Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1904) to facilitate the efficient extraction of mineral resources in southeast Arizona by authorizing and directing an exchange of Federal and non-Federal land, and for other purposes.

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 H.R. 1904.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, our Nation has suffered through 32 consecutive months of over 8 percent unemployment, and people everywhere across our great Nation continue to ask, where are the jobs? Congress' top priority right now is job creation, and today we have an opportunity to act on that commitment by passing a bill that would put thousands of Americans to work.

The Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act, sponsored by our colleague from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), is a commonsense measure that will create new American jobs and strengthen our economy through increased U.S. mineral production.

The bill authorizes an equal-value land exchange between Resolution Copper, the Federal Government, the State of Arizona and the town of Superior, Arizona, that will open up the third-largest undeveloped copper resource in the world. The bill requires the cost of the land exchange to be fully paid for by the mine developer, ensuring fair treatment for taxpayers and for the government.

This project will provide substantial benefits to the United States in the

form of job creation, economic growth, and increased national security. This mining project will support nearly 3,700 jobs. These are good paying, American wage 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 $60 billion in economic impact, and will generate $20 billion in total Federal, State, county, and local tax revenue.

So this bill, Mr. Chairman, 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 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 and the vast resources, indeed, we have in this country. The copper produced from this single project will meet 25 percent of the United States' entire copper demand. The copper could be used for a variety of projects, ranging from hybrid cars like the Prius to medical devices, plumbing, and computers. Without it, the microphones and lights that we're using here right now would not be functioning. It's also essential for national defense equipment and technology. It is used in satellite, space and aviation, weapons guidance, and communications.

The benefits and the reasons to pass this bill, Mr. Chairman, are plentiful. However, we are likely to hear several inaccurate claims from those across the aisle who are opposed to mining in America. I would like to take a moment to set the record straight right from the beginning.

First, the bill follows the standard Federal land appraisal process, procedures issued by the Department of Justice which have been used in this country for decades. The appraisal requires full market value to be paid for both the land and minerals within.

If, by chance, there is copper production beyond the appraised value, Mr. Chairman, the mine developer will be required to pay the United States the difference, which would be assessed on an annual basis. This is an added guarantee to ensure that taxpayers get a fair return on their copper resources.

Second, this bill is about creating nearly 3,700 American jobs. It's not about helping foreign mining interests, 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 it increasingly reliant on foreign resources of critical minerals.

Third, 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, especially areas to be conveyed currently under private ownership.

Fourth, the developer has already secured over half the water needed for this project, and has committed to having 100 percent of the water it needs in hand before construction begins. Claims that the project will require the same amount of water used by the City of Tempe is, Mr. Chairman, a gross exaggeration.

Finally, this bill does not trade away sacred sites. As previously stated, the bill requires tribal consultation. And there is a map that will be shown later on today that talks about the copper triangle in this part of Arizona, and you will see that on this map which will be shown later, this mine is right in the middle of that copper triangle.

H.R. 1904 is about creating new American jobs, strengthening our economy, and decreasing our dependence on foreign minerals. The bill has broad support, both locally and nationally, including from 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.

They all, Mr. Chairman, recognize the job-creating benefits of this bill. So I urge my colleagues to strongly support H.R. 1904 to put Americans back to work on American jobs and utilize the vast resources in this country that we should be using for economic and for national security reasons.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the sponsor of this bill, somebody who has been absolutely tenacious in seeing that this legislation advances to where it is today.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/ 2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle), who also has been very tenacious on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to another gentleman from Arizona, somebody else who has been involved in this issue for some time, Mr. Franks.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek), a member of the Natural Resources Committee whose district has a long mining history.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to another gentleman from Arizona who has been a longtime supporter of this project, Mr. Flake.

Mr. Chairman, I have another speaker coming to the floor; so I will yield myself such time as I may consume.

We have heard some curious arguments on the other side, as my colleagues on this side have pointed out a few times, but let me just talk about a couple of them where there's a charge that this will cost the taxpayers.

We measure what the costs are to the taxpayers of this country by the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO. And CBO, in looking at the land exchange aspects of this and the other costs associated, have concluded that the cost to the taxpayer is effectively zero. Now that's the official agency that we go by, so when we hear that there's a whole bunch of costs associated with that to the taxpayer, it's simply not so.

What is even more ironic, Mr. Chairman, when they make that argument, they ignore the fact that jobs that will be created here get paid wages. Those wages then will be subjected to tax policies of the Federal Government to where the Federal Government actually gets more revenue. But that is ignored, it seems like all the time, when we hear the other side argue on this issue.

Let me talk about the issue of NEPA because that has been bandied around a few times. The NEPA laws of our country are not changed at all by the passage of this bill, but what we do is we put logic to the process.

Mr. Chairman, as you know very well, our great government was designed to have a dispersion of power. We sit in the legislative branch and we make the policy of this country, and the executive branch carries out that policy. It's been that way since our Republic was founded. All we are saying is that when Congress directs an action--in this case, an action of a land exchange--it shall not be subject to NEPA because we are exercising our authority under the Constitution to direct policy. Why should a NEPA policy be used to slow down a direction that Congress has given? So that's the only part of the NEPA policy that we are affecting in this bill.

Now, I want to say this very explicitly. Under this bill, all NEPA laws as to the construction and the carrying on of this mine will be subject to NEPA laws. And nothing is changed. Nothing is changed. So when people throw around NEPA as one reason why we shouldn't adopt this, that is simply a bogus argument.

Finally, I just want to make one more point here about this being a giveaway. In fact, there are some of my persuasion that may have a bit of heartburn with this because, as a matter of fact, we are giving the Federal Government more land than we are exchanging for private development of this copper land.

Mr. Chairman, I know you've heard the arguments over this in the time you and I have been here, and yet this is something that I think is worthy of support because we do want to make sure that those lands are protected in a way. So to suggest that there's a giveaway here is simply not the case because the exchange is of equal value.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to a former member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

I would just respond that CBO also said in their scoring that it's so insignificant, it's hard to measure.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the sponsor of this legislation, again, somebody who has been absolutely tenacious on this issue, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make two points in concluding debate before we go into the amendment process.

A reference was made to NEPA, and I responded to that just a bit earlier where I simply said that there is a division of powers. And we are making an action. With passage of this legislation signed into law by the President, we have said that there will be a land exchange. That's the policy of the country. Now, anything that happens on that land after the exchange has happened is subject to NEPA review. I have absolutely no problem with that and nothing in this bill changes that process.

The second point I would want to make is on the issue of creation of jobs. Honestly, when you hear the debate here on the floor on this issue, that's probably emblematic of the debate that has been going on in this Congress since day one. Apparently, the other side thinks that the only way you can create jobs is raising taxes and expanding the public sector. We believe that the best ways to create jobs and grow our economy are based on the principles that have gotten the United States from where we were when the Republic was created until now, by relying on the private sector. This is a private sector investment on lands that create a tremendous amount of wealth. This is a job creator, and I think that this bill deserves passage.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, when I became chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources this last January, I established a new subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. The purpose was to ensure a special forum for the issues and concerns important to Indian tribes and native people. I respect the views and special concerns of Indian tribes, and it's important that they have a role and are consulted in decisions that affect the people on their reservation lands.

This bill before the House today explicitly includes a section requiring government-to-government consultation. Section 4c, Mr. Chairman, of the bill is titled, and I quote, ``Consultation with Indian tribes.'' Consultation must occur before the mine operations ever begin.

To repeat, the mine cannot happen without consultation with interested tribes. To be clear, the mine is a site that is not located on reservation land. The closest Native American reservation is the San Carlos Apache, located more than 20 miles east of the mine site.

And it should be noted too that where this mine is proposed to be developed is right in the heart of what we call Arizona's historic copper triangle right here. These orange dots here are where copper is mined or quarried right now. This is the proposed site of the mine. And the San Carlos Apache reservation is up here. As you can see, there's activity between here and the San Carlos reservation.

The real effect of this amendment would be to allow the Department Secretary to veto and block the project on the subjective grounds that a previously identified cultural site exists on these lands. As stated previously, this is a geographic triangle that's historically home to numerous mines.

I might add too, Mr. Chairman, the Forest Service completed an environmental assessment in 2008, 3 years ago, in which, and I quote, ``several attempts were made to identify sacred sites and effects on ceremonial use of sacred sites.'' The official conclusion was a Finding of No Significant Impact, and that finding was sustained on appeal.

Furthermore, the terms ``Native American,'' ``sacred,'' and ``cultural'' in the amendment offered by my friend from New Mexico are undefined, and thus it cannot be predicted what effect this amendment would have. It opens the door to time-consuming litigation and subjective or political decisions.

In the land exchange within the bill, environmentally sensitive and culturally important lands are given protection. Thousands of more acres, as I alluded to earlier on, are added for the protection than are made available for the development of this mine; the ratio is roughly 2-1. The bill specifically and permanently, for example, protects Apache Leap.

Because this bill ensures and requires tribal consultation before development of the mine and because the real effect of the amendment would be for political mischief, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Lujan amendment.

Harrison Talgo, Sr.,

Bylas, AZ, October 21, 2011.

Hon. Eric Cantor,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Majority Leader Cantor: I am the former Chairman of

the San Carlos Apache Nation and served in the Tribal Council

for 16 years. Many times I have come before Congress as an

official representative of my government to present issues

affecting and in the best interest of the San Carlos Apache

Tribal Government. But today I write to you as a concerned

private citizen of Bylas, Arizona which is located within the

San Carlos Apache Tribal Reservation and want to express my

support of H.R. 1904, The Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and

Conservation Act of 2011.

The current Tribal leadership does not share my position. I

have tried very hard to understand why they oppose this

project when we are in such desperate need of jobs and

industry. I believe that traditional Apache values are not

mutually exclusive with economic development.

We are one of the poorest Indian tribes in the nation.

Seven in 10 eligible workers in the Tribe are unemployed.

Almost 80 percent of our people live in poverty. Alcoholism

and drug use are rampant and suicide rates are high. The

average Apache male has a life expectancy of 54 years, about

20 years shorter than the average American male.

The proposed Resolution Copper Mine would bring hundreds of

new, high-paying jobs to our region. It represents progress

and hope and prosperity.

I have previously testified before Congress in support of

economic development

projects. I have done so in the face of opposition from other

leaders who have opposed these same opportunities on and near

the reservation. Some of those projects experienced costly

delays as a result of the Council's opposition, but they all

were built eventually. And to our benefit, they have all

hired Apaches. I am confident the Resolution project will be

no different. In fact, some members of the San Carlos Apache

Nation are already employed by the company and its

contractors.

I respect the Council's desire to protect sites that have

cultural or historical significance. I want that, too. But

Oak Flat is a long way from us, and I believe strongly that

it is possible for our traditional values to co-exist with

economic progress. In fact, I don't believe one can survive

without the other. Economic progress and prosperity leads to

a better standard of living, better health, better services

and better education. It increases our capacity to learn and

expands our cultural horizons. It gives us additional

resources to explore and study our past, to protect what we

hold sacred, to showcase and display those things that are

culturally important, and to help the outside world better

understand and appreciate the stories and traditions of our

fathers.

For all these reasons, I respectfully urge your support and

passage of the H.R. 1904.

Sincerely,

Harrison Talgo, Sr.,

Former Chairman, San Carlos Apache Nation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. Chairman, I understand the other side has yielded back their time.

How much time do I have left?

I am more than happy to yield that 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, in deference to my good friend from Massachusetts, there is only one bill before us, and that's a bill without the Markey amendment, and I hope it stays that way.

This amendment requires a company to pay for the minerals twice. The value of the copper is already included in the appraised value of the land under current law of the United States. That's the law. Section 4(e) of the bill requires the developer to pay full market value for the Federal land and minerals within. Under the requirements of this bill, the United States is fully compensated for the copper up front. But, if, in fact, this vein is larger than what is anticipated, there is a further provision that says that should it exceed that appraised value, the developer, i.e., the copper mining company, is required to compensate the United States through annual assessments. As the market moves forward, the Markey amendment adds an 8 percent royalty to the full, to the top payment. This would mean that the company would be paying a huge premium in addition to what current law is of the value they have already paid.

I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, this is unprecedented in any law or any activity regarding mining.

This amendment isn't about ensuring the full payment to the United States, because that is required in the bill under current law. What this amendment really does is send a signal to companies that want to invest in Federal lands, to utilize the resources we have, that they are not welcome in the United States. They are not welcome, and they should go overseas where they are welcome, taking American jobs with them and making us less economically viable as a country and also costing us jobs.

With that, I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I just want to point out the unprecedented nature of this amendment. Let's think about it.

The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) properly pointed out that we operate under the 1872 act, and there is some discussion about that; but to single out one company in one area in one State for this tax sends a terrible, terrible signal to our economic system. If this were to be passed, then what is sacred about this industry compared to any other industry that somebody doesn't like? We will sponsor an amendment to tax one individual company. Boy, that is going to instill confidence, I can really see, in our economic system if an amendment like this is adopted. It is a bad amendment, and it will have a detrimental effect on this project.

I urge the defeat of the Markey amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The fundamental purpose of H.R. 1904 is to make copper in the United States and to create thousands of American jobs.

This amendment is purposefully written to make this mine impossible by mandating conditions that can't be achieved. As a result of that, if this were to pass, the 500 people currently employed on the project would lose their jobs, and the 3,700 total jobs that would be created would never materialize.

The lead sponsor of this amendment has fought this proposed mine for years. Listen, I respect his position, but this amendment isn't written to improve the bill; it's intended to kill the mine. It is simply an amendment in wolf's clothing. This amendment dictates specific mandates on business operations, Mr. Chairman, that are unrealistic, unprecedented, and unworkable. Let me give you an example.

It mandates the precise town in which the mine operations center must be located. The Federal Government should not be dictating where and only where a company is allowed to conduct its private business. If you take this to the logical extreme, what's next? Will House Democrats push a new law to require Apple to move from Cupertino to--where?-- Detroit? How ironic that when a company that is investing hundreds of millions of its private dollars in Arizona to create thousands of American jobs that Democrats in the District of Columbia want to dictate where to operate its business.

On the other hand, there may be some consistency, because when President Obama and House Democrats handed out over half a billion stimulus dollars to the Fisker car company, they allowed that to be built in Finland, which, Mr. Chairman, I might add, is not even a State.

The amendment also requires that all copper produced from this mine be used in the United States. Copper is a basic component used to construct and build items. It's ridiculous to mandate that if 1 ounce of copper goes into an item it violates this law, this amendment, to be used outside the United States.

I am sensitive to this because I'm from Washington. If a Boeing plane is using copper made from this mine, that Boeing plane can therefore never fly out of the United States. If copper pipe is used in the plumbing of a boat that's built in America, it can never ship American goods in this global economy. What about copper jewelry, Mr. Chairman, or an American-built car that includes copper components, or the multitude of everyday items that we build in America and sell abroad that contain copper?

The fact is that this amendment would make it impossible to use the copper from this mine; but on the other hand, that's probably what the intent is.

Finally, the amendment mandates that all equipment used to mine or support mining activities be made in the United States. The purpose of the bill is to allow the third largest undeveloped copper resource in the world to be developed in America to create American jobs and provide up to 25 percent of America's copper consumption. It defies reason and logic to say that this economic boost to America can't happen if one piece of equipment used for the mine isn't made in the United States.

Let me go a little bit further, Mr. Chairman. The word ``equipment'' is never defined. Does it include everyday office items that will support mine activities, such as paper or pencils? What about cell phones for workers? iPhones and Blackberries, I might add, are not manufactured in America.

So I urge my colleagues, therefore, to vote against this amendment, which stands in the way of American copper production and American copper creation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I just want to respond to my good friend from California about working with us if there is a flaw in this amendment.

I would just remind him he offered a similar amendment in committee; we brought up precisely the same arguments, precisely the same arguments. And here we are, we trot out an amendment on the floor of the House, and it's precisely the same amendment. I have a hard time thinking that somebody wants to work with us when they trot out the same amendment with the same arguments that got defeated twice.

I just want to mention this, Mr. Chairman. It's a worthy goal to buy American and promote buy American, but not when that sentiment is used to block a project to create American jobs and that results in America being less dependent on foreign minerals that gets our economy going.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 1904 is a triple threat. It will rob Native people of their heritage. It will rob local people of their water. And it will rob the American people of their money.

This legislation is simply an abdication of our responsibilities as stewards of public lands and the public trust, and it must be rejected. The Congress routinely considers land exchanges. It is our responsibility to weigh the merits of each proposal to determine whether it is in the best interest of the American people. Some proposals facilitate public recreation, some help local communities build courthouses and schools, and some serve important environmental goals.

The land exchange required by H.R. 1904 serves none of those purposes. Rather, this legislation will take thousands of acres of healthy, protected, sacred public land and convert it into billions of dollars in corporate profits for two foreign mining companies.

H.R. 1904 trades away several sites that are sacred to Native people. The hearing record before the Natural Resources Committee includes desperate pleas from San Carlos Apache, White Mountain Apache, Yavapai- Apache, Tonto Apache, Fort McDowell Yavapai, Hualapai, Jicarilla Apache, Mescalero Apache, and the Zuni Pueblo and others, pleading to respect the religious and cultural traditions.

Instead, the bill waives compliance with NEPA, the Native American Graves Protection Act, the Historic Preservation Act, and all other statutes that might give the tribes a voice and respect at the table before this decision is finalized. The final insult comes when the bill requires consultation with Native people--after the land exchange, after that exchange has already occurred. This will not be government- to-government consultations as required by the treaty trust relationship. Rather it continues a pattern of neglect and belittles Native people once again.

The legislation also threatens to dewater a large and already drought-prone area, turning it from an arid but functioning landscape into a desert. According to testimony received by the committee, a mining operation like the one planned by Resolution Copper requires an estimated 40,000 acre-feet of water per year. This is roughly the amount of water used by the entire city of Tempe in Arizona.

The company does not own any water rights and has failed to indicate where the water from the mining operation will come from. Historically, mining companies have simply sunk their wells deeper than their neighbors and taken the water that they need. A Federal mining permit process, along with compliance with NEPA and other laws, might mitigate or at least explore these concerns; but the legislation allows Resolution Copper to skip these steps, leaving the people of southeastern Arizona in grave danger of severe water shortages. NEPA happens after that land trade is finalized, when Rio Tinto--the parent company of Resolution Copper--holds all the cards. Compliance with NEPA becomes unclear and poses legal issues regarding private property.

Finally, the legislation will allow Rio Tinto--the parent company of Resolution Copper--to realize billions in profits without guaranteeing a fair return to the current owners of the land, the American people. The bill contains appraisal and payment provisions; but the language is nonstandard, and in some cases totally unique. Why are such provisions necessary when a simple, straightforward royalty would provide a fair and predictable return for the taxpayers?

At a time when we are told that everybody from college students to the elderly must accept drastic cuts to basic Federal programs, it is unconscionable that we would approve a massive transfer of wealth from the American people to a foreign-owned mining company without insisting on a fair return.

Supporters of this legislation claim it would create jobs. Job creation has been the excuse used here on the House floor to push legislation dismantling the last century of environmental protection, and H.R. 1904 continues that pattern. The job-creation claims are all based on predictions provided by the industry and the companies which stand to profit from this deal without a mining plan to verify or corroborate any of the information. Thus, they are all highly suspect.

When this proposal was first developed in 2005, the Arizona Republic and Tucson Citizen reported the mine would create 450 jobs. Without explanation, these predictions have skyrocketed over the years to 1,200 jobs to 3,700 today; and 6,000 jobs, as well, have been brought up as numbers of jobs that would be created. None of these numbers are supported by facts.

The trend in mining over the last several decades is clear: mining companies are producing more and more and using fewer and fewer workers. Rio Tinto and BHP-Billiton are pioneers in the use of automation, and the Resolution Copper project is an opportunity to perfect these technologies even further. The number of jobs actually created by H.R. 1904 will pale in comparison to the economic and environmental devastation that it could cause.

Mr. Chairman, this is a special interest legislation that is not in the interests of the American people. This legislation asks Congress to be business agents for foreign-owned corporations and not stewards of the public land or represent the American taxpayer.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona, my colleague, Mr. Pastor.

(Mr. PASTOR of Arizona asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

There is a cost to the taxpayer, Mr. Chairman. I would consider the fact that this very valuable mineral is being extracted without any royalties and without any payment a cost to the American taxpayer.

The issue about NEPA is not semantics. NEPA and other environmental processes should occur before the land trade, not after. After the land trade, it will be very difficult for compliance to happen. As a consequence, this land will be in the hands of a foreign-owned company, and it will be private property.

With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Chairman, the claim is that this legislation is going to boost the U.S. economy tremendously, but the copper will likely benefit China more than the United States.

Nine percent of Rio Tinto is owned by the state-controlled Aluminum Corporation of China. Rio Tinto has a long-established relationship and at our hearings refused to disclaim what level of exportation they were going to make to China of this copper ore.

At a time when we should focus on U.S. industry supporting that industry, creating jobs here in America, we should not be trading away billions in copper to supply China's needs. This bill doesn't even require that the ore extracted from this mine be processed here, much less that it will be marketed or sold here.

With that, let me yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, a member of the Resources Committee, Mr. Garamendi.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains?

Let me, if I may, yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

I thank my friend Mr. Flake.

And you're right; this isn't the Jetsons doing this. I probably would feel a lot more comfortable if that were the case.

Given the time we have left, I will reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As I indicated, much of the opposition to this legislation is coming from Indian country. All the pueblos in New Mexico have opposed this legislation. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona is opposed to this legislation. Twenty-six tribes from across the country, including Texas, have opposed this legislation. They see an impact on sacred sites, history, and culture that has not been factored into this discussion, nor have native peoples, particularly those affected nearby in San Carlos. Apaches have been allowed to run what is important, which is the government-to-government consultation.

Just a point. The chairman, my friend from the Natural Resources Committee, mentioned the CBO score for this bill. There are also two points to make. The CBO says this bill could cost the taxpayers up to $5 billion over 10 years. This cost is not offset. CBO says the payments to government could be significant, but the bill's provisions don't allow CBO to score them accurately.

A straight royalty, for sure, would have certainty and would return what was needed.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire, Mr. Chairman, how much time each side has?

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just talk about the opposition. It is not only with affection for the State that I grew up in and that I was born in, but it's also for the future of that State, and it's also for the future of important rules and laws that have protected our environment for many years, and to ensure that the jobs that we're talking about are not just a panacea and a selling point as opposed to a reality.

The opposition to this Rio Tinto-Resolution Copper land exchange is based on many factors, but let me just point out two. This is the fourth version of the land exchange. It began with former colleague Renzi, then Mr. Pastor, Ms. Kirkpatrick, and now my friend, Mr. Gosar, from Arizona. They are not the same, none of those. The one major difference is that, with the exception of the legislation before us, the NEPA process, the ESI, the consultation all occurred before the land exchange, not after. Once we do that process, if something comes up that needs compliance and mitigation, it becomes subject to the private property owner--a foreign company that will now have this public land--to deal with that question, serious compliance issues, and legal issues.

The other point is the water. Twelve years have already been banked of the 20 that the mine would need in order to operate. The point being, and protecting oak flats and other important areas of the water supply for the region, that seems like a significant number. But to bank water for this project on the outskirts of Phoenix does nothing to mitigate the potential usage of water, the potential drain of water in those three aquifers in that region, and the effect that it would have. NEPA would tell us what that effect would be. A full study would tell us what effect it is. But we're not having that done. So the consequence is that we're working on supposition, and I think supposition on this major land exchange is a huge mistake. We cannot afford unintended consequences with this land deal.

And a full and open process. If we would have done that at the initiation with the Renzi bill almost 8 years ago, we would be through that process many, many years ago; and we would be perhaps talking about a differently crafted piece of legislation. We aren't doing that.

And the last thing is, there is something sacred and spiritual about this as well. Native people are not just complaining because they want to complain. They are legitimately saying that we need to have consultations, there should be full studies, and factored into the decisionmaking must be the historical and cultural and religious sacred areas that we need protected and ensured that they will be protected. Those discussions have not occurred.

H.R. 1904 is a land giveaway. And the gentleman from New Mexico said why our economy is in a bad place. Well, this kind of legislation tells you why. It is a sweetheart deal for a multinational corporation foreknown. It gives them breaks.

I have 3 minutes, and I will be glad to as soon as I have finished my summation, if I have time, sir.

But let me go over the points. This is a job for robots. I know it's a touchy term for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but the reality is Rio Tinto is a pioneer in automation. They've done it in Australia; they've done it in other parts of the world. There is no reason to believe that that

same pattern is not going to be applied to the mine that they own in Resolution.

The sucking sound that we will be hearing will be the loss of water levels in that area and the effect it will have. And it's a copper caper, using unusual appraisal procedures which does not guarantee that the company is going to pay any fair price for the billions of dollars of copper they stand to receive from the American people.

Like I said earlier, something has to be sacred. H.R. 1904 trades away many sites that are sacred to Native people. We've received pleas from Indian Country over and over again; and we should deal with those issues before the land exchange, not as this legislation has it, after.

Add insult to injury, we keep talking about jobs. There is an agenda before this Congress to begin to immediately create jobs for the American people. That is stalled--and from what I hear from leadership, permanently derailed. So as the American people look for real employment and real opportunity, we present a false hope in this legislation, something that hasn't been vetted.

I urge opposition to the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, just for clarification of the record, the reform of the Mining Act of 1872 was passed by this House when the Democrats were in the majority, including the 8 percent royalty requirement, and it met almost unanimous opposition from my Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

We have been told that the creation of jobs is the principal motivation and justification for H.R. 1904, but when we examine these jobs claims, they start to fall apart. We've heard varying figures from 450 initially to 3,700 and sometimes even 6,000. The numbers aren't supported by the facts.

The amendment before the House right now that is offered by myself and the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) is the only way to ensure that at least some jobs will be created in Arizona as a result of this bill. Our amendment adds conditions to the land exchange to guarantee job creation in the community of Superior, Arizona, and the surrounding area and to strengthen the overall benefits to the U.S. economy.

Section 1 of this amendment guarantees that the Remote Operations Center is located in Superior. Modern mines, Rio Tinto in particular, use a range of automation technology, and most of the human labor is done off-site at the Remote Operations Center. Rio Tinto is presently operating its Pilbara, Australia, mine from 800 miles away in Perth, which is a metro area. Our amendment will ensure that this Remote Operations Center is in and operates from Superior, Arizona.

If this legislation is truly about jobs and lifting up the local economy, it is important to guarantee that local residents will have access to the jobs that are created by this mine. Section 2 of our amendment makes sure that Arizonans are considered first for employment.

Without active recruitment and a hiring preference for area residents, how do we know that the residents of the region and Arizona will benefit from the project? Our amendment makes sure that that happens. If this bill is really about jobs and our national interests, then we should guarantee that the ore produced from this mine has a direct impact on the U.S. economy.

Section 3 of the amendment will make sure that all raw material extracted from the mine is processed in the United States, not in China or in any other foreign country.

Finally, section 4 of this amendment, by ensuring that all equipment used in the mine is made in the USA, puts American manufacturers before foreign competitors. If the promise of job creation is to have even a shred of credibility, the Grijalva-Garamendi amendment must be adopted to ensure that the promises we have heard and the guarantees that have been talked about this afternoon are, in fact, reality. This amendment would make it a requirement.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield the balance of my time to the cosponsor of the amendment, the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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.