Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 683) to provide for the conveyance of certain parcels of land to the town of Mantua, Utah.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

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

S. 683 would convey approximately 31.5 acres of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest to the town of Mantua, Utah. The lands in question are primarily open grasslands surrounded by agricultural lands. The town is seeking these lands for expansion of the cemetery and construction of a town hall and fire station.

National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee Chair Rob Bishop is the author of the House version of this bill, and I commend him and Senator Mike Lee of Utah for their efforts in seeing this small, but important, conveyance enacted into law.

I urge adoption of the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the author of the House version of this legislation, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

I urge my colleagues to support the Senate bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 32) to authorize the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make technical corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 470, an Act to further allocate and expand the availability of hydroelectric power generated at Hoover Dam, and for other purposes.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the resolution under consideration.

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

Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 is an enrolling correction for H.R. 470, bipartisan legislation introduced by our Nevada colleague, Dr. Joe Heck.

Dr. Heck's bill, which allocates hydropower generated at Hoover Dam to a number of utilities in California, Arizona, and Nevada, has been passed by both the House and the Senate. However, some in the Senate insisted that a number of technical changes needed to be made to the bill even though the affected agency indicated that it could implement H.R. 470 as passed by both Chambers.

Nevertheless, we'll not object to this enrolling resolution making such technical changes because the base legislation is important for that area. So I urge adoption of this measure.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 4 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, December 6, 2011, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 2, which would require the Federal Government to do what American families do every day--balance our budget.

One of the first votes I cast in Congress was in support of the Balanced Budget Amendment. That was in 1995 when the Federal deficit was $4.9 trillion--a level that I considered unacceptable to pass on to our children and grandchildren. And we came so close, Madam Speaker. The Balanced Budget Amendment passed by a two-thirds majority in the House.

This included 72 Democrats. Many of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle that I see here today stood with us to do what is best for the future of our country.

We came just one vote shy of passing it in the Senate, and have paid for this failure every day since, Madam Speaker. It has been 16 years and over 10 trillion dollars more in debt since I voted for the Balanced Budget Amendment.

The Federal deficit was unacceptable then, and it is unconscionable today--growing an incredible $1.6 billion per day.

This has led us to where we are today--facing a $15 trillion dollar debt that leaves future generations in even greater jeopardy and is causing serious harm to our economy.

Former Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen recently said that the greatest threat to our country is not Al-Qaeda--it is our national debt.

It is threatening our economy, our standard of living, and our very way of life.

Madam Speaker, just think of how different our country would be if we had succeeded in 1995.

It seems like such a simple concept--only spending as much as we take in.

This is our chance to make history. Let's not force future generations to look back and see how Congress once again failed to change the course of American history and get our economy back on track.

As a grandfather, Madam Speaker, I strongly urge all of my colleagues, regardless of political affiliation, to stand up for the future of our country and join me in voting for this vital resolution.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 588) to redesignate the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge as the Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Under H.R. 588, the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge in Mississippi will be renamed after the former Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sam Hamilton, who recently died at the young age of 54. It's my understanding, Madam Speaker, that his first outdoors job was at the Noxubee Refuge, where he learned to band wood ducks and manage wildlife habitat.

I want to compliment my friend and colleague from Mississippi, Congressman Gregg Harper, for introducing this no-cost legislation, which I think is a fitting tribute to Sam Hamilton and all that he stood for.

With that, I urge adoption of the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper).

Madam Speaker, I too urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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 yield myself 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.

I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, let me be perfectly clear, and I will say this as slowly as I can so it can be understood. This bill does not waive any economic sanction laws. All of those laws still stand.

Now, let me say this. This bill is about creating jobs in Arizona. By creating jobs in Arizona, we are creating American jobs in Arizona.

It is interesting to me how I hear the other side come up with all of these different ideas. The debate has been going on for some time-- probably about 3 years, come to think of it. Here is what the debate is: It's about creating jobs in this country. Our approach on this side is very simple. It's simple because it's based on the premise of our country. We rely on the private sector. We rely on people to make an investment to create American jobs. Their side wants to--and we heard this in debate--raise taxes and create public jobs. This creates private jobs.

I say vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and pass the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the pending trade agreements, all three trade agreements, with Colombia, South Korea, and Panama.

In my home State of Washington, where one in three jobs is dependent on international trade, we understand the importance of expanding foreign markets for economic success. There is no question, Mr. Speaker, that these agreements will increase jobs. Let me give you an example on a parochial basis in my district. Today, potato growers and processors face an 18-percent tariff when sending their product to South Korea. This agreement will end the tariff immediately, allowing our growers to fairly compete in this very important market.

It is critical to my constituents that we act now on all three of these trade agreements. Let me be parochial again, Mr. Speaker. Apple sales in Colombia dropped 48 percent last year because Chile had duty- free access to the Colombian market while my growers in my State did not--in fact, they had a 15-percent tariff. The passage of this agreement is expected to increase apple sales by 250,000 boxes a year, allowing us to regain a market share or at least to compete on a level playing field.

As our economy is struggling to recover, I encourage all of my colleagues to act now to support all three of these trade agreements because all three of these trade agreements will expand an opportunity for our economy to grow, and especially, Mr. Speaker, the diverse agriculture economy I have in central Washington.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 709, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

I appreciate my friend from Washington reading the section, but he left out the last sentence of that section.

I think this is a pertinent part and this is the point that the gentleman from Alaska is making, and it regards safety inspection.

I will quote the last sentence: ``This section does not affect the authority of the Coast Guard to regulate the use of waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the Yukon Charlie Preserve.''

I would interpret that as saying the safety part of that is taken care of. But the gentleman from Alaska certainly is right on the part that these are State waters.

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

I move to strike the last word.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to point out that the staff clearly researched the language here and applicable laws that relate to these waters. That's what we do when we put this language in here.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose my friend's amendment. I hope this isn't a pattern long term, but on this particular bill it seems to be a pattern at any rate.

His amendment would strike the important language in H.R. 2584 that addresses the administration's confusing policies involving Endangered Species Act-listed populations of gray wolves nationwide.

As I mentioned on the House floor during a colloquy with Chairman Simpson on Monday, the Obama administration has created a confusing and impractical result with its recent announcement to delist the gray wolves in some States, but leave other States, such as Washington, Oregon and Utah with mixed management. H.R. 2584, as written, and as clarified in my colloquy with the chairman, would help remedy this flawed policy.

Problems with the Federal management of gray wolves are nearly as old as the Endangered Species Act itself. Five years after ESA's passage in 1978, the gray wolf was listed as endangered or threatened in all of the lower 48 States. In the mid-1990s, the Clinton administration ordered an experimental introduction of wolves into the Yellowstone area, central Idaho, and the Mexican wolf into Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. It also established a new definition to identify the population of listed species. As a result, wolves multiplied. But, unfortunately, because they can't read maps, they moved into areas where they weren't supposed to go.

In 2003, the Fish and Wildlife Service divided gray wolves into geographical boundaries that made more sense. It included the entire States of Washington, Oregon, Utah and other areas so that States would eventually be able to develop their own State management plans to remove wolves from the endangered species list.

Then, in 2009, the Obama administration reversed course and adopted the theory that wolves should be delisted in Idaho, Montana, and only parts of certain other States, but would leave other areas where wolves likely populate still. This is under ESA.

As a result, in my own Fourth Congressional District in central Washington, and I'll put up a map here, the wolves are delisted on the eastern side of Highways 97, 17, and 395. Highway 97, Highway 17, and 395.

Delisted over here, listed over here. This makes absolutely no sense, and it shows how the ESA is badly in need of updating and how ineffective the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is in managing wolves. And I might add, this is true in Oregon, in parts of Oregon and parts of Utah.

So I oppose this amendment because the colloquy that I had with the chairman is one that sets the stage for properly managing these wolves in the States that I associate with.

I just might add on a personal level, I live very, very close to here. But I live in the listed area.

Now, we do fish marking. I know my friend is very well aware of fish marking, and I'm not opposing the authorizing on this bill, as the gentleman knows--this year, anyway. But there is no listing here for the gray wolf. Now, I have no idea if a wolf crosses down here into my area, if it is, in fact, a listed or a delisted wolf.

But apparently Fish and Wildlife think that they know where Highway

97 ends, where 17 comes down here and connects with Highway 395, because that's what their arbitrary rule says. It doesn't make any sense at all.

And so as a result of this, the colloquy I had with Chairman Simpson clarified this, that it includes the whole areas that are within that geographic boundary. And for that reason, I oppose my friend's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I asked the gentleman to yield because this is precisely the point that this debate and discussion on the Endangered Species Act is having.

If you recall in the CR, the Endangered Species Act was amended to allow Idaho and Montana to delist, because the way ESA was written, unless the whole identified population could have been managed, nobody could manage, and that was the flaw. And that's what we have been saying--as we had last night and we will probably have later discussions on this--why ESA needs to be looked at in a comprehensive way, because it was clearly a flaw. It was clearly a flaw. I'm glad that the CR amended the Endangered Species Act to take care of this provision.

The colloquy that we had regarding Washington, Oregon, and Utah was simply to recognize these larger populations but recognize States are moving in a direction of managing their populations.

Will the gentleman yield real quickly?

As a matter of fact, the gray wolves are showing up in the Cascades now, the eastern side of the Cascades. So you'll get them.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I understand the gentleman's comments. And I know the hearing yesterday addresses the issue, which is separate from this. Listen, we should have that debate; we should have that discussion.

This issue is an administrative Secretarial order that, to the credit of Secretary Salazar, they withdrew. It was confirmed, by the way, to be withdrawn because of the CR we passed that takes us through September 30. The Secretary, to his credit, said, I'm going to abide by that. As a result, the order has not been withdrawn.

This debate here is about next year's funding. So until we get clarification on that order or the order is withdrawn, this language is appropriate. And that's simply all we're saying.

Now, we can get into a discussion of whether wild lands is, in fact, a designation or not. And as a matter of fact, wild lands has no definition whatsoever administratively. So there's a question on our side, obviously, if they can even do that because wild lands may be synonymous with wilderness, but wilderness can only be designated by the Congress.

And that is the concern that we have. And that's why I think the language that was put into the appropriation bill takes care of next year. And I say, to the credit of the Secretary----

Will the gentleman yield?

If the gentleman remembers, because he was in a committee hearing, under direct questioning, I think it was Director Abbey said that there is no authority to make any designation under law of wild lands because that was a made-up term. There's no designation.

Can they inventory? Yes. Nobody argues with that. But you can't make up administratively a new designation, and that's what the issue was. And he testified that he had no authority to do that.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I'm glad the gentleman brought up Secretarial order 3310 because that's what we're talking about here.

Now the first sentence under section one, Purpose, it says: The Secretarial order affirms the protection of wilderness characteristics. Nobody is arguing about that at all. Then you go to page 2 of the Secretarial order, section 4, Policy, and it goes on through the process of inventorying and so forth.

And the last sentence is the problem where we have our heartburn. It says: ``Where the BLM concludes that protection of wilderness characteristics''--which nobody argues about--``is appropriate, the BLM shall designate these lands as `Wild Lands.' ''

Now that is a made-up definition. Nobody argues about the inventory part, but now all of a sudden they're superseding and suggesting that there should be a new designation called wild lands. That is what the problem is. They have no authority to do that. And they affirmed that, by the way, in testimony in front of our committee. This part of the Interior bill simply says we're not going to fund that. And until the Secretarial order is withdrawn--this one here that says wild lands-- once this is withdrawn, you're right, there's no issue. But it hasn't been withdrawn. That's why that language needs to stay in there. It's nothing more complicated than that.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, let me make one point: This debate is not about the Endangered Species Act; it is not about the Endangered Species Act.

I have to rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my good friend from Washington State. I think that Chairman Simpson has brought to the House floor a bill that prioritizes funding to ensure that the core responsibilities and environmental protections are met in a broader sense.

When it comes to the Endangered Species Act, this bill focuses on funding the actual recovery of species. It does this by, one, continuing funds for recovery activities and doing that despite the fact that this bill, the ESA, has not been reauthorized for 23 years-- not 20 years; 23 years--and, two, by limiting funds for lawsuit-driven new listings and habitat designations.

This bill sends a clear message, as the gentleman from Idaho said, that the Endangered Species Act needs to be updated and improved. It needs to be reauthorized. As I mentioned, it's been 23 years since this bill was reauthorized by Congress. A person can be born and graduate from college in the amount of time that has passed since Congress last acted to make serious responsible improvements to this law.

Now, the gentleman from Washington acknowledged me on the floor earlier, and I will tell him, as the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction on the Endangered Species Act, I can inform the House that this committee will be conducting robust oversight of the need to update this law in the coming months. The current law is failing to truly recover species while it frequently hamstrings jobs and economic prosperity, like the gentleman from Idaho mentioned. And we will also examine legislative priorities.

In my view--and this is important about this debate--in my view, the real obstacle to improving ESA is the fact that a number of groups are heavily invested in litigation mindset, a litigation mindset that prefers lawsuits against the government over improving the act and improving the recovery of species. These groups have filed lawsuits by the one hundreds against Fish and Wildlife and the National Marine Fisheries.

This bill, under Chairman Simpson's leadership, effectively halts these lawsuits. By limiting any spending on new listings or habit designations, this bill will allow the biologists to get back to work recovering species, rather than responding to court cases. Both funding and personnel will be able to focus on the real work of bringing species back from the brink.

By striking this provision, the Dicks amendment would reopen the litigation process. The same activist groups, Mr. Chairman, that filed these lawsuits endorse this amendment. As we speak, they are waging an expensive paid advertising campaign on behalf of this amendment. Because they profit from these lawsuits, to me, it appears they are more concerned about the ability to go to court, get a settlement and get paid than they are about recovering species.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. This bill strikes the right balance by directing funding to actual recovery of species. And it strikes the right balance by bringing a halt to litigation over new listings and habitat designations.

This bill will create an opportunity where Congress can do its job to update and modernize the ESA. It's time that we take a thoughtful analysis of the inadequacies of this current law, inadequacies that allow the ESA to be abused through lawsuits, rather than serving as a true conduit for species recovery.

Let me go on to say that, as the chairman, I think, said very well in his remarks, there is no incentive for the stakeholders to come and try to work out the differences or update this law if Congress keeps kicking the can ahead. That's what the issue is all about.

I can't imagine, for example, that people really believe that this bill should be in place, yet, when there is a major construction project here in the Washington, DC, area, like the Woodrow Wilson bridge, they waive the act. Does that make sense? Of course it doesn't make sense.

And we don't get an opportunity, those of us that are impacted by this act, get a chance to waive it. So it just seems to me that there has to be an update of this. The act has not been updated for 23 years. It's time to do it. And as the chairman of the committee that has jurisdiction on that, I'm glad to work with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee on this. In fact, I'll work with anybody on this because I too believe that the species are very important, as the gentleman from Virginia said. But let's do it in a way that protects species and does not harm those people that make a living from the land and/or the water.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to say, because the gentleman made a very good remark, but since we're talking about bald eagles, in our State they're around, and I would invite the gentleman to come to where I live in the desert in central Washington where every fall and winter we see bald eagles. They are truly a majestic bird.

But the point is, again--and I really thank the gentleman for yielding--this debate is not about the Endangered Species Act. This debate here is about trying to get people together so we can make the Endangered Species Act work in a way that will be beneficial to everybody, so that we can repeat the successes that we have had, albeit the successes are only 20 species; but, nevertheless, we ought to be working that way rather than restricting and having restrictions as the current act is.

Will the gentleman yield?

As I mentioned in my remarks when I spoke, that certainly is the intent of the committee that I chair that has jurisdiction.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman's closing remarks when he said this is not the proper venue to address the Endangered Species Act. That has been my argument, too. I think it should be done in the authorizing committee.

But the fact of the matter is there is no incentive for the stakeholders to sit down if we continue to kick the ball ahead and not seriously look at the Endangered Species Act.

As the chairman said very well in his remarks, this is simply a shot across the bow, not only on this, but on other authorized programs. So we are not picking on these.

Will the gentleman yield?

We share that concern about the salmon. I would point out to the gentleman that the salmon runs in the Snake River and the tributaries are coming back in greater number, which would suggest that the species is being recovered. And yet we are waiting for a judge to make a decision.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, I can't argue with the gentleman. I'm simply saying we need to look at this. It has been 23 years.

Will the gentleman yield?

The argument is not about the Endangered Species Act. The argument is about the serious business of sitting down and reauthorizing an act that has not been reauthorized since the 1980s.

I totally agree with you, and I said that in the opening remarks. The gentleman from Washington suggested that, and I totally agree with him.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. I would remind him, from the time that we did get control of Congress in 1995 until your side gained control after the 2006 election, that was the issue that the then- chairman--the last chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Richard Pombo from California--was working on. As a matter of fact, I think it was in 2005 that we did pass ES reform out of this House.

It did not go anyplace in the other body. So history tends to repeat itself.

He did, as did Senator Crapo from Idaho.

Here is the problem: The problem is that through all of the efforts of Chairman Pombo of trying to get this enacted and he couldn't get it through the Senate, then you know what the Appropriations Committee did?

Will the gentleman yield?

I've been chairman now for a little over 6 months. I have every intention to do that, and I want to work with the gentleman on this.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to respond to my friend from Virginia.

The bill passed, if my memory serves me correctly, with bipartisan support.

But, yes, of course there are political risks in doing whatever we're doing in

this body; and we all face that. After all, this is the people's government. But the point is it needs--and we've been saying over and over, the ESA needs to be updated.

It's been 23 years, for goodness sake.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, 2 months ago, the Secretary of the Interior announced that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would remove gray wolves from the Endangered Species Act list in areas covering the northern Rocky Mountain States and roughly the easternmost one-third of the State of Washington, the eastern quarter of the State of Oregon, and a small piece of Utah. I understand that H.R. 2584 also would exempt from judicial review any final rule issued by the Secretary that delists wolves in the State of Wyoming and the western Great Lakes. So I commend the chairman for your leadership to see that these States are given a chance to succeed in their management of species.

As with other decisions, the Secretary of the Interior's May announcement does not resolve the problem for many agricultural areas in States that don't fit neatly within the Fish and Wildlife Service's arbitrarily set geographical boundaries, and it reverses a policy that the Fish and Wildlife Service itself implemented by regulation in 2003 in which wolves were delisted in all of the State of Washington and other areas with appropriate State recovery measures in place.

Under the current administration's policy, in my own district in central Washington, wolves will be delisted on the eastern side up to a highway that cuts through a heavy agriculture area. Wolves on one side of the highway will be listed, the other side not. The same is true in Oregon and Utah.

I appreciate the steps the gentleman has included in this bill to create a more rational approach toward delisting these recovered wolves by allowing the States to manage the populations using sound wildlife management principles. I want to confirm my understanding that the bill and accompanying report language on page 10 is intended to include all States in their entirety within the northern Rocky Mountain area, including Washington, Oregon, and Utah.

I yield to the chairman.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for that clarification.

As we both know, the problem goes far beyond wolves. The ESA has nearly 1,400 listed species in the U.S. and hundreds of millions of dollars being spent by local, State, Federal, and private entities on ESA activities; yet Federal agencies are being regularly sued for poor science and poorly drafted regulations, and only 20 species have been recovered.

Do you agree with me that the Endangered Species Act is broken and needs to be modernized and updated?

I yield to the chairman.

Reclaiming my time, a couple of weeks ago Secretary Salazar acknowledged, ``There are changes and improvements that can be made to how we deal with endangered species'' and that ``we need to have an endangered species program that does, in fact, work.'' I couldn't agree more with the Secretary's statement.

The Natural Resources Committee that I chair has jurisdiction over ESA, as well as NOAA and the Fish and Wildlife Service, and we will be working in coming months to conduct robust oversight and look at much needed proposals to update this law. I appreciate your leadership and look forward to working with you on this very important issue.

I yield to the chairman.

Reclaiming my time, that certainly is the intent that we tend to pursue.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

For years, the Walla Walla District of the Army Corps of Engineers has managed several miles of the public shoreline along the Columbia and Snake Rivers in the Tri-Cities area of my congressional district.

Five years ago, in 2006, the Corps sought to update its McNary Shoreline Management Plan, which had last been revised in the early 1980s. The existing management plan includes a permit program for private property owners that seek to build or use docks along the river shoreline.

The 2006 revision was so controversial that the Corps was forced back to the drawing board. It proposed a variety of restrictive measures, including a moratorium on the building of docks by private property owners along the shoreline and requiring existing dock owners to tear out their docks at great personal expense in order to keep their permits.

The Corps got an earful at a public meeting on the proposal and this year came back with a similarly controversial proposal, which included new questionable mandates from the National Marine Fisheries Service-- including specific requirements for the length, width, color, and transparency of each dock, all of which NMFS claims would help save salmon.

Mr. Chairman, with all existing local docks as is right now, salmon runs are at near record levels along the Columbia River, and the Corps itself acknowledges that juvenile salmon in the McNary area average 20 to 30 million. Mr. Chairman, docks aren't killing salmon.

Regrettably, the Corps did little to justify their plan's sketchy science at another recent public meeting at which over 200 people attended to voice their opposition.

This amendment will ensure that the Army Corps will not charge ahead with a shoreline management plan until it answers questions about the questionable NMFS mandate and addresses concerns raised by a substantial number of citizens. Without this amendment, the Corps' unwise shoreline plan would be implemented and force questionable regulations on local residents and recreational activities.

Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting that the Corps should not be allowed to implement a revised shoreline plan, but it should not do so based on shaky science and without ensuring that the local public's concerns are adequately addressed.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I appreciate the chairman's concurrence on this. If that is the same on both sides, I will be more than happy to yield back.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, last Friday, the Department of Energy made a surprise announcement that not only was the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management--or EM--leaving but that they were restructuring the entire $6 billion program under the Under Secretary of Nuclear Security, who also serves as the head of the NNSA.

EM is responsible for cleaning up the nuclear waste created during our Nation's defense program that helped end World War II and the Cold War. The Federal Government has signed legal agreements with the States to clean up this waste. The major restructuring was simply declared by DOE with absolutely zero consultation with Congress, the States, the communities or the stakeholders.

I haven't been given sufficient answer to the simple question: How does EM benefit from this change?

We have no idea how this decision was reached or why restructuring was considered. Given what little has been made public, I believe there are some real risks, including the potential for cleanup to become less of a priority under as structure that has always been focused--and rightfully so--on nuclear security.

In the late 1980s, DOE moved the cleanup program out of the weapons program in order to provide more definition, transparency and to focus on cleanup. Now DOE wants to put them back together.

I ask again: What is the benefit to EM?

In DOE's own words from this past Friday: ``The Office of Environmental Management has made unparalleled progress in cleaning up our Nation's Cold War nuclear legacy at sites across the country.'' Yet, out of nowhere, they decide to throw the program into a state of flux.

Without sufficient answers, I can't stand idly by while the department makes a seemingly snap decision that will impact something as important and as complex as nuclear waste cleanup. So my amendment would prohibit the use of funds to move the Office of Environmental Management under the Under Secretary of Nuclear Security.

I yield to the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey.

I thank the gentleman for his support.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

In reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I will simply say that this may be a good idea; but for goodness sakes, what is the benefit to a $6 billion program that only 6 days ago was announced is moving under another structure? There may be a good reason, but tell us what that reason is. So this amendment, hopefully, will elicit that answer, and we can move forward.

With support on both sides, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, for the last time, I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, in these tight budget times, it is more important than ever that the Federal Government focus its funding on the most essential and core functions. The Federal Government, however, should not subsidize private companies' business decisions, particularly when that business decision involves tearing out a 14 megawatt hydropower dam that has served two rural counties in my district.

The Condit Dam, a privately owned and operated hydropower-producing dam located in my district, was constructed in 1913 on the White Salmon River, which is a tributary of the Columbia River. Since 1947, the Condit Dam has been owned and operated by PacifiCorp and has held a license with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Over the past 20 years, rather than agree to the rigorous and costly measures associated with the FERC relicensing process, PacifiCorp opted to pursue actions to surrender its license to operate the dam and now wants to remove that dam at its own cost. This amendment will ensure that no Federal tax dollars will be used by the Corps of Engineers to remove or mitigate for the removal of the Condit Dam.

Recently, PacifiCorp representatives communicated to my office that they acknowledge that PacifiCorp itself, and not the Corps, is responsible for all impacts that removing this dam might cause to the Federal Columbia River navigation channel. My amendment simply ensures that the Federal taxpayers do not get left holding the bag for a private company's actions that could cost this private company, by their own admission, up to $32 million.

Having said that, I do want to say this, Mr. Chairman. While I give tacit approval to a dam being removed in the Northwest--it's a private decision by a private company--I want to reiterate and continue my opposition to any attempt to remove any of the Federal dams along the Columbia or Snake River. This is a private company making their decision, and they should pay for it; and that's what this amendment attempts to address.

I yield to the distinguished chairman.

I thank the gentleman very much.

With that concurrence on the other side, I yield back the balance of my time and urge adoption of the amendment.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, the Office of River Protection was created to put a focus on the 53 million gallons of wastes in the 177 underground tanks at Hanford in my district in Washington. These wastes are being retrieved from the tanks and are being prepared for the waste treatment plant where they will be vitrified and ultimately sent to Yucca Mountain.

For years, DOE was clear that a steady, stable annual funding level of

$690 million would allow for the successful completion and hot start of WTP. The department has, however, changed its mind and would prefer to front load funding. I have been clear that, even without increasing the total project cost, spending in excess of $690 million a year at the waste treatment plant now will have impacts on the funds available for other projects, including the work at the tank farms.

The waste treatment plant is dependent on two critical elements aside from its own budget: first, a robust program at the tank farms to get the waste ready to feed WTP on time and, second, Yucca Mountain.

I appreciate the provisions in this bill to help halt the administration's illegal shutdown of Yucca Mountain, and I ask that you work with me to ensure the correct balance of funding is provided when it comes to the waste treatment plant and the tank farms within the Office of River Protection.

In reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman, and I appreciate his visiting Hanford.

I appreciate the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee for visiting Hanford; and of course, I appreciate the ranking member of the full committee, who had had a great deal of interest on this issue prior to my even coming to Congress.

I appreciate the work that the committee has done in the past, because this is a project that has legal requirements. In these difficult times, I am very pleased with the work that you have done.

I yield back the balance of my time.