Floor Statements

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

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

The Federal Lands to Parks program is one of the most successful parts of our National Park Service. For those parts of the country that are not blessed with the Grand Canyon or Sonoran Desert, this program provides local government with excess Federal lands at no cost, provided the land is used for recreational purposes.

Over the years, nearly 1,500 parcels of land have gone to local governments for free but with deeds that ensure they are used for the public good. This land isn't foisted upon these local governments. Instead, local governments actively work with the Park Service to obtain land for ``historical, natural, or recreational interest.''

I should note for clarification, as we go forward with this debate, that this is not county land. This is Federal land. The county is allowed to control this land as long as it is used for the recreational purposes in the agreement. If this were county land, we would not be here. The county can't sell the land. The county can't lease the land. The county can't rent the land. The county does not own the land. This bill gives Federal land away for free.

Examples of successful projects include: 195 acres that went to the City of Ogden, Utah, for the Ogden Nature Center, Rodeo, and Fairgrounds; 97 acres that went to Brigham City, Utah, for the Brigham Intermountain Golf Course; 103 acres to the County of Walla Walla, Washington, for the Fort Walla Walla Park; 307 acres to the City of Aurora, Colorado, for the Aurora Reservoir Park; and 2.57 acres to the Town of Hot Sulfur Springs, Colorado. All of these entities took the same deal as Accomack County in 1976. They expressed their desire for the land, advocated for the transfer, and freely agreed to a deed that ensured that the land would be used for recreation or revert back to Federal ownership.

Over the years, as local governments have fought development pressures and budget shortfalls, the Park Service and the General Services Administration have developed a land exchange process to enable some flexibility for communities. They can enter into a land exchange that requires the replacement land be of equal recreation and fair market value. Alternatively, the county can return the land to the Federal Government and purchase it for fair market value through the GSA process. The sponsor of the legislation and the county involved have rejected both of these options. Instead, the county is actively promoting a development plan that includes these lands in question while waiting for an act of Congress to clear the deed.

The enactment of this bill creates an unacceptable and dangerous precedent for every other project out there.

The reason the Federal land management agencies refuse to give away Federal land is because Congress requires the agencies to seek legislation to sell or transfer Federal land. Do you know why? Because a pesky little document called the United States Constitution requires Congress to make laws with respect to the disposition of Federal land. This would encourage local governments to run to Congress and cash in on a gift the Federal Government shared with local communities.

This legislation should be rejected. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Woolsey).

I yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, Congressman McDermott.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I am prepared to close.

Mr. Chairman, as we have heard continually from my friends on the other side of the aisle, before us we have a seemingly innocent piece of legislation that would allow Accomack County to develop a mere 32 acres of land for an aerospace park. One might even wonder why we are taking up valuable time on the House floor in debating this measure.

This is not innocent legislation. This is a Federal land giveaway that under any other circumstance would be considered an earmark. It is also the opening shot of a larger effort on the part of the Republicans to privatize our Federal lands. In 1976, Accomack County made a deal. They received 32 acres of Federal property free of charge. In return, they promised to use the land for public recreation purposes. Now they want a different deal, only they don't want to pay for it. The deal they want is to commercially develop the land they got for free and relocate the displaced recreation activity to a former landfill.

While it is ``just'' 32 acres, it represents what appears to be the Republican platform: that our parks, forests, and wildlife areas are cash cows, assets to sell and develop during these tough economic times.

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a Nevada newspaper that he doesn't know what the purpose is of public lands. While in Idaho, Presidential candidate Rick Santorum told the crowd that public lands in Idaho should go back to the hands of the private sector. This theme is not new. In 2005, then-chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, Richard Pombo, proposed selling national parks to mining companies.

Today, part of the Ryan budget was released. Again, it is proposing to sell off 3.3 million acres of public land. Most recently, an Energy and Commerce subcommittee chairman suggested selling off some of our national parks. We can't get through a meeting of the House Committee on Natural Resources without someone from the majority suggesting that lands need to be transferred to the States, or sold, or fully developed for gas and oil.

My view, and the view of most Americans, is completely different. As renowned documentary filmmaker Ken

Burns put it, our National Park System is America's best idea. Our forests and desert lands represent what is the best in America--a long- term view that we should protect and value the majesty that God has blessed our Nation with for this generation and the generations to come.

I urge my colleagues to join with me to defeat this legislation. We need this Congress to affirm to the American people that we value our parks, our forests, and wildlife areas for their inherent value. We value them as places to recreate with our family. We value them as places to hunt and fish. Sometimes we value them for just knowing that they are there, in hopes that one day we can visit.

I urge a ``no'' vote, a vote to protect our public lands from this precedent that is being set by H.R. 2087.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2087.

This is a very simple amendment. It ensures that Federal taxpayers are compensated for the land that is moving out of public ownership and into private development.

The Federal Land to Parks program provides Federal land to local governments with the agreement through the deed that the lands will stay in public use, primarily for recreation.

Accomack County, Virginia, is actively marketing the development of the land in question to the aerospace industry for hangars and other types of commercial development. The land is valued at over $800,000. Meanwhile, the county is asking Congress to intervene so they can take the land they got for free and develop it without compensating the Federal Government.

The underlying bill is the legislative equivalent of writing Accomack County a check for $815,000. It is only because this is cloaked through a deed amendment that it isn't called an ``earmark.''

My amendment simply requires the county to repay the Federal Government for the fair market value of the lands from the proceeds of the development.

By ensuring the taxpayer is protected, we also send a signal to other local governments that are facing economic or development pressures that their parks, developed through the Federal Lands to Parks program, are not piggy banks to tap into when times get tough.

I understand the challenges that Accomack County faces, but they want this land to not necessarily put unemployed people back to work; they want this land to attract the lucrative aerospace industry to the Eastern Shore, not to build a job-training facility.

I urge support for the amendment. It assures that the taxpayer is protected.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Grijalva

Amendment No. 1:

At the end of the bill, add the following:

(d) Consideration.--Any instrument executed pursuant to

subsection (a), shall provide that--

(1) in consideration for the land described in subsection

(c), Accomack County, Virginia, shall pay the United States

the fair market value of the land (on the date of the

enactment of this Act) under terms approved by the Secretary

of the Interior from revenues generated by the sale, rent, or

lease of the land; and

(2) the land described in subsection (c) shall be appraised

in accordance with nationally recognized appraisal standards

(including the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land

Acquisitions and the Uniform Standards of Professional

Appraisal Practice) by an independent appraiser selected by

the Secretary of the Interior and Accomack County, Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Gadsden Elementary School District #32 Marching Band for their accomplishments as a student band and as representatives of the city of San Luis.

Gadsden Elementary School is in the San Luis, a city located in the Southwest corner of the State of Arizona on the border of San Luis Rio Colorado, Mexico. The school's marching band, the Pride of San Luis, is composed of 180 talented students and 15 dancers in grades 4 8. Director J Martin Peralta, Jr. and Music Coordinator Martin Peralta, Sr. have led this group of young men and women to countless victories, including first place awards in the Lake Havasu, Parada Del Sol Parade in Scottsdale, Arizona, the APS Phoenix Light Parade, as well as in the local Somerton Founder's Day Parade and the Yuma Lights Parade and most recently have been invited to the London Days Bridge Parade. Luis Marquez, Board President, said that ``Listening to the marching band is like listening to an amazing group of professionals: they have the enthusiasm, character, and talent they need to keep making a great job everywhere they go.''

The Pride of San Luis is comprised of more than just talented musicians; they are exemplary scholars. Raymond V. Aguilera, Superintendent of Schools, said that ``[m]any of the band members go on to receive college credit during High School, take the ACT test and qualify for the Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth Program. The band's alumni have attended or will attend university programs throughout the country''. This group of hard working young people brings hope and pride to local residents. As William and Ellen Kiley stated: ``For those who worry about the future of our country, you have only to look at these young people to feel reassured that all will be well''.

The parents, teachers, and citizens of San Luis cannot be more proud of their hometown marching band. Juan Carlos Escamilla, Mayor of the City of San Luis, declared: ``It is truly an honor. I'm so very proud of every single one of our kids. I'm so proud as a parent. I know they have a very strong goal. If any organization could do it--it's this group. They will make it happen.'' Music Coordinator Martin Peralta Sr. articulated it best: ``Esta generacon de estudiantes van a hacer historia y la experiencia que van a hacer historia ya que movera al mundo con su musica donde cada uno de los ciudadanos del pais se van a sentir orgullosos de ellos''.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring these bright young student musicians and the adults that empower them to succeed.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1837, the San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act.

This legislation repeals existing State law and, frankly, leaves no State safe. If enacted, H.R. 1837 would set an unprecedented standard of State preemption. As a member of the Subcommitee on Water and Power, I am concerned that the opposition to this legislation, over 300 stakeholders, over seven States, the nonpartisan Western States Water Council, various

attorney generals from New Mexico to other States, have voiced their concern about the preemption and the concern about the intrusion into what has traditionally been a State's right in terms of water management.

If enacted, this unprecedented act of State preemption would be a precedent that brings many States' water settlements into question. In my State, Arizona, a diverse set of stakeholders, water users, Indian tribes, municipalities, the Federal Government were involved in lengthy years in reaching water agreements to try to balance the use of water in our State. They were crafted, they were difficult, they were delicate, but agreement happened, and now those are now being implemented throughout the State.

It raises question about that difficult process, particularly when you had tribal governments involved in these negotiations and are part of the settlement. By sovereignty, States' rights are preeminent in this question.

I urge Members to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the legislation. This bill is too controversial and should not be on the suspension calendar.

Last year the majority held a hearing on the issue in the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. The Park Service testified against the bill. It was also opposed by a range of national organizations--from fiscal conservatives and tax watchdogs to environmental conservationists.

This bill, it has already been stated, would create the first ever exemption to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for construction of a bridge in a protected river. This has never been done, and the question is, why now? This precedent for a $700 million mega-bridge that threatens all 203 protected rivers in 38 States should not be allowed to proceed, and it very much violates the no earmark pledge of the Republican majority.

Congresswoman McCollum and Congressman Ellison introduced a better bill, H.R. 3434, that removes congressional mandate from this bill that is under consideration and sets a spending cap to protect taxpayers.

I understand the need to create jobs. I understand the need to fix our falling infrastructure. There are over 2,000 bridges in Minnesota and Wisconsin that need immediate dire attention that would create jobs, and it would move the infrastructure needs of this country in a very, very direct way and in a very needed way.

This is a waste of taxpayers' money and a violation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

The bill we are debating today, H.R. 2117, eliminates the entire State authorization rule, including the establishment of a process for States to review and appropriately act

on student complaints concerning an institution. This amendment would make sure that those student-complaint provisions are retained.

Up until now in many States, a student who discovered that the program she is enrolled in is not providing the preparation she paid for or is not preparing her in the way that they suggested or has treated her unfairly would have little recourse in the way of complaint. Not all States have a complaint process in place, but these recently implemented rules established a State-based process for students to lodge a complaint.

This provision is a good idea. This process will help to shine light on programs and will give students and families an opportunity for recourse when they feel they have been misled or mistreated by an institution or a program. The vast majority of institutions work in a student's best interest and will seek to guide students and address concerns when they arise. This amendment ensures that students have a place to air their concerns when that is not the case.

I think we should maintain the student-protecting provision in the regulations by removing the provision that eliminates it in this bill. My amendment protects students and taxpayers by ensuring that each State has a process in place to receive and review student complaints and by promoting good practices and addressing abuses.

Last Congress, we worked hard to protect consumers from bad practices at credit card companies and banks. We should do the same for students. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

In closing, the underlying legislation, H.R. 2117, stacks the deck against due process and the ability for families and students to seek redress when institutions or programs deny them or mistreat them regarding the services that they've purchased and the education that they're seeking.

By reinserting that provision, we allow families and students to have redress, to have due process and to have a fair and balanced look at complaints they might have. It is simple, it is direct, and it merits remaining in the legislation.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this bill.

I do not even know where to start: Keystone XL; Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; Drilling of the coast of California; Throwing money at oil shale, an unproven technology with a horrible track record and no clear path to responsible development that will not create jobs or revenue for the Treasury. All of that is in this bill.

Reauthorization of the Surface Transportation bill should be a noncontroversial exercise that invests in roads, highways, bridges, tunnels, and waterways throughout the country. Bipartisan efforts in the past saw this reauthorization as a key jobs creator and reinvestment tool for America to reinvest in its physical infrastructure and regain its competitive advantage. For the first time since the creation of the Interstate Highway System in 1956, this Transportation bill does not contain a single high priority infrastructure project.

Instead, this bill intends to pay for reauthorization of the transportation bill with some of the most controversial, partisan, and special interest-driven pieces of legislation considered by this Republican-controlled House.

This bill would open the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to onshore oil extraction. Home to elk, caribou, gray wolves and polar bears, the refuge is one of the most pristine pieces of wilderness anywhere on Earth. It was set aside as a refuge on a bipartisan basis. Now, the majority wants to throw that away and allow large oil companies to suck massive profits out of our Nation's public resources.

Even with expanded drilling in some of the most sensitive ecosystems in North America, this proposal would only generate less than 2 percent of the revenue needed to support the transportation projects the bill authorizes over the next 5 years.

With the President's wise decision to wait on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, Republicans are now trying anything they can move it through without review or public support. This bill would shift authority for approval from the State Department to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), even though FERC is not responsible for overseeing or regulating oil pipeline siting or safety.

This bill would not ask FERC to review the pipeline; it would mandate that FERC authorize the construction of Keystone XL. If they refuse to approve it, the project would move ahead, ignoring important environmental protocol.

Despite our Nation's recent investments in clean, homegrown, energy choices for Americans, we are rushing through a pipeline that will import dirty oil from Canada to a port in Texas so it can be exported to other countries. This is not the way to make this sort of decision.

At the beginning of last year, the Republican majority promised an open and transparent Congress that would include single item bills, sufficient time for review, and bills under an open rule. Today, we are on the House floor debating a 200-page section of a 900-page transportation bill.

We were promised a Congress focused on jobs and continued efforts to bolster our Nation's economic recovery. Instead, we have been given a year of political games and a paralyzed legislative branch.

Let's start over and work on a bill that will make our roads safer, modernize our highways and create real, long lasting jobs.

I urge my colleagues to vote NO.

Madam Chair, the clock is ticking, Republicans are playing games, and people are hurting. Republicans care more about their singular goal of defeating Obama in November than helping people that are hurting and helping the middle class. This latest chapter on the extension of unemployment benefit adds to an already sordid and sad story.

Last December, Republicans threatened to lay off over 1 million Americans by refusing to extend unemployment benefits. House Republicans are now pushing a plan that would reduce

unemployment benefits for 3 million Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. This plan is wrong. It's wrong for the middle class, and it's wrong for people who are trying to find jobs.

It is time that the Republican majority brought a real jobs plan to this floor that will create real jobs and put the American people to work. When they're working, our economy is fine. When they're working, our small businesses are fine. Rather than acknowledge these facts and these realities, Republicans in Congress seem intent on blaming the unemployed for unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize The Humane Society of Southern Arizona, which provides services in my district, and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) for their efforts to help save the lives of shelter animals in the Tucson area. The ASPCA has awarded a $10,000 grant to The Humane Society of Southern Arizona to support their hard work and innovation in finding homes for animals.

The Humane Society of Southern Arizona is one of 56 animal rescue organizations nationwide that are receiving grant funding for the ASPCA's ``Mega Match-a-thon'' event, which will take place this spring. The ASPCA is granting nearly half a million dollars to support a host of large-scale adoption events nationwide in an effort to save more lives of shelter animals.

Over its 145 year history, it has been a priority of the ASPCA to help create a nation of humane communities; places where homeless animals are not killed simply because of the lack of space or resources. The Humane Society of Southern Arizona shares this commitment to the humane treatment of animals and stands as an example for communities and shelters nationwide.

On behalf of the citizens and animals of Arizona, I am proud to congratulate both The Humane Society of Southern Arizona and the ASPCA for their continued commitment to protecting animals.

I rise in support of House Resolution 364, which enshrines the meeting room in the visitors center in the name of Gabe Zimmerman.

My colleagues have retold the tragedy that happened in Tucson in January, the deaths, the injuries; and as we recover from that trauma, led by the courage and strength of Congresswoman Giffords, this moment is an important moment as we commemorate the sacrifice and honor the service of Gabe Zimmerman.

I want to quote from the statement that his mom made, Emily, at a press conference on July 20: ``It's right to honor Gabe here, at the Capitol, where Congress is charged with responding to the needs of those people who stood in that line, at that grocery store, to all Americans, by crafting our Nation's laws. While he was the first congressional staff person in the United States' history to be killed in the line of duty, it's not his death, but his work and his ideals that should be recognized here, ideals shared by thousands of congressional staff people over hundreds of years of our Nation's history.

``Gabe thought a lot about and cared a lot about the importance of civic engagement in an open and civil society. That concept, that goal, which is a cornerstone of our democracy, can be remembered in this room, along with an idealistic young man who died.''

I think his mom said it best.

So as we honor Gabe, we honor those staff people that work for us, that sometimes make us look better than we are; to those staff people that work for us that sometimes have to deal with the controversies which we create, and in doing so, they extend service and support to the people that we represent.

There is no finer example than Gabe Zimmerman, and I'm honored to support this resolution and honored to be from a community that Gabe was from.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Saguaro National Park for their participation in the 2011 BioBlitz, sponsored by the National Geographic Society and the National Park Service. Starting in 2007 and leading up to the National Park Service's Centennial in 2016, only one national park from among the park service's 395 units is selected each year to host the nationally recognized event. This year, Saguaro National Park and the community of Tucson have been chosen for this honor. The 2011 Saguaro BioBlitz is the fifth of 10 events, with Tucson joining the communities of Washington DC, Los Angeles, Chicago and Miami as a host.

The 2011 BioBlitz, to be held this October, is an exciting 24-hour race to find, identify and count as many plants and animal species as possible inside Saguaro National Park. Teams of students and the general public will be partnered with scientists and experts in fields of biology, ecology and botany to scour the park and work together to do the counting. For two days surrounding the event, Saguaro National Park will simultaneously host a Biodiversity Festival, where the public can interact with scientists as they come in from the field to identify and catalog species. One thing is clear; the BioBlitz will introduce many to some of the most ecologically valuable lands in the Sonoran Desert: Unique topography, rare desert flora; scenic and recreation opportunities; and prime habitat for a host of desert creatures.

Saguaro National Park is a shining example of the Sonoran Desert's magnificent beauty and biodiversity. First established as a National Monument in 1933 for the purpose of protecting the giant Saguaro Cactus and then designated a National Park by President Bill Clinton in 1994, Saguaro National Park has been part of the Tucson community for over 75 years. Today, the National Park Service works to preserve desert, mountain and riparian habitats in the Tucson and Rincon Mountains. Saguaro National Park covers 91,327 acres and, of that acreage, 78 percent is designated wilderness. This land was not just preserved for its scenic views but also for its ecological wonders that must continue to be explored by the young and old, alike.

As the 2016 Centennial approaches, there is a consensus that this milestone must be viewed as an opportunity to recommit ourselves to protecting and preserving our National Park System. It is events such as this that will create new generations of stewards to safeguard our National Parks for the next 100 years. In direct alignment with the White House's America's Great Outdoors initiative and the National Park Service's Call to Action, the BioBlitz gets kids outside, connecting communities with our public lands.

Saguaro National Park, its staff, and the volunteers are vital players in the protection of America's public lands. As Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands and having seen our

community grow to over a million people during my lifetime, I know the importance of protecting our beloved desert. Saguaro National Park is a vital part of not only my community's history, but this Nation's history. I know that the BioBlitz will help teach our youth about the importance of protecting these special places, fostering greater appreciation, enjoyment, and stewardship for the future.

I congratulate Saguaro National Park and its staff for being part of the BioBlitz experience.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Rebecca Flanagan for her public service.

Rebecca Flanagan was selected on March 24, 2002, as Director for the Field Office of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in Phoenix, Arizona and for the last 2 years has taken on the responsibility of the Tucson Office jurisdiction, as well. Rebecca is the senior management official for the close to 100 staff. She ensures that HUD's current and prospective customers gain the necessary access to the whole range of HUD services. She provides communities with technical expertise and continues to foster and develop public/private partnerships, and sustains her involvement within various community organizations.

Rebecca represents the Department throughout the State of Arizona to ensure effective and coordinated customer service and public relations.

Rebecca began her career 34 years ago with HUD as an Equal Opportunity Specialist in Denver, Colorado. She was hired to outreach to the Hispanic community to ensure their inclusion and access to HUD's programs business opportunities, and employment.

Rebecca transferred to Los Angeles and worked in the Community Planning and Development Division for the Los Angeles Office of HUD for 10 years, developing and sharing her expertise in community development with both large (ex. Los Angeles County) and small (ex. Santa Paula) communities within the greater L.A. area.

In 1990, Rebecca moved with her two high school aged sons to Phoenix after being selected as the Deputy Manager for the Phoenix HUD office. During her tenure, she was able to develop a number of key local policies including, the use of ``cash on hand'' by FHA borrowers to qualify using a down payment that was saved at home and not in a bank. It was very clear that in order to provide FHA insurance to the local underserved market of Hispanic and immigrant populations in Phoenix, that a policy like this was needed to allow these creditworthy borrowers to provide so-called ``mattress money'' as well as ensure that the prospective borrower was providing his/her own money. Another party to the transaction, namely the real estate agent or homebuilder, could not give the money. Given the policy's success in Phoenix, it has been adopted nationally by HUD.

During the last few years she developed a number of important partnerships for the Office including a HUD/DES partnership in which for the first time, the Arizona Department of Economic Security and HUD are jointly focused on their mutual clients living in public and assisted housing striving to become self-sufficient. Rebecca continues this focus through her involvement with Maricopa Workforce Connections Board, which oversees the one-stop career centers within the County.

In addition, Rebecca has involved the Phoenix HUD Office staff and resources in a wide range of community activities such as Job Fairs, Minority Appraiser Training, Adopt-a-School Programs, Summer Youth Programs, Homeownership education and fairs, and Faith-based conferences, all in support of HUD's mission and initiatives.

Rebecca is especially proud of her past community development efforts in the local Wilson neighborhood, located just east of Downtown Phoenix. After being the Principal for the Day she heeded the request from the school to ``be a role model and help provide housing for the neighborhood''. Rebecca created a coalition of school and neighborhood representatives, stakeholder businesses and agencies to assist in meeting the unmet needs of the Wilson students and their families. Rebecca was instrumental in getting the first 4 homes built in the Wilson area in over 40 years. Rebecca proudly mentored a young girl through high school, and tutored another young student in reading.

Rebecca was influential in bringing together Arizona leaders in business, industry, banks and non-profits, for a ``peer to peer'' meeting with the Mayor of San Jose and their leaders. The Arizona group flew to San Jose in the first ever endeavor by HUD's Phoenix Office, in gathering a prestigious assemblage of housing experts for a roundtable forum discussion of affordable housing. The meeting enlightened attendees about San Jose's strides and actual accomplishments to incorporate their best practices here in Arizona. Soon, other groups branched out to address the issue of affordable housing by formulizing meetings and conferences, dialogs, summits, and other ongoing efforts to continue to assess the need for affordable housing within our communities.

Rebecca earned a Bachelor of Arts Degree with a major in Sociology, from the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). She is married to Ray Lechuga, a local businessman, the proud mother of two (2) grown sons, Andres and Daniel Benites, and the proudest of all Nanas to Erin's and Andres' real live angels, Raven, Willow and Ivy and Jennifer and Daniel's angel Diego.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mental Illness Awareness Week. Every year the American Psychiatric Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the National Mental Health Association designate one week in October to put the spotlight on mental illness and the associated policy issues. This year we recognize this important time on October 2nd through 8th.

Mental illness doesn't discriminate. One in five Americans bear mental illness, ranging from mild depression to severe disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. One in five children endures a diagnosable disorder and one in ten children suffer from a serious disorder which, if unaddressed, can lead to poor school performance, social anxiety and seclusion and even violence against themselves and other people. Unfortunately, less than one-third of adults and less than half of children receive treatment for diagnosed serious disorders, leading to an average lifespan 25 years less than the general population.

Organizations like the American Psychiatric Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the National Mental Health Association and their field partners work with municipal and state governments to make sure those who need care have access to it. In my district and around the country, local governments such as the Pima County Board of Supervisors are working diligently to ensure high-quality, cost- efficient community mental healthcare is available.

However, there is still much work to be done. When there is a lack of mental healthcare in a community, we see more lost jobs, more people out on the streets and more broken families. Often these communities see more emergency room visits, larger prison populations and higher social services costs all around. We must stay diligent in addressing mental illness and always stay focused on the individual.

Again, I want to recognize these organizations for their important work, and I urge those who need help to ask for it.

Mr. Speaker, this summer I took part in the Speak Out for Good Jobs Now! Rebuild the American Dream tour. Thousands of concerned Americans packed rooms across this country to share their stories of hardship, unemployment, and struggle. From these stories, my colleagues in the Congressional Progressive Caucus and I wrote the Rebuild the American Dream Jobs Framework, which outlines how we will put America back to work and get our economy moving again. I wanted to take some time today to share some of the stories and realities that we heard on this tour.

My first story is from Kimberly Lawrence from my State of Arizona. She says, ``I waited more than 30 years to finally receive a modest inheritance from my grandmother's property. I used the money to make improvements on my home that my husband and I were buying, and to open my own childcare business. It happened that the year I opened is the same year the economy failed. I struggled to hold on, but when the new Governor of Arizona stripped away childcare subsidies and at the same time raised licensing fees by 200 percent, I lost nearly all of my clientele.

``I lived in a town that relied on hospitality jobs, which, coupled with all else, crippled the local economy and forced me out of business. My husband was laid off from his cabinet-maker job. And now, after struggling, our home is in foreclosure and set for auction. Everything I hoped for had finally taken shape, just to be ripped away. I have since left my husband and am now searching for a job in California. I have been applying and sending resumes for 6 months now and have had only two interviews. I am 50 years old, sleeping on my sister's couch, with nothing to look forward to in my retirement. I suppose I simply won't have that pleasure.''

The next story comes from Bhisma Ramdass of Florida:

``I live in Palm Beach County. I work for the largest hospital corporation in the world. I also had another job to make ends meet.

``I had a daughter that was born premature. The economy got bad. I lost money from the other job. Took time off to care for my wife and baby. Unable to make full payments to Chase for the mortgage, they eventually foreclosed my home. My wife and three girls moved out. Chase got money from the Federal Government for my house, and they got my house. Do I owe them money if they sell my house for less than I owe? Is that fair? I have worked hard since I was 15 years old. I have provided for my family and gladly pay my taxes. Is that fair?''

The final story is also from Arizona, Thom Reiser:

``I'm retired and moderately well off financially. I've been doing a great deal of research on the economy and the history of these United States. I believe the middle class has suffered very much in the past 30 years. There's been a great shift of wealth. However, my greatest concern is for the present economy. We need to put people back to work. A second stimulus is needed, but aimed directly at the jobless. Much of these funds should be given to states for immediate relief. Teachers, police, firefighters, and many others have lost their jobs, plus others that have to create jobs and infrastructure on our roads. Also, those unemployed should be retrained to do useful work while they're unemployed. Thank you for listening.''

The American people are demanding we do something to get America back to work. These were just three of the stories we heard. I hope that we listened, and I hope that all of Congress listened. The urgency is jobs. The demand from the American people is jobs. And our responsibility is to provide the American people with the opportunities of employment and a secure future.