. Gilbert ``Hashmark'' Johnson was one of the first African American marine drill instructors at Montford Point in 1943. He exemplified the work ethic and toughness that it took to be a Montford Point Marine.

Born in rural Alabama, Johnson attended Stillman College in 1922, but enlisted in the Army after 1 year at school. After 6 years in the Army, he tried civilian life for 4 years but enlisted in the Navy in 1933. When he heard about executive order 8802, he immediately requested transfer from the Navy to the Marines.

When this occurred, his nickname of Hashmark was secured, having more service stripes than rank stripes. After service as sergeant major at Montford Point, Hashmark went on to serve as sergeant major of the 52nd Defense Battalion in Guam. While serving in Guam with the battalion during World War II, he found black marines were being assigned to labor details rather than combat patrols, from which they were currently exempt. Once he got the commanding officer to reverse this decision, he personally led 25 separate excursions into the jungle.

Hashmark went on to serve in Korea and eventually retired in 1959 with 32 years of service, 17 with the Marines. After his death in 1972, the Marine Corps paid tribute to this great warrior and leader by naming the camp in his honor, Camp Gilbert H. Johnson. In July of 1948, President Harry S. Truman issued executive order 9981 ending segregation in the military; and in September of 1949, Montford Point Marine Camp was deactivated, ending 7 years of segregation.

General James F. Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps, has stated it is the responsibility of the Marine Corps and this Congress to honor these men who suffered through racism and segregation here in this country. I am honored to offer this resolution to recognize their service and sacrifice and acknowledge today the United States Marine Corps is an excellent opportunity for advancement for all races due to the service and example of these original Montford Point Marines.

I want to thank the many Members who helped to bring this resolution to the floor. Financial Services Chairman Spencer Bachus, whose son serves in the Marines, was especially helpful, and Sanford Bishop, Ander Crenshaw and Allen West, so many Members, over 308 sponsors and the leadership of both parties. This is an example of what we can do when we work together. I am just very excited about what we are doing here today.

I want to end by saying--and I'm not very good at this--oohrah, honoring these men of Montford Point.

This is, like I said, a great day and a wonderful bipartisan example of what we can do when we work together.

April 5, 2011.

Hon. Corrine Brown,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congresswoman Brown: On behalf of the Marine Corps, I

respectfully request your support of legislation to award the

Congressional Gold Medal to the Montford Point Marines for

their service during World War II.

At a time when the Services were resistant to integration,

approximately 20,000 African-Americans enlisted in the Marine

Corps, choosing to put their lives on the line in order to be

accepted and recognized as fully fledged citizens by this

great Nation. Subsequent to undergoing segregated basic

training at Montford Point Camp, North Carolina, many of

these Marines fought and died for their Country in the

Pacific during World War II. Montford Point Marines served

with distinction in three of the bloodiest battles in the

Pacific--Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. The Montford Point

Marines fought with such tenacity, valor, and distinction

that the Commandant at the time was moved to declare, ``The

Negro Marines are no longer on trial. They are Marines,

period'' Their actions reflected the finest attributes of the

``leatherneck'' fighting spirit and blazed the trail for

generations of African-Americans in the Marine Corps.

We believe the service, sacrifice and patriotism of the

Montford Point Marines is due the same special recognition

that Congress has already afforded the first African-American

servicemen of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Like them, the

Montford Point Marines enlisted in the military and defended

a society that enjoyed freedoms they did not share. The

combat service of these Americans advanced the cause of civil

rights and contributed, in large measure, to President

Truman's decision to order the desegregation of the Armed

Forces in 1948.

Given their meritorious service and patriotism in a society

that was slow to accept their value, the time is now to award

the Congressional Gold Medal.

Very Respectfully,

James F. Amos,

General, U.S. Marine Corps,

Commandant of the Marine Corps.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore