Amendment Text: H.Amdt.844 — 112th Congress (2011-2012)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (10/26/2011)

This Amendment appears on page H7104-7105 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H7090-H7107]
      SOUTHEAST ARIZONA LAND EXCHANGE AND CONSERVATION ACT OF 2011

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1904.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Scott of South Carolina). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 444 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1904.

                              {time}  1321


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1904) to facilitate the efficient extraction of mineral resources 
in southeast Arizona by authorizing and directing an exchange of 
Federal and non-Federal land, and for other purposes, with Mr. Murphy 
of Pennsylvania in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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

[[Page H7091]]

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. GRIJALVA. 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.

                              {time}  1330

  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.

[[Page H7092]]

  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. HASTINGS of Washington. 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. GOSAR. I rise today in support of my legislation, H.R. 1904, the 
Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act, legislation that 
will create new American jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign sources 
of energy and minerals, protect high-profile conservation lands, and 
generate revenue for Federal and State treasuries.
  In this time of serious economic hardship, Congress must engage in 
serious debate over serious issues. What should not guide Congress is 
an endless game of unfounded attacks that lead to trumped-up fear-
mongering to gain political advantage, particularly, in this case, the 
fear of robots.
  This legislation is a real job creator. I would like to tell a story 
about Chris Astor, a current employee at the mine site and a member of 
the San Carlos Apache Tribe. Chris grew up attending public schools on 
the San Carlos Apache Reservation and graduated from high school in 
nearby Globe. In 2010, Chris was among those in the first group of the 
Resolution Experience participants--a paid 3-week program Resolution 
launched in the summer of 2010 to introduce potential employees to the 
world of mining. Each participant receives a Mining Safety and Health 
Administration-certified training and then is exposed to the various 
work disciplines within Resolution Copper. Following this 3-week 
program, many of the program participants are hired by the company or 
its contractors. Among the hired employees was Chris Astor.
  Chris is one of seven San Carlos Apaches who have been hired by 
Resolution Copper or its contractor since the program began in the 
summer of 2010. Chris now works as a core handler--one of a seven-
member crew that retrieves drill core samples from the rigs that do the 
project. I've had the blessing of doing this in my own life for my dad. 
Under the guidance of geologists, the core handlers log, process, and 
archive core samples with geologists and mine engineers helping them to 
rely on and understand the nature of the ore body. ``I would like to 
eventually try different jobs, get a broader view, learn and grow into 
a supervisory role,'' Chris says. ``I also want to be trained to work 
underground.''
  Prior to the Resolution Experience, Chris worked at the Pinto Valley 
copper mine, an open-pit mine a few miles northeast of Resolution 
Projects, which is owned by BHP-Billiton. However, this mine is 
currently closed. Before joining Resolution Experience, Chris had been 
out of work for more than a year.
  Chris is now a 31-year-old father of three children, ages 13, 9, and 
5. With his stable, good-paying job, including great medical and 
benefits, Chris is able to confidently support his family. ``I can take 
care of my kids better and provide what they need--and sometimes even 
what they want,'' he says.
  Life was not always good for Chris. He grew up as an only child 
raised by his mother and grandparents. He spent most of his childhood 
on the reservation. ``We went where my mom could find work,'' he says. 
``I never knew my dad.'' Chris feels fortunate to have a job and to 
live on the reservation, where more than 80 percent of the residents 
live in poverty and seven out of 10 eligible workers are unemployed.
  It is true that modern mining technology uses high-tech equipment to 
accomplish certain tasks. This is done for efficiency's sake and for 
the sake of worker safety. Mining is a potentially hazardous task and 
certainly a difficult one that must be done with precision.
  Chris is not a robot. You can still see there is a need for people to 
run the mine, to drive the trucks, to feed the workers, to drill the 
holes, to engineer the dig, to build the structures, to process the 
minerals, and, yes, build, maintain and control technology. Chris is a 
real human being operating this technology already at the site whose 
life has benefited greatly from this project. If we pass this 
legislation, over 3,700 more success stories like Chris's will come to 
fruition.
  I urge my colleagues to continue this debate with serious discussions 
about the facts about this bill, not scare tactics.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. 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.)
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman 
from Arizona for the courtesy.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that I have been working on for 
probably the last 10 years. And one of the interests that I have on 
this issue is because I was born in and grew up in this copper triangle 
that we're talking about today.

                              {time}  1340

  It's a beautiful area, and at one time, copper was the industry for 
this Copper Triangle. Yet, over the past 20-25 years, many of the mines 
have shut down, and copper production has stopped in Arizona. So I have 
to tell you that my interest in this land exchange would be the 
possible economic development of this area.
  I travel through this area because my mom still lives up in Miami, 
Arizona, where I was born and raised. I travel regularly, at least once 
a month, through these canyons. I can tell you that it's the most 
beautiful sight, about 85 miles east of Phoenix, where you can still 
see a fine, pristine environment with some of the most spectacular rock 
formations you'll ever see in this country. It's very beautiful, but 
it's also an area that has been hit by some hard times.
  I grew up in a mining town, so I know what a mining town is. During 
the summers, while I was attending Arizona State University, I'd go to 
work in the mines. I worked in the leaching plant, the electrolytic 
plant, the leaching tanks, the ball mills, and the moly plant, so I 
have the experience of knowing this type of life. I know the economic 
boom that copper mining can bring to a community, but I also have 
experience with the adverse impact that copper mining can have, not 
only on the people who work there, but also on the environment. I have 
seen both sides.
  It's with that interest that I have seen the evolution of this 
debate. At one time, even I sponsored a bill that would deal with the 
economic development of these mining towns--Superior, Globe-Miami, et 
cetera. The area that we're talking about being exchanged, is an area I 
know well. As a kid growing up, we used this area for a picnic site, 
and in some cases, when we didn't go to school, that's where we would 
have our impromptu picnics. So I know this area.
  I have to tell you, with regard to the issue of jobs, as will be 
discussed, I

[[Page H7093]]

guess ``a number of jobs'' is in the eye of the beholder. Mining has 
changed, and I know that it's a different type of mining now from the 
one I experienced. We can debate the number of jobs, but I will tell 
you that this will bring some economic development to these areas of 
the Copper Triangle. That I cannot deny. Yet the issue for me is at 
what price.
  At what price do we bring this economic development without some 
protection to the environment and without some protection to an 
employee's rights?
  There is no debate that this ore deposit has some of the richest ore 
bodies. Copper, gold, silver, molybdenum, and other rare metals will be 
mined here. It's one of the richest deposits of ore not only in North 
America but probably in this world. That's why Resolution Copper has 
maintained 8 years, 9 years, 10 years of trying to get this bill done, 
because they know how rich this deposit is.
  So at what price do we pay for this economic boom?
  Mr. Chairman, I will tell you of the differences I have with the 
sponsor of this bill. But, first, I have to thank him because 
Representative Gosar reached out very early, and we talked about this 
particular bill. He has improved the bill I sponsored, but I feel that 
he has not gone far enough.
  This bill would be highly improved if the amendment offered today 
that gives an 8 percent royalty fee on the extraction of the ore would 
be adopted, making the bill more fair to the American public. If that 
amendment is adopted, obviously, it will be very difficult to oppose 
this bill; but if the amendment is not adopted, then, Mr. Chairman, the 
American public will be paying too high a price for the economic 
development of the Copper Triangle. The only enrichment will be for 
those copper companies that are foreign based.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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. QUAYLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1904, a bill 
authored by my good friend and fellow Arizonan, Congressman Gosar, that 
will create thousands of jobs in Arizona.
  I want to commend Chairman Hastings for his work on this and for 
bringing it to the floor today.
  What we see right now is a jobs crisis that we have in America. We 
need to be able to unleash the ingenuity of our job creators. We also 
have to make sure that we're not putting up barriers for people to 
actually start companies, expand companies and hire new workers.
  H.R. 1904 will have broad economic impacts, not only for Arizona but 
for the country as a whole, because it will create 3,700 jobs equaling 
nearly $220.5 million in annual wages. These are good, high-paying jobs 
right here in America. It will also generate nearly $20 billion in 
Federal, State, county, and local tax revenue.
  This is a win-win. Not only is this legislation completely paid for, 
but it also ensures that mining is done in a responsible manner because 
H.R. 1904 requires full compliance with NEPA and because it requires 
tribal consultation prior to mine construction.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, copper is a vital mineral that we have in the 
United States and across the world. It's going to continue to be vital 
because it's a critical mineral that is widely used in construction, 
telecommunications, electricity, and transportation. Copper is also 
extremely conductive, which makes it very important in power generation 
and utility transmission.
  Our actual desire and demand for copper is just going to continue to 
go up. That's why we've actually started to import close to 30 percent 
of our copper from foreign countries. Now, if we actually open up this 
mine and allow this land swap to happen, this project alone could 
provide us with enough copper to meet 25 percent of current U.S. 
demand. By taking advantage of American sources of copper, we can 
prevent supply disruptions and decrease our dependence on foreign 
imports. Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, this bill will create 
thousands of American jobs in a responsible manner at no cost to the 
taxpayer.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. 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. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the New Deal was a jobs plan. President Obama has put 
forward a jobs plan.
  H.R. 1904 is not a jobs plan. H.R. 1904 is a massive payout to 
multinational mining giants that are wearing a jobs plan as a disguise. 
That disguise is slipping. Real jobs are about making wise investments 
in businesses and technologies that put Americans to work. This bill 
just gives billions of dollars in copper to foreign mining companies 
for free.

                              {time}  1350

  Let's do the math. Estimates vary on the value of the copper from $2 
billion to $7 billion or $8 billion. So let's just split the difference 
down the middle and say that the copper might be worth $5 billion. The 
jobs claims for this bill vary wildly as well from 500 to 5,000 jobs.
  Now, there is a good reason to believe the jobs numbers will be on 
the very low end, but let's be optimistic and take the highest jobs 
claim possible.
  So supporters of this bill are going to give away $5 billion in hopes 
of creating 5,000 jobs. Well, that's $1 million per job, Mr. Chairman, 
$1 million not paid necessarily to the workers themselves but to 
foreign mining giants. Now, is that the kind of wise investment that we 
need? I do not think so.
  I think that we need some new jobs, but they should be real jobs. 
They should be here.
  Much of the work that's going to be done in this mining is going to 
be done by robots. So there will be full employment for R2-D2 and for 
the transformers; but the total number of jobs here, very speculative 
and very expensive per job created. That's the real question here 
because I think many human beings are just going to remain unemployed 
under this plan.
  And since it's a multinational that gets the benefits, there will be 
plenty of accountants and lawyers in London and Melbourne, all around 
the world, that will be employed, but in America, not so many. And 
those that are there, very expensive, especially since the per capita 
cost is very, very high.
  Now, why do we know that? Well, we know it because Rio Tinto and BHP-
Billiton stand to pocket an enormous amount of money, billions of 
dollars, off of this deal.
  So if you count the chauffeurs, if you count the food service workers 
in the executive dining rooms of these companies, well, you can see 
where there will be some jobs that are created if you're adding it up 
that way.
  But the truth is, this is a windfall, a windfall, which is why I am 
going to make an amendment to charge a reasonable royalty for the 
privilege of mining this copper on public lands in the United States. 
And when the majority votes ``no'' on that, when the Republicans say, 
no, we don't want a royalty payment that can actually be collected by 
the American people, we'll see what the real aim of this is, which is 
to privatize this resource for multinational corporations without 
giving the full benefit to the American taxpayer for the copper which 
is mined.
  Mr. Grijalva and Mr. Garamendi will offer an amendment to require 
local hiring and local ore processing and Make It in America, make it 
here and have Americans working here doing this work, people from 
Arizona itself. That's the real debate that we're going to have.
  In conclusion, Mr. Lujan as well will offer an amendment to protect 
Native American sacred sites from being destroyed by this bill. And 
when that is defeated as well by the majority, it will

[[Page H7094]]

be painfully clear just how far they are willing to go to enrich these 
foreign corporations.
  This should not be a Filene's Basement sale. This should not be a 
fire sale giving away American valuable copper resources to 
multinationals. We should be able to put a price tag on what the 
American people are getting from this bargain basement sale, this 
giveaway, without proper compensation given to the American taxpayer.
  That's what this bill and the debate is going to be all about. It's 
whether or not, in fact, there is corporate profiteering at taxpayer 
expense, plain and simple, which is at the heart of this bill. History 
will record that when the public cried out for a jobs plan to put 
Americans back to work, what was put together was a retirement plan for 
executives at Rio Tinto and BHP-Billiton that did not, in fact, get a 
return on investment for the American taxpayers.

    The National Congress of American Indians Resolution #MKE-11-0xx


     TITLE: OPPOSITION TO H.R. 1904, PROPOSING A LAND EXCHANGE IN 
       SOUTHEASTERN ARIZONA FOR THE PURPOSE OF MINING OPERATIONS

       Whereas, we, the members of the National Congress of 
     American Indians of the United States, invoking the divine 
     blessing of the Creator upon our efforts and purposes, in 
     order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the 
     inherent sovereign rights of our Indian nations, rights 
     secured under Indian treaties and agreements with the United 
     States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are 
     entitled under the laws and Constitution of the United 
     States, to enlighten the public toward a better understanding 
     of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and 
     otherwise promote the health, safety and welfare of the 
     Indian people, do hereby establish and submit the following 
     resolution, and
       Whereas, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) 
     was established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest 
     national organization of American Indian and Alaska Native 
     tribal governments; and
       Whereas, H.R. 1904, entitled ``Southeast Arizona Land 
     Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011,'' was introduced by 
     Arizona District 1 Congressman, Paul Gosar, on May 13, 2011, 
     to approve a federal land exchange to transfer to the 
     ownership of Resolution Copper, a joint venture of two 
     foreign mining companies, Rio Tinto, PLC and BHP Billiton, 
     Ltd., over 2,400 acres of federal lands located within the 
     Tonto National Forest for purposes of an unprecedented block 
     cave copper mine; and
       Whereas, the federal lands which are proposed to be 
     exchanged, which are generally known as Oak Flat, are within 
     the ancestral lands of certain Arizona Indian tribes, and 
     these land's are of unique religious, cultural, traditional, 
     and archeological significance to American Indian tribes in 
     this region; and
       Whereas, H R. 1904 would require Congress to lift the 
     decades old ban against mining within the 760 acres of the 
     Oak Flat Withdrawal which was expressly set aside from mining 
     by President Eisenhower in 1955 due to the land's value for 
     recreation and other important purposes; and
       Whereas, the mining proposed for Oak Flat will destroy the 
     religious, cultural and traditional integrity of Oak Flat for 
     American Indian tribes affiliated with the area, and it will 
     cause serious and highly damaging environmental consequences 
     to the water, wildlife, plants, and other natural ecosystems 
     of the area; and
       Whereas, the block cave mining method to be employed at Oak 
     Flat will also cause the collapse of the surface of the earth 
     and endanger the historic terrain at Apache Leap, Oak Flat, 
     and Gaan Canyon, as well as in the surrounding countryside; 
     and
       Whereas, the mining activity would deplete and contaminate 
     water resources from nearby watersheds and aquifers leaving 
     in its wake long term and in some cases, permanent religious, 
     cultural and environmental damage; and
       Whereas, although we are not opposed to mining in general, 
     this form of mining and mining in this location does not make 
     sense, is offensive to us, and would pose a danger to many 
     important values of this region; and
       Whereas, the National Congress of American Indians has 
     adopted resolutions in the past opposing this mining project 
     at Oak Flat and the land exchange to be facilitated by H.R. 
     1904; and
       Whereas, the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. has 
     adopted resolutions in the past opposing this mining project 
     at Oak Flat and land exchange, and most recently adopted 
     Resolution 0311 on May 20, 2011, opposing H.R 1904; and
       Whereas, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the Fort McDowell 
     Yavapai Nation, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, and other 
     Tribes have opposed this land exchange due to the 
     environmental consequences to the land in the proposed mining 
     area, as well as the harm to religious, cultural, 
     archeological, and historic resources from the proposed 
     mining by the huge foreign mining companies; and now 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved, that the National Congress of American Indians 
     oppose H.R. 1904, providing for a land exchange in 
     southeastern Arizona for the purpose of mining by Resolution 
     Copper; and be it further
       Resolved, that this resolution shall be the policy of NCAI 
     until it is withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution.
                                  ____


            Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Resolution 0311


 In Opposition to H.R. 1904, Proposing a Land Exchange in Southeastern 
              Arizona for the Purpose of Mining Operations

       Whereas, the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (ITCA), an 
     organization of twenty tribal governments in Arizona, 
     provides a forum for tribal governments to advocate for 
     national, regional and specific tribal concerns and to join 
     in united action to address those concerns; and
       Whereas, the member Tribes of the Inter Tribal Council of 
     Arizona have the authority to act to further their collective 
     interests as sovereign tribal governments; and
       Whereas, the member Tribes of the ITCA have the charge to 
     support the sovereign right of Indian nations, tribes, and 
     communities on matters directly affecting them upon their 
     request; and
       Whereas, H.R. 1904, entitled ``Southeast Arizona Land 
     Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011'', was introduced by 
     District 1 Congressman, Paul Gosar, on May 13, 2011, to 
     approve a federal land exchange to transfer to the ownership 
     of Resolution Copper, a joint venture of two foreign mining 
     companies, Rio Tinto, PLC and BHP Billiton, Ltd., over 2,400 
     acres of federal lands located within the Tonto National 
     Forest for purposes of an unprecedented block cave copper 
     mine; and
       Whereas, the federal lands which are proposed to be 
     exchanged, which are generally known as Oak Flat, are within 
     the ancestral lands of certain Arizona Indian tribes, and 
     these lands are of unique religious, cultural, traditional, 
     and archeological significance to American Indian tribes in 
     this region; and
       Whereas, H.R. 1904 would require Congress to lift the 
     decades old ban against mining within the 760 acres of the 
     Oak Flat Withdrawal which was expressly set aside from mining 
     by President Eisenhower in 1955 due to the lands value for 
     recreation and other important purposes; and
       Whereas, the mining proposed for Oak Flat will destroy the 
     religious, cultural and traditional integrity of Oak Flat for 
     American Indian tribes affiliated with the area, and it will 
     cause serious and highly damaging environmental consequences 
     to the water, wildlife, plants, and other natural ecosystems 
     of the area; and
       Whereas, the block cave mining method to be employed at Oak 
     Flat will also cause the collapse of the surface of the earth 
     and endanger the historic terrain at Apache Leap, Oak Flat, 
     and Gaan Canyon, as well as in the surrounding country side; 
     and
       Whereas, the mining activity would deplete and contaminate 
     water resources from nearby watersheds and aquifers leaving 
     in its wake long term and in some cases, permanent religious, 
     cultural and environmental damage; and
       Whereas, although we are not opposed to mining in general, 
     this form of mining and mining in this location does not make 
     sense, is offensive to us, and would pose a danger to many 
     important values of this region; and
       Whereas, the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona has adopted 
     resolutions in the past opposing this mining project at Oak 
     Flat and the land exchange to be facilitated by H.R. 1904; 
     and
       Whereas, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the Fort McDowell 
     Yavapai Nation, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, and other 
     Tribes have opposed this land exchange due to the 
     environmental consequences to the land in the proposed mining 
     area, as well as the harm to religious, cultural, 
     archeological, and historic resources from the proposed 
     mining by the huge foreign mining companies; and now 
     therefore be it
       Resolved, that the member Tribes of ITCA oppose H.R. 1904, 
     providing for a land exchange in southeastern Arizona for the 
     purpose of mining by Resolution Copper; and be it finally
       Resolved, that the ITCA inform all appropriate 
     Congressional Committees, the Arizona Delegation, and all 
     appropriate state and federal agencies of and the reasons for 
     this position.


                             CERTIFICATION

       The foregoing resolution was presented and duly adopted at 
     a meeting of the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona on May 20, 
     2011, where a quorum was present.

                                                   Shan Lewis,

                                  Vice-Chairman, Fort Mojave Tribe
     President, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona.
                                  ____


   Eight Northern Indian Pueblos Council Inc. Resolution No. 11-10-15


 In Opposition to H.R. 1904, Proposing a Land Exchange in Southeastern 
              Arizona for the Purpose of Mining Operations

       Whereas, the Eight Northern Indian Pueblos Council Inc. 
     (ENIPC, Inc.), believes in supporting the sovereign rights of 
     Indian nations, tribes, and communities on matters affecting 
     them upon request; and
       Whereas, traditional tribal life is rooted in a deep and 
     personal understanding of the natural world and the forces 
     that govern it; the source of tribal health, happiness, 
     strength, and balance is the natural world, making our 
     relationship with the natural world sacred; and
       Whereas, H.R. 1904, entitled ``Southeast Arizona Land 
     Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011,'' would approve a 
     federal land exchange to transfer to the ownership of 
     Resolution Copper over 2,400 acres of federal lands

[[Page H7095]]

     located within the Tonto National Forest for purposes of an 
     unprecedented block cave copper mine; and
       Whereas, the federal lands which are proposed to be 
     exchanged, which arc generally known as Oak Flat, are within 
     the ancestral lands of certain Indian tribes, and these lands 
     are of unique religious, cultural, traditional, and 
     archeological significance to American Indian tribes in this 
     region; and
       Whereas, H.R. 1904 would require Congress to lift the 
     decades old ban against mining within the 760 acres of the 
     Oak Flat Withdrawal which was expressly set aside from mining 
     by President Eisenhower in 1955 due to the land's value for 
     recreation and other important purposes; and
       Whereas, the mining proposed for Oak Flat will destroy the 
     religious, cultural and traditional integrity of Oak Flat for 
     American Indian tribes affiliated with the area, and it will 
     cause serious and highly damaging environmental consequences 
     to the water, wildlife, plants, and other natural ecosystems 
     of the area; and
       Whereas, the block cave mining method to be employed at Oat 
     Flat will also cause the collapse of the surface of the earth 
     and endanger the religious and historic terrain at Apache 
     Leap, Oak Flat, and Gaan Canyon, as well as in the 
     surrounding countryside; and
       Whereas, the mining activity would deplete and contaminate 
     water resources from nearby watersheds and aquifers leaving 
     in its wake long term and in some cases, permanent religious, 
     cultural and environment damage; and
       Whereas, the National Congress of American Indians, the 
     Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, the United South and Eastern 
     Tribes, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, and other Arizona and 
     New Mexico Tribes have opposed this land exchange due to the 
     harm to religious, cultural, archeological, and historic 
     resources, as well as the environmental consequences to the 
     land from the proposed mining activities; and now, therefore, 
     be it
       Resolved, that the Eight Northern Indian Pueblo Council, 
     Inc.'s Board of Governors firmly commit their support to 
     oppose H.R. 1904: Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and 
     Conservation Act of 2011; be it further
       Resolved, that the ENIPC Board of Governors will inform all 
     appropriate Congressional Committees, the New Mexico 
     Delegation, and all appropriate federal agencies of and the 
     reasons for this position; be it finally
       Resolved, that the Tribal Council is expressly authorized 
     to take any and all actions necessary to accomplish the 
     intent of this Resolution.


                             CERTIFICATION

       We hereby certify that Resolution No. 11-10-15 was 
     considered and adopted at an Eight Northern Indian Pueblos 
     Council, Inc., Board of Governors meeting held on October 18, 
     2011, and that a quorum was present and that the vote was 6 
     in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstained and 2 absent.
       Signed this 18th day of October 2011
     Governor Perry Martinez,
       Chairman, Pueblo de San Ildefonso.
     Governor Mark Mitchell,
       Pueblo of Tesuque.
     Governor Gerald Nailor,
       Pueblo of Picuris.
     Governor Nelson J. Cordova,
       Pueblo of Taos.
     Governor Ron Lovato,
       Vice Chairman, Ohkay Owingeh.
     Governor George Rivera,
       Pueblo of Pojoaque.
     Governor Ernest Mirabal,
       Pueblo of Nambe.
     Governor Walter Dasheno,
       Pueblo of Santa Clara.
           Attest:
     Rob Corabi,
       Interim Executive Director, Eight Northern Indian Pueblos 
     Council, Inc.
                                  ____


              All Indian Pueblo Council Resolution 2011-08


 In Opposition to H.R. 1904, Proposing a Land Exchange in Southeastern 
              Arizona for the Purpose of Mining Operations

       Whereas, the All Indian Pueblo Council (``AIPC'') is 
     comprised of the Pueblos of Acoma, Cochiti, Isleta, Laguna, 
     Jemez, Santa Ana, Sandia, San Felipe, Santo Domingo, Zia, 
     Zuni, Nambe, Picuris, Pojoaque, Santa Clara, San Ildefonso, 
     Ohkay Owingeh, Tesuque, Taos and 1 Sovereign Pueblo, Ysleta 
     Del Sur, located in the State of Texas and each possessing 
     inherent government authority and sovereignty over their 
     lands; and
       Whereas, the member Tribes of AIPC have the charge to 
     support the sovereign right of Indian nations, tribes, and 
     communities on matters affecting them upon request; and
       Whereas, H.R. 1904, entitled ``Southeast Arizona Land 
     Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011'', would approve a 
     federal land exchange to transfer to the ownership of 
     Resolution Copper over 2,400 acres of federal lands located 
     within the Tonto National Forest for purposes of an 
     unprecedented block cave copper mine; and
       Whereas, the federal lands which are proposed to be 
     exchanged, which are generally known as Oak Flat, are within 
     the ancestral lands of certain Arizona Indian tribes, and 
     these lands are of unique religious, cultural, traditional, 
     and archeological significance to American Indian tribes in 
     this region; and
       Whereas, H.R. 1904 would require Congress to lift the 
     decades old ban against mining within the 760 acres of the 
     Oak Flat Withdrawal which was expressly set aside from mining 
     by President Eisenhower in 1955 due to the lands value for 
     recreation and other important purposes; and
       Whereas, the mining proposed for Oak Flat will destroy the 
     religious, cultural and traditional integrity of Oak Flat for 
     American Indian tribes affiliated with the area, and it will 
     cause serious and highly damaging environmental consequences 
     to the water, wildlife, plants, and other natural ecosystems 
     of the area; and
       Whereas, the block cave mining method to be employed at Oak 
     Flat will also cause the collapse of the surface of the earth 
     and endanger the religious and historic terrain at Apache 
     Leap, Oak Flat, and Gaan Canyon, as well as in the 
     surrounding country side; and
       Whereas, the mining activity would deplete and contaminate 
     water resources from nearby watersheds and aquifers leaving 
     in its wake long term and in some cases, permanent religious, 
     cultural and environmental damage; and
       Whereas, the National Congress of American Indians, the 
     Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, the United South and Eastern 
     Tribes, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, and other Arizona and 
     New Mexico Tribes have opposed this land exchange due to the 
     harm to religious, cultural, archeological, and historic 
     resources, as well as the environmental consequences to the 
     land from the proposed mining activities; and now therefore 
     be it
       Resolved, the All Indian Pueblo Council Governors firmly 
     commit their support to oppose H.R. 1904: Southeast Arizona 
     Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011; and be it further
       Resolved, that the AIPC will inform all appropriate 
     Congressional Committees, the New Mexico Delegation, and all 
     appropriate federal agencies of and the reasons for this 
     position; be it finally
       Resolved, that the officers of AIPC are expressly 
     authorized to take any and all steps necessary to effectuate 
     the intent of this Resolution immediately.


                             CERTIFICATION

       I, Chairman Sanchez of the All Indian Pueblo Council, 
     hereby certify that the foregoing resolution 2011-08 was 
     considered and adopted at a duly called council meeting held 
     on the 17th day of August 2011, and at which time a quorum as 
     present and the same as approved by a vote of 16 in favor, 0 
     opposed, 0 abstained and 4 absent.
     Chandler Sanchez,
       Chairman.
           Attest:
     Leroy Arquero,
       Secretary/Treasurer.
         Pueblo of Acoma, Gov. Vicente; Pueblo of Isleta, Gov. 
           Lujan; Pueblo of Laguna, Gov. Luarkie; Ohkay Owingeh, 
           Gov. Lovato; Pueblo of Pojoaque, Gov. Rivera; Pueblo of 
           San Ildefonso, Gov. Martinez; Pueblo of Santa Ana, Gov. 
           Montoya; Pueblo of Santo Domingo; Pueblo of Tesuque; 
           Pueblo of Zia; Pueblo of Cochiti, Gov. Pecon; Pueblo of 
           Jemez, Gov. Toledo Jr.; Pueblo of Nambe, Gov. Mirabal; 
           Pueblo of Picuris, Gov. Nailor; Pueblo of San Felipe, 
           Gov. Sandoval; Pueblo of Sandia, Gov. Montoya; Pueblo 
           of Santa Clara; Pueblo of Taos; Pueblo of Ysleta del 
           Sur; Pueblo of Zuni.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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. FRANKS of Arizona. I certainly thank the distinguished chairman 
for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, first let me just congratulate Mr. Gosar on the 
introduction and passage of this legislation. He has done an amazing 
job in helping this legislation get to where it is now, and I have 
every confidence that he will see it through to the end.
  Mr. Chairman, according to a United States Geological Survey report, 
the United States currently imports over 30 percent of the country's 
copper demand. And in 2010 alone, domestic copper production decreased 
by another 5 percent; it decreased by another 5 percent.
  And just as relying on foreign oil imports threatens national 
security, relying on foreign copper suppliers also threatens U.S. 
industry. We must use domestic resources to meet that growing demand; 
and this legislation is a major step in the right direction, producing 
enough copper to meet as much as 25 percent of America's current 
demand.
  The Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act would open 
up the third largest undeveloped copper resource in the world, creating 
new American jobs, reducing our dependence on foreign sources of energy

[[Page H7096]]

and minerals, and generating tens of billions of dollars in revenue.
  Now, in the midst of a prolonged recession, Mr. Chairman, that has 
hit Arizona very hard, we really cannot afford not to pass this 
legislation because it so uniformly benefits our labor force, our State 
and local governments and conservationists who would benefit from much 
of the high-value land exchange in opening this land to mining.
  I would just encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. 
It's time that America begins to produce our own energy and our own 
minerals and to get back on track to being the greatest Nation in the 
history of the world.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. 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.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva, and thank you very much for 
our friends from Arizona.
  Let me just tell you, my family has been in mining since the 1860s, 
gold mining, which isn't working too well in California right now. And 
I am not at all opposed to mining copper in Arizona, although there are 
issues, local, to be dealt with; and I will let that go to another 
individual. I was deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior 
and had the opportunity to deal with appraisals and land transfers.
  This bill, as structured, is a bad deal for American taxpayers and 
for Americans. It basically is an enormous giveaway of extraordinary 
value to these two companies. As has been mentioned by our colleagues 
from Arizona who are in support of the bill, this is one of the biggest 
deposits of copper and other minerals in the United States and quite 
possibly among the biggest in the world.
  What is its value? The mechanism that's used to determine the value 
of the trade is called a capitalization appraisal, which has to assume 
the cost, has to make assumptions on the extraction, the cost of 
extraction, and the amount of ore to be obtained.
  There is no way in the appraisal process that that can be done with 
any accuracy at all.

                              {time}  1400

  In the language of the bill, there are certain provisions that make 
it impossible for the United States Government to go back and do a 
reappraisal, so we're left with a bad financial deal.
  I'm all for the copper mining. It has to be done properly, and 
environmental views and all that. That's not the issue for me. The 
issue for me is let's make sure the American public gets the right 
value out of this, and there's only one way to do it. That is as the 
ore is extracted. It then has a known quantity and a known value, and a 
royalty on the ore extracted, that is the material--copper, gold, and 
other materials--is then known. And if you simply put a royalty on it, 
then the American people will get its fair share of its property.
  This property doesn't belong to Rio Tinto or BHP Billiton; this 
property belongs to us, Americans.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. It belongs to us, Americans, and we ought to be 
getting our full value.
  This is not an obscure or new provision. This is the standard 
procedure. We actually use it for oil extraction, except in deep water. 
It is something that really will give us the value.
  Secondly, and I'll make this very, very short, the equipment used 
ought to be American made. There's going to be a lot of equipment, a 
lot of different equipment and material used; let's make that American-
made. That's an amendment that will come later. But right now, deal 
with the royalty issues so that us Americans, all of us, 300 million, 
will get our share of the extraordinary value that this mine will 
produce.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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. BENISHEK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I came to the floor to speak in favor of this bill 
because frankly, I find it hard to believe what I'm hearing from those 
arguing against it.
  Does anyone honestly believe that passing this bill will create jobs 
only for an army of robots? Are you kidding me? Robots? According to 
one study, this bill may create as many as 3,000 real jobs for humans.
  Mr. Chairman, my district in northern Michigan is a long way from 
Arizona, but we, too, have a rich history of copper mining. Today, 
people need copper in their daily lives, and the growing demand means 
we need more mines, creating more jobs in Arizona and Michigan. My own 
father was a miner.
  Congress needs to demonstrate to the American people that it supports 
mining jobs and developing our Nation's resources, as this bill does in 
a way that is both environmentally responsible and culturally 
respectful.
  I urge passage of this bill.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Arizona has 8 
minutes and the gentleman from Washington has 13\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me, if I may, yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid that this bill is another 
example of the majority having no real jobs agenda. The Republicans are 
claiming that this bill will create jobs in Arizona. And, of course, 
our whole country wants more jobs anywhere we can get them. But the 
truth is no one really knows the exact economic impact of this mine.
  The only jobs number that we have to go on are those provided by Rio 
Tinto, the foreign parent company of Resolution Copper. When this 
proposal was first developed in 2005, it was reported that the mine 
would create about 450 jobs. Without any explanation, no data, no 
analysis, the estimates have skyrocketed to over 1,200 jobs or even 
6,000 jobs. That sounds enticing, particularly to a country where we 
have 10 percent, 9 percent unemployment. But without any data to 
support it, it just seems like speculation. You could just say it's 
going to create a gazillion jobs. Why not? Anything to get the deal.
  There's no way to know because the numbers are not supported by a 
mining plan of operations or impartial economic documentation of any 
kind. This bill is an affront to the National Environmental Policy Act. 
Under this legislation, by the time any environmental review or 
accurate job figures are available, the land will already be in private 
hands. In fact, there is no job requirement in the bill. There is no 
job requirement in the bill despite the vaunted promises of 6,000 jobs. 
This bill doesn't include any local jobs requirement from the mining 
company.
  At a time when the whole country is looking to Congress to create 
much-needed jobs, and we really are vulnerable to any promises of jobs, 
our colleagues across the aisle should be focusing on creating jobs in 
America, not just large, vaunted promises that really have no 
background or substantiation. Our colleagues across the aisle are 
spending time in this House to create a special interest carve-out for 
a giant, multinational corporation. It's, by the way, owned by people 
outside the United States.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  You know, listening to the debate, you wonder what bill we're 
debating

[[Page H7097]]

here. The opposition seems to be talking about something completely 
different. We heard under the rule debate yesterday and some of the 
debate today that this won't create any jobs in Arizona, that somehow 
these jobs will go to robots. I mean, come on, this isn't the Jetsons 
doing this. I have no idea what's being talked about here.
  Let me give you a couple of examples of those who are employed 
currently. There are 500 people currently employed by Resolution on the 
mine, 500, and 90 percent of them are Arizonans. So 90 percent of the 
500 right now. There are an estimated 1,400 jobs directly related to 
the mine or directly in the mine, and some 3,700 beyond that, ancillary 
jobs, would come as a result of the mine.
  Albo Guzman, he's a local Superior Trading contractor. He has several 
local employees working for him on this project. He is a person, not a 
robot.
  Jeff Domlin, a Globe-based contractor whose company is doing much of 
the reclamation work on the project.
  Elizabeth Magallanez, she's a longtime resident.
  Melissa Rabago, she was actually born in the hospital that was run by 
the company on the previous mine that her father worked on, the Magma 
project. That company hospital now serves as project headquarters. Two 
of her sons work for a Resolution contractor.
  Mike Alvarez, third generation from Superior, works as a map 
technician. These are all real people, not robots. You didn't here me 
say C3PO or anything like that. So the arguments that we hear coming 
out of the opposition on this are just complete nonsense about this not 
creating jobs.
  And this talk about royalties; if we want to go in and change the 
Mining Act of 1872, let's do it. I'll be there. A lot of us have argued 
for that. But this is not the place to address the Mining Act of 1872. 
Let's address that when it should be addressed, and let's address the 
facts at hands. The facts are these: Jobs will be created. This is a 
great bill. Let's pass it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. 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.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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.

                              {time}  1410

  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).
  Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding.
  Every day in my district in New Mexico, people ask: What's gone wrong 
with the American economy?
  What's gone wrong with the American economy is that the Federal 
Government spends $3.6 trillion a year and it brings in $2.1 trillion a 
year.
  So they ask then: Why are the revenues to the government down? I 
said: Well, because jobs are down.
  They want to know why jobs are down. And I can point to the 
resistance to this bill and explain why jobs are down.
  This is a very commonsense bill. It says we're going to take almost 
twice as much land and exchange it to a private company, from a private 
company, would give them half as much land and let them have a copper 
mine there. The Americans are currently importing about 32 percent of 
all the copper that we use. This one mine, if the resistance were 
dropped and were put into operation, would provide 25 percent of the 
domestic copper demand for the next 50 years.
  Why would we be contesting this? I've heard my friend on the other 
side of the aisle say it's because there are robots working in the 
mine. The mines I go in--and I will guarantee you this mine is going to 
be conducted with engineers, with mechanics. It's going to be conducted 
with blue-collar labor down the hole working in the mine. They've got 
better machinery than they did a hundred years ago. They're not there 
working with pick and shovel. But these are real jobs--1,200 to 15,000 
jobs long term, and 2,000 to 3,000 construction jobs. It's a $4 billion 
increase in our economy and we can't get agreement.
  This town talks so much about jobs on both sides of the aisle, and we 
hear the President moving around the country. I haven't heard the 
President once come out and say: At least free up these 1,200 jobs. I 
will sign this jobs package. Instead, he wants to raise taxes to 
increase jobs. That's his idea.
  This is a private investment in a private land where they create a 
lot of long-term jobs. More than that, they make it self-sufficient.
  Now, the price of copper is almost four times what it was 10 years 
ago. The most recent report is that people are stealing copper bells 
off of churches and cutting them up and selling them. Copper is in that 
great a demand and we still find resistance from our friends on the 
other side of the aisle for creating these jobs, and no one in the 
American public seems to understand why.
  What is this about? It's about agenda politics. It's about saying 
that we're not going to let any development of resources go in the 
West. The West has had its timber jobs choked off. It's had its mining 
jobs choked off. It has resistance to the oil and gas jobs, and there 
are people who are trying to shut that industry down. They're trying to 
shut the coal mining jobs down. The West is starving for jobs. In fact, 
we in

[[Page H7098]]

the Western Caucus have recently put out a report highlighting all of 
the many ways we can create jobs now, called the ``Jobs Frontier.'' I 
would recommend people go to it. This is one of the bills in the ``Jobs 
Frontier.''
  I heartily recommend that we pass H.R. 1904.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. 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.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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).
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, this is one of those moments where I 
ran out of the Financial Services Committee where we were voting 
because I thought it was important, being an Arizonan, but also 
spending lots of time in this part of the State, which is a beautiful 
part of the State. And many of these little communities there have 
devastating unemployment, and they're literally furious with 
Washington, D.C., for destroying their timber jobs and squeezing their 
mining jobs. And then we stand here with something that, for a little 
State like Arizona, could be billions and billions of dollars of 
economic growth.
  When you think about this one ore deposit could represent 20 percent 
of the Nation's copper, how can we even be debating this when you also 
realize an average single-family home uses about 440 pounds of copper? 
Do you want housing? How about a car? A car uses 55 pounds of copper. 
This is where it will come from.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. The last thing I want to say is my good friend 
Congressman Gosar from northern Arizona, and actually from all over 
Arizona, is deserving of a gigantic thank you here. To be a freshman 
Congressman and to step into this body to deal with what ultimately is 
sometimes a cantankerous issue but incredibly important to the Nation 
and the Southwest and to those of us that live in and love Arizona, 
this is important. This is a lot of jobs, a lot of economic growth. 
Congressman Gosar gets a lot of credit for getting it this far.

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. GRIJALVA. May I inquire, Mr. Chairman, how much time each side 
has?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 3 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Washington has 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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).
  Mr. GOSAR. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  My legislation shows you can protect the land and the water and have 
a strong economy with good jobs.
  The land exchange will bring into Federal stewardship 5,500 acres of 
high-priority conservation lands in exchange for the third largest 
undeveloped copper deposit in the world. I'd like to speak about one in 
particular.
  The 7B Ranch, located in Pinal County, Arizona, is 3,073 acres 
designated by the Nature Conservancy as one of the last great places on 
Earth. And the Forest Service testified that this property was 
``priceless''--and you will get a chance to see some of them.
  This area is home to a free-flowing artesian spring-fed wetland 
populated by lowland leopard frogs, nesting birds, and native fish. In 
addition, this parcel is recognized by BirdLife International as an 
``important bird area.'' These are amazing sites. These have 
``priceless'' as their connotation.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. 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.
  Mr. PEARCE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GRIJALVA. 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

[[Page H7099]]

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.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chair, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to 
H.R. 1904, a bill that would authorize a land exchange in the state of 
Arizona.
  The lands impacted by this legislation contain many sites that are 
sacred to our Nation's first peoples.
  We in Congress have a responsibility to protect the rights of our 
tribes to conduct religious ceremonies, and use their sacred sites. 
Unfortunately, H.R. 1904 disregards this obligation.
  Previously, Congress passed the Native American Graves Protection and 
Repatriation Act, NAGPRA, to protect the sacred sites of tribes. H.R. 
1904 is a direct violation of the rights afforded to tribes by NAGPRA.
  Both Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon worked to ensure the lands in 
question were protected and available for tribes to worship. H.R. 1904 
would reverse these past efforts.
  To make matters worse, the legislation does not give the land in 
question to an American-based company that would reinvest its profits 
here in the United States.
  Instead H.R. 1904 gives control of the land to foreign owned mining 
corporations.
  I urge my colleagues to ensure the religious rights of our Nation's 
first peoples are respected in the Southwest, and vote no on H.R. 1904.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, today I voted against H.R. 1904, 
legislation to give public lands away to a mining company without an 
environmental review, without an independent appraisal of the value of 
the land and the copper beneath it, and which waived all the safeguards 
applied to other mining projects.
  To the San Carlos Apache Tribe and other Tribes that live nearby, 
these lands are sacred. In addition to the environmental devastation, 
mining will devastate their relationship to this land. The Apache 
Treaty of 1852 requires the U.S. to act to secure the permanent 
prosperity and happiness of the Apache people. Instead, this bill 
facilitates the destruction of their sacred land. This bill requires 
consultation with tribes only after the exchange, which makes that 
consultation a mere formality.
  This bill will not create American jobs to help us out of this 
recession. Any jobs will not begin for years--and most of the mining 
will be done by machines deep underground. Rio Tinto has stated the 
mine will be operated through its ``Mine of the Future'' program, which 
is heavily automated, saving the company money by avoiding job 
creation.
  This legislation undermines basic protections of our public lands, 
and arguments to the contrary are incorrect and misleading.
  For instance, the legislation does not require any independent 
evaluation of the value of the exchange at any time, taking the Rio 
Tinto's word for the value of the land, the copper beneath it, and the 
impacts mining will cause to the land, water resources, ecosystems, and 
stability of the landscape. The Act exempts Rio Tinto from requirements 
for bonding and clean-up of the mining project, leaving taxpayers with 
the bill for the inevitable clean-up.
  Even more misleading, the legislation does require the appearance of 
compliance with NEPA, but only after the exchange has taken place, 
which is too late to be any more than a formality. The Secretary will 
have to prepare a single Environmental Impact Statement, which will be 
the basis for all future decisions under applicable Federal laws and 
regulations, but only after the exchange, with no discretion after 
completion of the EIS. The Act prohibits the Secretary from considering 
alternatives to specific mining activities, including alternatives that 
would preserve cultural sites, and requires the Secretary to issue 
permits for mineral exploration within 30 days of enactment of the act. 
The Act requires Rio Tinto to submit a plan of operations, but does not 
allow the Secretary to reject the plan, even if it is insufficient to 
conduct even a limited review.
  Lastly, there are no provisions to protect the water supplies in the 
region from large-scale depletions from mining operations or 
contamination. There are no protections for groundwater resources under 
the San Carlos Apache Reservation, which is protected by the Apache 
Treaty of 1872 and the San Carlos Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement 
Act of 1992.
  The Act bypasses all normal administrative processes that other 
mining companies are required to follow. This bill amounts to a land 
giveaway to a company without a promise of American jobs anytime soon.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chair, I rise today to express my outrage and 
disappointment about the bill before us, H.R. 1904.
  In my 36 years in Congress I have seen many terrible bills, but this 
legislation stands out as among the worst. In one fell swoop, this 
legislation tramples on the rights of Indian tribes, damages our 
environment and cheats American taxpayers.
  Mr. Chair, this legislation is, quite simply, a travesty. It 
authorizes a land exchange giving Resolution Copper, the subsidiary of 
two foreign companies, the right to mine potentially billions of 
dollars worth of copper from American land. In return, the American 
people receive nothing, except the loss of our resources and damage to 
our land.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle like to talk local and 
state rights, yet this legislation completely ignores the rights and 
sovereignty of local Indian tribes. Mr. Chair, a large portion of the 
proposed mine is considered sacred to local Indians. Tribes, nations, 
pueblos and communities in Arizona, New Mexico, and across the country 
adamantly oppose this transfer; however, H.R. 1904 ignores these 
concerns, going so far as to waive federal statutes that require timely 
consultation with affected tribes. Resolution Copper claims that they 
can mine the land without disturbing these sites, a ridiculous 
assertion that is at best naive and at worst, an outright lie.
  Mr. Chair, many of us have fought long and hard to protect Indian 
land and constitutionally retained rights. Over the years we have 
strived to improve the government to government relationship between 
the U.S. and Tribal Nations and I am proud of the progress we have 
made. For this legislation to turn over rights to sacred Indian lands 
to a foreign mining company, over the clear protests of Indian people 
is outrageous and would be a shameful step in the wrong direction for 
U.S.-Tribal relations.
  We have no idea how the local environment and water resources would 
be affected, because no impact analysis would be done until after the 
transfer. Resolution Copper is estimating they will need as much water 
as the entire city of Tempe on a yearly basis. It does not take 
significant analysis to know that this could have potentially 
devastating impacts on local water resources.
  And what does our country get in return for all of this damage? 
Nothing. Resolution Copper has estimated the mine to be worth several 
billions of dollars, yet H.R. 1904 does not

[[Page H7100]]

require any royalties to be paid to the American taxpayer. Once they 
have taken our copper, it can be shipped overseas to be processed and 
utilized. First it was our jobs, now it's our natural resources. And 
there are no guarantees that there will be any significant local job 
impacts.
  There are so many things wrong with this legislation that it is hard 
to even mention them all. It is a disgrace that we are debating this 
ill-conceived and destructive bill and I urge all my colleagues to 
vehemently oppose it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, the land swap in today's legislation would 
grant two of the world's largest, foreign-owned mining companies--Rio 
Tinto and BHP Billiton--mining rights to 760 acres of the Tonto 
National Forest in Southeastern Arizona in exchange for other land the 
companies currently own. This exchange is necessary for Rio Tinto and 
BHP Billiton to gain access to significant copper deposits they believe 
lie underneath the land in the Tonto National Forest.
  Mr. Chair, I am not opposed to responsible domestic energy and 
mineral production--but I am strongly opposed to this majority's 
complete disregard for our environmental laws and this legislation's 
failure to ensure American taxpayers get full value for the resources 
at issue in this proposed transaction.
  Specifically, H.R. 1904 would exempt this land swap from the 
requirements of the National Environmental Protection Act--a law 
specifically designed to evaluate the impacts of proposed actions on 
our natural resources before public resources are sold to private 
interests. The value of a thorough NEPA analysis is especially 
significant in this case, where unanswered questions about the water 
demands of the proposed mining operation are especially consequential 
to the surrounding community. Furthermore, as we work to reduce our 
national debt, I believe taxpayers have a right to fair compensation 
for resources taken from public lands, something the convoluted 
appraisal process called for in H.R. 1904 will almost certainly fail to 
do.
  Mr. Chair, if this land swap is truly in the interests of the 
American people, it has nothing to fear from an appropriate 
environmental review and should be expected to fairly compensate the 
American taxpayer for the value of the resources taken from their land.
  I urge a no vote.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chair, I rise today to express my opposition to 
H.R. 1904, a bill that would transfer 2,400 acres of federal lands in 
Southeast Arizona to a private copper mining company. There has not 
been a thorough geological review to assess the impact of mining on 
water resources or the surrounding communities and ecosystems. 
Furthermore, the bill includes no protections or consideration for 
native American tribes.
  Since coming to Congress I have fought to ensure that American 
taxpayers are properly reimbursed for resources like oil and gas 
extracted from federal lands. This bill does nothing to appropriately 
compensate American citizens and would instead give a single 
multinational corporation the benefit from one of the largest copper 
deposits in the world. Even more astonishing, the corporation 
benefitting from copper resources cannot guarantee that the copper will 
stay in America or that the mine will remain American owned.
  This bill sets a dangerous precedent with regard to environmental 
review and resource oversight. The Majority continues to fight against 
preserving our nation's natural resources with legislation that 
destroys the environment in favor of big corporations. I urge a no 
vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment under the 5-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in 
part A of House Report 112-258. That amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 1904

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Southeast 
     Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purpose.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Land exchange.
Sec. 5. Conveyance and management of non-Federal land.
Sec. 6. Value adjustment payment to United States.
Sec. 7. Withdrawal.
Sec. 8. Apache leap.
Sec. 9. Conveyances to town of Superior, Arizona.
Sec. 10. Miscellaneous provisions.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the land exchange furthers public objectives referenced 
     in section 206 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
     of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716) including--
       (A) promoting significant job and other economic 
     opportunities in a part of the State of Arizona that has a 
     long history of mining, but is currently experiencing high 
     unemployment rates and economic difficulties;
       (B) facilitating the development of a world-class domestic 
     copper deposit capable of meeting a significant portion of 
     the annual United States demand for this strategic and 
     important mineral, in an area which has already been subject 
     to mining operations;
       (C) significantly enhancing Federal, State, and local 
     revenue collections in a time of severe governmental budget 
     shortfalls;
       (D) securing Federal ownership and protection of land with 
     significant fish and wildlife, recreational, scenic, water, 
     riparian, cultural, and other public values;
       (E) assisting more efficient Federal land management via 
     Federal acquisition of land for addition to the Las Cienegas 
     and San Pedro National Conservation Areas, and to the Tonto 
     and Coconino National Forests;
       (F) providing opportunity for community expansion and 
     economic diversification adjacent to the towns of Superior, 
     Miami, and Globe, Arizona; and
       (G) protecting the cultural resources and other values of 
     the Apache Leap escarpment located near Superior, Arizona; 
     and
       (2) the land exchange is, therefore, in the public 
     interest.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to authorize, 
     direct, facilitate, and expedite the exchange of land between 
     Resolution Copper and the United States.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Apache leap.--The term ``Apache Leap'' means the 
     approximately 807 acres of land depicted on the map entitled 
     ``Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 
     2011-Apache Leap'' and dated March 2011.
       (2) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means the 
     approximately 2,422 acres of land located in Pinal County, 
     Arizona, depicted on the map entitled ``Southeast Arizona 
     Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011-Federal Parcel-Oak 
     Flat'' and dated March 2011.
       (3) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
       (4) Non-federal land.--The term ``non-Federal land'' means 
     the parcels of land owned by Resolution Copper that are 
     described in section 5(a) and, if necessary to equalize the 
     land exchange under section 4, section 4(e)(2)(A)(i).
       (5) Oak flat campground.--The term ``Oak Flat Campground'' 
     means the approximately 50 acres of land comprising 
     approximately 16 developed campsites depicted on the map 
     entitled ``Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation 
     Act of 2011-Oak Flat Campground'' and dated March 2011.
       (6) Oak flat withdrawal area.--The term ``Oak Flat 
     Withdrawal Area'' means the approximately 760 acres of land 
     depicted on the map entitled ``Southeast Arizona Land 
     Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011-Oak Flat Withdrawal 
     Area'' and dated March 2011.
       (7) Resolution copper.--The term ``Resolution Copper'' 
     means Resolution Copper Mining, LLC, a Delaware limited 
     liability company, including any successor, assign, 
     affiliate, member, or joint venturer of Resolution Copper 
     Mining, LLC.
       (8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       (9) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Arizona.
       (10) Town.--The term ``Town'' means the incorporated town 
     of Superior, Arizona.

     SEC. 4. LAND EXCHANGE.

       (a) In General.--Subject to the provisions of this Act, if 
     Resolution Copper offers to convey to the United States all 
     right, title, and interest of Resolution Copper in and to the 
     non-Federal land, the Secretary is authorized and directed to 
     convey to Resolution Copper, all right, title, and interest 
     of the United States in and to the Federal land.
       (b) Conditions on Acceptance.--Title to any non-Federal 
     land conveyed by Resolution Copper to the United States under 
     this Act shall be in a form that--
       (1) is acceptable to the Secretary, for land to be 
     administered by the Forest Service and the Secretary of the 
     Interior, for land to be administered by the Bureau of Land 
     Management; and
       (2) conforms to the title approval standards of the 
     Attorney General of the United States applicable to land 
     acquisitions by the Federal Government.
       (c) Consultation With Indian Tribes.--If not undertaken 
     prior to enactment of this Act, within 30 days of the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall engage in 
     government-to-government consultation with affected Indian 
     tribes concerning issues related to the land exchange, in 
     accordance with applicable laws (including regulations).
       (d) Appraisals.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary and Resolution Copper 
     shall select an appraiser to conduct appraisals of the 
     Federal land and non-Federal land in compliance with the 
     requirements of section 254.9 of title 36, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       (2) Requirements.--

[[Page H7101]]

       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), an 
     appraisal prepared under this subsection shall be conducted 
     in accordance with nationally recognized appraisal standards, 
     including--
       (i) the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land 
     Acquisitions; and
       (ii) the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal 
     Practice.
       (B) Final appraised value.--After the final appraised 
     values of the Federal land and non-Federal land are 
     determined and approved by the Secretary, the Secretary shall 
     not be required to reappraise or update the final appraised 
     value--
       (i) for a period of 3 years beginning on the date of the 
     approval by the Secretary of the final appraised value; or
       (ii) at all, in accordance with section 254.14 of title 36, 
     Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation), 
     after an exchange agreement is entered into by Resolution 
     Copper and the Secretary.
       (C) Improvements.--Any improvements made by Resolution 
     Copper prior to entering into an exchange agreement shall not 
     be included in the appraised value of the Federal land.
       (D) Public review.--Before consummating the land exchange 
     under this Act, the Secretary shall make the appraisals of 
     the land to be exchanged (or a summary thereof) available for 
     public review.
       (3) Appraisal information.--The appraisal prepared under 
     this subsection shall include a detailed income 
     capitalization approach analysis of the market value of the 
     Federal land which may be utilized, as appropriate, to 
     determine the value of the Federal land, and shall be the 
     basis for calculation of any payment under section 6.
       (e) Equal Value Land Exchange.--
       (1) In general.--The value of the Federal land and non-
     Federal land to be exchanged under this Act shall be equal or 
     shall be equalized in accordance with this subsection.
       (2) Surplus of federal land value.--
       (A) In general.--If the final appraised value of the 
     Federal land exceeds the value of the non-Federal land, 
     Resolution Copper shall--
       (i) convey additional non-Federal land in the State to the 
     Secretary or the Secretary of the Interior, consistent with 
     the requirements of this Act and subject to the approval of 
     the applicable Secretary;
       (ii) make a cash payment to the United States; or
       (iii) use a combination of the methods described in clauses 
     (i) and (ii), as agreed to by Resolution Copper, the 
     Secretary, and the Secretary of the Interior.
       (B) Amount of payment.--The Secretary may accept a payment 
     in excess of 25 percent of the total value of the land or 
     interests conveyed, notwithstanding section 206(b) of the 
     Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
     1716(b)).
       (C) Disposition and use of proceeds.--Any amounts received 
     by the United States under this subparagraph shall be 
     deposited in the fund established under Public Law 90-171 
     (commonly known as the ``Sisk Act''; 16 U.S.C. 484a) and 
     shall be made available, in such amounts as are provided in 
     advance in appropriation Acts, to the Secretary for the 
     acquisition of land for addition to the National Forest 
     System.
       (3) Surplus of non-federal land.--If the final appraised 
     value of the non-Federal land exceeds the value of the 
     Federal land--
       (A) the United States shall not make a payment to 
     Resolution Copper to equalize the value; and
       (B) except as provided in section 9(b)(2)(B), the surplus 
     value of the non-Federal land shall be considered to be a 
     donation by Resolution Copper to the United States.
       (f) Oak Flat Withdrawal Area.--
       (1) Permits.--Subject to the provisions of this subsection 
     and notwithstanding any withdrawal of the Oak Flat Withdrawal 
     Area from the mining, mineral leasing, or public land laws, 
     the Secretary, upon enactment of this Act, shall issue to 
     Resolution Copper--
       (A) if so requested by Resolution Copper, within 30 days of 
     such request, a special use permit to carry out mineral 
     exploration activities under the Oak Flat Withdrawal Area 
     from existing drill pads located outside the Area, if the 
     activities would not disturb the surface of the Area; and
       (B) if so requested by Resolution Copper, within 90 days of 
     such request, a special use permit to carry out mineral 
     exploration activities within the Oak Flat Withdrawal Area 
     (but not within the Oak Flat Campground), if the activities 
     are conducted from a single exploratory drill pad which is 
     located to reasonably minimize visual and noise impacts on 
     the Campground.
       (2) Conditions.--Any activities undertaken in accordance 
     with this subsection shall be subject to such reasonable 
     terms and conditions as the Secretary may require.
       (3) Termination.--The authorization for Resolution Copper 
     to undertake mineral exploration activities under this 
     subsection shall remain in effect until the Oak Flat 
     Withdrawal Area land is conveyed to Resolution Copper in 
     accordance with this Act.
       (g) Costs.--As a condition of the land exchange under this 
     Act, Resolution Copper shall agree to pay, without 
     compensation, all costs that are--
       (1) associated with the land exchange and any environmental 
     review document under subsection (j); and
       (2) agreed to by the Secretary.
       (h) Use of Federal Land.--The Federal land to be conveyed 
     to Resolution Copper under this Act shall be available to 
     Resolution Copper for mining and related activities subject 
     to and in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and 
     local laws pertaining to mining and related activities on 
     land in private ownership.
       (i) Intent of Congress.--It is the intent of Congress that 
     the land exchange directed by this Act shall be consummated 
     not later than one year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       (j) Environmental Compliance.--Compliance with the 
     requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) under this Act shall be as follows:
       (1) Prior to commencing production in commercial quantities 
     of any valuable mineral from the Federal land conveyed to 
     Resolution Copper under this Act (except for any production 
     from exploration and mine development shafts, adits, and 
     tunnels needed to determine feasibility and pilot plant 
     testing of commercial production or to access the ore body 
     and tailing deposition areas), Resolution Copper shall submit 
     to the Secretary a proposed mine plan of operations.
       (2) The Secretary shall, within 3 years of such submission, 
     complete preparation of an environmental review document in 
     accordance with section 102(2) of the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4322(2)) which shall be used as 
     the basis for all decisions under applicable Federal laws, 
     rules and regulations regarding any Federal actions or 
     authorizations related to the proposed mine and mine plan of 
     operations of Resolution Copper, including the construction 
     of associated power, water, transportation, processing, 
     tailings, waste dump, and other ancillary facilities.

     SEC. 5. CONVEYANCE AND MANAGEMENT OF NON-FEDERAL LAND.

       (a) Conveyance.--On receipt of title to the Federal land, 
     Resolution Copper shall simultaneously convey--
       (1) to the Secretary, all right, title, and interest that 
     the Secretary determines to be acceptable in and to--
       (A) the approximately 147 acres of land located in Gila 
     County, Arizona, depicted on the map entitled ``Southeast 
     Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011-Non-
     Federal Parcel-Turkey Creek'' and dated March 2011;
       (B) the approximately 148 acres of land located in Yavapai 
     County, Arizona, depicted on the map entitled ``Southeast 
     Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011-Non-
     Federal Parcel-Tangle Creek'' and dated March 2011;
       (C) the approximately 149 acres of land located in Maricopa 
     County, Arizona, depicted on the map entitled ``Southeast 
     Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011-Non-
     Federal Parcel-Cave Creek'' and dated March 2011;
       (D) the approximately 640 acres of land located in Coconino 
     County, Arizona, depicted on the map entitled ``Southeast 
     Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011-Non-
     Federal Parcel-East Clear Creek'' and dated March 2011; and
       (E) the approximately 110 acres of land located in Pinal 
     County, Arizona, depicted on the map entitled ``Southeast 
     Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011-Non-
     Federal Parcel-Apache Leap South End'' and dated March 2011; 
     and
       (2) to the Secretary of the Interior, all right, title, and 
     interest that the Secretary of the Interior determines to be 
     acceptable in and to--
       (A) the approximately 3,050 acres of land located in Pinal 
     County, Arizona, identified as ``Lands to DOI'' as generally 
     depicted on the map entitled ``Southeast Arizona Land 
     Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011-Non-Federal Parcel-
     Lower San Pedro River'' and dated July 6, 2011;
       (B) the approximately 160 acres of land located in Gila and 
     Pinal Counties, Arizona, identified as ``Lands to DOI'' as 
     generally depicted on the map entitled ``Southeast Arizona 
     Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011-Non-Federal 
     Parcel-Dripping Springs'' and dated July 6, 2011; and
       (C) the approximately 940 acres of land located in Santa 
     Cruz County, Arizona, identified as ``Lands to DOI'' as 
     generally depicted on the map entitled ``Southeast Arizona 
     Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011-Non-Federal 
     Parcel-Appleton Ranch'' and dated July 6, 2011.
       (b) Management of Acquired Land.--
       (1) Land acquired by the secretary.--
       (A) In general.--Land acquired by the Secretary under this 
     Act shall--
       (i) become part of the national forest in which the land is 
     located; and
       (ii) be administered in accordance with the laws applicable 
     to the National Forest System.
       (B) Boundary revision.--On the acquisition of land by the 
     Secretary under this Act, the boundaries of the national 
     forest shall be modified to reflect the inclusion of the 
     acquired land.
       (C) Land and water conservation fund.--For purposes of 
     section 7 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 
     (16 U.S.C. 4601-9), the boundaries of a national forest in 
     which land acquired by the Secretary is located shall be 
     deemed to be the boundaries of that forest as in existence on 
     January 1, 1965.
       (2) Land acquired by the secretary of the interior.--
       (A) San pedro national conservation area.--
       (i) In general.--The land acquired by the Secretary of the 
     Interior under subsection (a)(2)(A) shall be added to, and 
     administered as part of, the San Pedro National Conservation 
     Area in accordance with the laws (including regulations) 
     applicable to the Conservation Area.
       (ii) Management plan.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date on which the land is acquired, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall update the management plan for the San Pedro 
     National Conservation Area to reflect the management 
     requirements of the acquired land.
       (B) Dripping springs.--Land acquired by the Secretary of 
     the Interior under subsection (a)(2)(B) shall be managed in 
     accordance with

[[Page H7102]]

     the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
     1701 et seq.) and applicable land use plans.
       (C) Las cienegas national conservation area.--Land acquired 
     by the Secretary of the Interior under subsection (a)(2)(C) 
     shall be added to, and administered as part of, the Las 
     Cienegas National Conservation Area in accordance with the 
     laws (including regulations) applicable to the Conservation 
     Area.
       (c) Surrender of Rights.--In addition to the conveyance of 
     the non-Federal land to the United States under this Act, and 
     as a condition of the land exchange, Resolution Copper shall 
     surrender to the United States, without compensation, the 
     rights held by Resolution Copper under the mining laws and 
     other laws of the United States to commercially extract 
     minerals under Apache Leap.

     SEC. 6. VALUE ADJUSTMENT PAYMENT TO UNITED STATES.

       (a) Annual Production Reporting.--
       (1) Report required.--As a condition of the land exchange 
     under this Act, Resolution Copper shall submit to the 
     Secretary of the Interior an annual report indicating the 
     quantity of locatable minerals produced during the preceding 
     calendar year in commercial quantities from the Federal land 
     conveyed to Resolution Copper under section 4. The first 
     report is required to be submitted not later than February 15 
     of the first calendar year beginning after the date of 
     commencement of production of valuable locatable minerals in 
     commercial quantities from such Federal land. The reports 
     shall be submitted February 15 of each calendar year 
     thereafter.
       (2) Sharing reports with state.--The Secretary shall make 
     each report received under paragraph (1) available to the 
     State.
       (3) Report contents.--The reports under paragraph (1) shall 
     comply with any recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
     prescribed by the Secretary or required by applicable Federal 
     laws in effect at the time of production.
       (b) Payment on Production.--If the cumulative production of 
     valuable locatable minerals produced in commercial quantities 
     from the Federal land conveyed to Resolution Copper under 
     section 4 exceeds the quantity of production of locatable 
     minerals from the Federal land used in the income 
     capitalization approach analysis prepared under section 
     4(d)(3), Resolution Copper shall pay to the United States, by 
     not later than March 15 of each applicable calendar year, a 
     value adjustment payment for the quantity of excess 
     production at the same rate assumed for the income 
     capitalization approach analysis prepared under section 
     4(d)(3).
       (c) State Law Unaffected.--Nothing in this section 
     modifies, expands, diminishes, amends, or otherwise affects 
     any State law relating to the imposition, application, 
     timing, or collection of a State excise or severance tax.
       (d) Use of Funds.--
       (1) Separate fund.--All funds paid to the United States 
     under this section shall be deposited in a special fund 
     established in the Treasury and shall be available, in such 
     amounts as are provided in advance in appropriation Acts, to 
     the Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior only for the 
     purposes authorized by paragraph (2).
       (2) Authorized use.--Amounts in the special fund 
     established pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be used for 
     maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation projects for Forest 
     Service and Bureau of Land Management assets.

     SEC. 7. WITHDRAWAL.

       Subject to valid existing rights, Apache Leap and any land 
     acquired by the United States under this Act are withdrawn 
     from all forms of--
       (1) entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land 
     laws;
       (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
       (3) disposition under the mineral leasing, mineral 
     materials, and geothermal leasing laws.

     SEC. 8. APACHE LEAP.

       (a) Management.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall manage Apache Leap to 
     preserve the natural character of Apache Leap and to protect 
     archeological and cultural resources located on Apache Leap.
       (2) Special use permits.--The Secretary may issue to 
     Resolution Copper special use permits allowing Resolution 
     Copper to carry out underground activities (other than the 
     commercial extraction of minerals) under the surface of 
     Apache Leap that the Secretary determines would not disturb 
     the surface of the land, subject to any terms and conditions 
     that the Secretary may require.
       (3) Fences; signage.--The Secretary may allow use of the 
     surface of Apache Leap for installation of fences, signs, 
     monitoring devices, or other measures necessary to protect 
     the health and safety of the public, protect resources 
     located on Apache Leap, or to ensure that activities 
     conducted under paragraph (2) do not affect the surface of 
     Apache Leap.
       (b) Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with 
     affected Indian tribes, the Town, Resolution Copper, and 
     other interested members of the public, shall prepare a 
     management plan for Apache Leap.
       (2) Considerations.--In preparing the plan under paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary shall consider whether additional measures 
     are necessary to--
       (A) protect the cultural, archaeological, or historical 
     resources of Apache Leap, including permanent or seasonal 
     closures of all or a portion of Apache Leap; and
       (B) provide access for recreation.
       (c) Mining Activities.--The provisions of this section 
     shall not impose additional restrictions on mining activities 
     carried out by Resolution Copper adjacent to, or outside of, 
     the Apache Leap area beyond those otherwise applicable to 
     mining activities on privately owned land under Federal, 
     State, and local laws, rules and regulations.

     SEC. 9. CONVEYANCES TO TOWN OF SUPERIOR, ARIZONA.

       (a) Conveyances.--On request from the Town and subject to 
     the provisions of this section, the Secretary shall convey to 
     the Town the following:
       (1) Approximately 30 acres of land as depicted on the map 
     entitled ``Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation 
     Act of 2011-Federal Parcel-Fairview Cemetery'' and dated 
     March 2011.
       (2) The reversionary interest and any reserved mineral 
     interest of the United States in the approximately 265 acres 
     of land located in Pinal County, Arizona, as depicted on the 
     map entitled ``Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and 
     Conservation Act of 2011-Federal Reversionary Interest-
     Superior Airport'' and dated March 2011.
       (3) The approximately 250 acres of land located in Pinal 
     County, Arizona, as depicted on the map entitled ``Southeast 
     Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011-Federal 
     Parcel-Superior Airport Contiguous Parcels'' and dated March 
     2011.
       (b) Payment.--The Town shall pay to the Secretary the 
     market value for each parcel of land or interest in land 
     acquired under this section, as determined by appraisals 
     conducted in accordance with section 4(d).
       (c) Sisk Act.--Any payment received by the Secretary from 
     the Town under this section shall be deposited in the fund 
     established under Public Law 90-171 (commonly known as the 
     ``Sisk Act'') (16 U.S.C. 484a) and shall be made available, 
     in such amounts as are provided in advance in appropriation 
     Acts, to the Secretary for the acquisition of land for 
     addition to the National Forest System.
       (d) Terms and Conditions.--The conveyances under this 
     section shall be subject to such terms and conditions as the 
     Secretary may require.

     SEC. 10. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

       (a) Revocation of Orders; Withdrawal.--
       (1) Revocation of orders.--Any public land order that 
     withdraws the Federal land from appropriation or disposal 
     under a public land law shall be revoked to the extent 
     necessary to permit disposal of the land.
       (2) Withdrawal.--On the date of enactment of this Act, if 
     the Federal land or any Federal interest in the non-Federal 
     land to be exchanged under section 4 is not withdrawn or 
     segregated from entry and appropriation under a public land 
     law (including mining and mineral leasing laws and the 
     Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.)), the 
     land or interest shall be withdrawn, without further action 
     required by the Secretary concerned, from entry and 
     appropriation. The withdrawal shall be terminated--
       (A) on the date of consummation of the land exchange; or
       (B) if Resolution Copper notifies the Secretary in writing 
     that it has elected to withdraw from the land exchange 
     pursuant to section 206(d) of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1716(d)).
       (3) Rights of resolution copper.--Nothing in this Act shall 
     interfere with, limit, or otherwise impair, the unpatented 
     mining claims or rights currently held by Resolution Copper 
     on the Federal land, nor in any way change, diminish, 
     qualify, or otherwise impact Resolution Copper's rights and 
     ability to conduct activities on the Federal land under such 
     unpatented mining claims and the general mining laws of the 
     United States, including the permitting or authorization of 
     such activities.
       (b) Maps, Estimates, and Descriptions.--
       (1) Minor errors.--The Secretary concerned and Resolution 
     Copper may correct, by mutual agreement, any minor errors in 
     any map, acreage estimate, or description of any land 
     conveyed or exchanged under this Act.
       (2) Conflict.--If there is a conflict between a map, an 
     acreage estimate, or a description of land in this Act, the 
     map shall control unless the Secretary concerned and 
     Resolution Copper mutually agree otherwise.
       (3) Availability.--On the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary shall file and make available for public 
     inspection in the Office of the Supervisor, Tonto National 
     Forest, each map referred to in this Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute is in order except those printed in part B of the report. 
Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, 
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided 
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject 
to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Lujan

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part B of House Report 112-258.
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 14, after line 12, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (k) Exclusion of Native American Sacred and Cultural 
     Sites.--The Federal land to

[[Page H7103]]

     be conveyed under this section may not include any Native 
     American sacred or cultural site, whether surface or 
     subsurface, and the Secretary shall modify the map referred 
     to in section 3(2) to exclude all such sacred and cultural 
     sites, as identified by the Secretary in consultation with 
     Resolution Copper and affected Indian tribes.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 444, the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. LUJAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is significant, but simple. My amendment 
does not kill this project. As offered, it simply asks the Congress to 
respect the religious and sacred sites of our tribal brothers and 
sisters.
  This bill does little, if anything, to offer protection to the sacred 
sites in the area and does not offer true tribal consultation to the 
tribes. We all know that consultation occurs before, not after, 
decisions have already been made.
  The tribes in this area believe Resolution Copper's block cave mining 
method will have negative impacts on their sacred, cultural, and 
traditional sites in the area.

                              {time}  1430

  Again, this amendment will not kill this project. It would show 
respect and offer protections to both surface and subsurface sites in 
the proposed land conveyance.
  More specifically, my amendment states that ``The Federal land to be 
conveyed may not include any Native American sacred or cultural site, 
whether surface or subsurface.'' This amendment would merely offer a 
basic level of respect for many religious and cultural sites to the 
many tribes in the region.
  As our good friend, Congressman Kildee, reminds us daily, we have a 
trust responsibility to our tribal brothers and sisters, and those who 
oppose this responsibility will dismantle it piece by piece with a 
scalpel and not all at once with an axe. This is what we're seeing 
today, Mr. Chairman.
  In its current form, H.R. 1904 would approve a Federal land exchange 
to transfer ownership of 2,400 acres of land in the Tonto National 
Forest to Resolution Copper for the purposes of block cave copper mine.
  The Federal lands which are proposed to be exchanged, generally known 
as Oak Flat, are part of the ancestral lands of the San Carlos Apache 
tribe and other tribes in the region. These lands have unique 
religious, traditional, and archaeological significance to many tribes 
in southern Arizona. Behind me is a photo of one of those areas that's 
most sacred, Apache Leap.
  You've heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that 
their bill offers protection for sacred, traditional, and cultural 
sites in the proposed area to be exchanged, but I don't believe that to 
be true. If it were true, then why is every major tribal organization 
in the country opposing this bill?
  It's because they do not believe these so-called protections to be 
real. Opposing organizations include, but are not limited to, the 
National Congress of American Indians, the United South and Eastern 
Tribes, the All Indian Pueblo Council of New Mexico, the San Carlos 
Apache Tribe, the Jicarilla and Mescalero Apache Tribes of New Mexico, 
and many other tribes across the country.
  Mr. Chairman, all of these organizations and tribal leaders know that 
the degradation of these cultural sites means a loss of identity and 
culture, not to mention utter disrespect for the religion and history 
of the tribes connected to this area.
  Just to be clear: Supporting my amendment will not kill the project. 
It would simply mean respecting and preserving the religious, cultural, 
and archeological and historic significance of the lands that mean so 
much to the tribes in the region.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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

[[Page H7104]]

     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. LUJAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, look, just to be clear with this amendment, it does not 
kill the project. The amendment simply states that the Secretary will 
exclude sacred and cultural sites as identified by the Secretary. If 
we're serious about protecting sacred sites and respecting tribes 
across the country, I don't know why this is so complicated.
  And the only area in the legislation, as we look at section 8 of the 
bill, talks about preserving and consulting with tribes about Apache 
Leap. But again, it's too little, too late. It's consulting after the 
fact, not before the legislation is taken into effect.
  And so, Mr. Chairman, it's as if we were going to go into a site, 
say, the cathedral in Santa Fe or the Vatican in Rome, and they were 
going to go and do something to that land, and they said, well, don't 
worry, we have some other land that we're going to give you.
  It's about the religious and sacred nature of these sites that we're 
talking about. At the very least, and of its very essence, let's look 
to see what we can do to preserve the government-to-government trust 
responsibilities that we have with our tribes and respect those 
religious sites, respect those sacred sites, and see what we can do to 
work collectively.
  Again, this isn't going to kill the project. Let's work together to 
make sure that we respect the tribes that we're so honored to represent 
here in the Congress.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 45 
seconds to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  If the gentleman from New Mexico would answer a question, it's my 
understanding that we have rock climbers who are always out there, 
hikers up in there. That would be the equivalent of allowing people to 
rappel down the side of the Washington Monument, but I've never heard 
an objection from anyone to exclude those kinds of activities. And so 
it comes across just a little bit strange that we would talk about 
limiting one activity, while people are crawling and rappelling down 
these sites already.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I understand the other side 
has yielded back their time.
  How much time do I have left?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am more than happy to yield that 1 
minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I find it very interesting that my opponent, 
or our opponent on the other side, actually focuses a picture of Apache 
Leap, which is specifically excluded from this legislation. Therefore, 
when we talk about, in regards to protecting the sites, we have done 
so. As far as the consultation is concerned, we have done 
consultations.
  Mr. LUJAN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSAR. No, I will not yield.
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, we know that that's not in here.
  Mr. GOSAR. That is Apache Leap.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time is controlled by the gentleman from 
Arizona, and the Chair would ask all Members to respect that.
  Mr. GOSAR. The point of reference is that we cite all the Native 
tribes. They are far from being in unison. In fact, during our 
conversation within the Resources Committee, former tribal chairman and 
16-year tribal Councilman Harrison Talgo testified that the traditional 
Apache values are not mutually exclusive with economic development.
  Given that the San Carlos Apache is one of the most impoverished 
tribes in the Nation, with unemployment rates around 70 percent and 
poverty affecting every facet of tribal members' life, I couldn't agree 
more with Mr. Talgo.
  Mr. Talgo also points out that Oak Flat, the campground in question, 
is a long way from the reservation. He also pointed out the majority of 
tribal members he speaks about in this project support this project.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, as a member of the Native American Caucus, 
I rise today in strong support of the amendment to H.R. 1904, the 
Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011, offered 
by Congressman Lujan of Arizona.
  The Lujan Amendment exempts Native American sacred and cultural sites 
from inclusion in the land transfer proposed by this bill.
  As it stands, H.R. 1904 is fundamentally unfair to the San Carlos 
Apache Tribe and other tribes in the region, who have inhabited this 
land for thousands of years. This bill waives compliance with federal 
statutes that require timely consultation with affected tribes, who now 
face the prospect of witnessing their ancestral lands of unique 
archaeological and religious significance fall victim to destructive 
mining practices.
  These techniques involve utilizing controlled cave-in deep 
underground, which can cause massive depressions at the surface and 
forever scar the landscape. Archaeological sites and religious lands 
would be forever ruined and unrecognizable.
  Other surveys have identified Civilian Conservation Corps sites and 
structures eligible for inclusion in the National Register for Historic 
Places which could also be destroyed by the proposed mining project.
  Mr. Chair, H.R. 1904 has been called a ``special-interest'' bill 
whereby a private company, Resolution Copper, which is actually a joint 
subsidiary of two foreign-owned mining companies. Resolution Copper 
would receive federal land worth billions of dollars without having to 
pay royalties on any mineral wealth it extracts.
  Furthermore, there are no guarantees that the company would even hire 
locally, process the ore in the United States, or purchase equipment 
made in America.
  H.R. 1904 excludes the one special interest with an undeniable right 
in this debate--the Native American tribes--from a decision that 
affects their community at the absolute deepest level.
  I strongly support the Lujan Amendment and oppose the underlying 
bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

                              {time}  1440

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Markey

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part B of House Report 112-258.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in 
order under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 19, beginning line 8, strike section 6 (value 
     adjustment payment to United States) and insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 6. ROYALTY PAYMENT TO UNITED STATES FOR MINERALS 
                   PRODUCED FROM CONVEYED FEDERAL LAND.

       (a) Royalty Payment Required.--As a condition of the land 
     exchange under this Act, Resolution Copper shall pay to the 
     United States, by not later than March 15 of each calendar 
     year, a royalty payment in an amount equal to 8 percent of 
     the value of the quantity of locatable minerals produced 
     during the preceding calendar year from the

[[Page H7105]]

     Federal land conveyed to Resolution Copper under section 4, 
     as reported under subsection (b).
       (b) Annual Production Reporting to Determine Royalty 
     Payment.--
       (1) Report required.--Resolution Copper shall submit to the 
     Secretary of the Interior an annual report indicating the 
     quantity of locatable minerals produced in commercial 
     quantities from the Federal land conveyed to Resolution 
     Copper under section 4.
       (2) Submission deadline.--The first report under paragraph 
     (1) shall be submitted not later than February 15 of the 
     first calendar year beginning after the date of commencement 
     of production of valuable locatable minerals in commercial 
     quantities from the Federal land conveyed to Resolution 
     Copper under section 4 and cover the preceding calendar year. 
     Subsequent reports shall be submitted each February 15 
     thereafter and cover the preceding calendar year.
       (3) Sharing reports with state.--The Secretary shall make 
     each report received under paragraph (1) available to the 
     State.
       (4) Report contents.--The reports under paragraph (1) shall 
     comply with any recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
     prescribed by the Secretary or required by applicable Federal 
     laws in effect at the time of production.
       (c) Deposit of Funds.--All funds paid to the United States 
     under this section shall be deposited in the general fund of 
     the Treasury.
       (d) State Law Unaffected.--Nothing in this section 
     modifies, expands, diminishes, amends, or otherwise affects 
     any State law relating to the imposition, application, 
     timing, or collection of a State excise or severance tax.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 444, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, there are two versions of this land bill: 
one with the Markey amendment and one without the Markey amendment. The 
difference is the version with the Markey amendment is a deal the 
American taxpayers should take. Without my amendment, this is a deal 
that takes the taxpayers.
  Without the Markey amendment, this land deal is a shell game, all 
about misdirection and surprise outcomes. We are urged to keep our eye 
on the beautiful surface acres the Federal Government would get in this 
deal and the unique payment scheme included in the bill. This is like 
the guy on the street who tells you to watch his right hand while his 
left hand is picking your pocket.
  This is not about the surface. This is about the copper and whether 
Rio Tinto will have to pay its fair value. And the fact is the payment 
scheme in this bill is completely--let me say it again--the payment 
scheme in this bill is completely speculative. It will be based on 
information only the company has access to and is subject to serious 
manipulation.
  In the end, Rio Tinto could end up paying absolutely nothing for the 
massive windfall they stand to receive from this legislation. With the 
Markey amendment, this bill is simple. It would require no guesswork on 
the part of the taxpayers. It would allow for no manipulation that 
could shortchange the American taxpayer.
  My amendment strikes the convoluted payment scheme in this bill and 
replaces it with a simple 8 percent royalty on the copper produced each 
year from this mine. This is the American people's copper. It's not 
their copper. It's the American people's. What are they going to get 
out of this? How about 8 percent? Can we give the taxpayer 8 percent?
  Now, we don't know how much copper exactly is down there. The benefit 
of my amendment is we don't need to know ahead of time. If Rio Tinto 
makes $1, then they owe the taxpayer a nickel and three pennies, and if 
they make $8 billion, the Treasury gets $640 million.
  Now, the company will argue a royalty is unfair. Well, guess who is 
already paying royalties, Mr. Chairman. Oil and gas companies pay 12.5 
percent when they drill on the taxpayers' land. 12.5 percent, that's 
what ExxonMobil pays. That's what Shell pays. But do you know who else 
pays the royalty? Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton when they mine on State 
land. So, if you're in Colorado, you're in Wyoming and you're on State 
land, you're paying a royalty. But, no, let's go to the American 
taxpayers' land. Those same companies that pay to the States don't pay 
to Uncle Sam.
  And the revenue from a royalty is money we can use. What can we use 
the money for? Make sure we don't have to cut Medicare payments for 
Grandma. Make sure we have student loans for kids to be able to go to 
college. That's what the money should be used for. Should it just be 
pocketed by Rio Tinto, by these companies?
  So I ask my colleagues, which deal do you want to go home with and 
tell your constituents you were for? The deal where they got some nice 
lands in Arizona while a foreign mining company got billions in copper, 
or the deal where they got the land plus hundreds of millions of 
dollars in royalty payments for the U.S. taxpayer?
  With the Markey amendment, we in Congress are responsible stewards 
doing our due diligence to protect the Federal Treasury to get the 
taxpayer what they're owed. Without the Markey amendment, this House 
looks like the old Keystone Kops, bumbling around in circles while 
billions walk right out the door that should be in the pockets of every 
taxpayer in this country.
  We have a supercommittee debating how much they're going to cut poor 
people, students, national defense, what we're going to spend on the 
protection of our country, and how many policemen we can afford to 
have. Meanwhile, out here on the House floor, we're going to turn a 
blind eye to billions of dollars just going right out the floor of the 
House here today into the pockets of Rio Tinto, into the pockets of a 
foreign corporation. That's not right.
  Vote for the Markey amendment. Capture this money for the American 
taxpayer.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would just point out, if we want to address the royalty issue on 
this and other mining ventures, let's address the Mining Act of 1872. 
There were attempts to do this in the nineties, attempts to increase 
royalties or impose a 5 percent royalty, and many on the other side of 
the aisle opposed that measure. And so there have been a few attempts. 
I would encourage, let's go back to it. But this is not the place to

[[Page H7106]]

do it. We can't do it here on this one bill.
  And make no mistake about it; this is an attempt to kill this 
legislation, nothing else. It's not an attempt to garner the taxpayer 
more revenue. This is an attempt to kill the bill.
  I would encourage rejection of the amendment and adoption of the 
bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. 
Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to listen to the 
arguments. To listen to the arguments that were given just now on why 
we should support the Markey amendment, you would believe that 
Republicans have set up this massive scheme for avoiding payment for 
royalties.
  Now, this law has been in place on the books for a very long time. 
But additionally, I remember that the Democrats were in control, for 2 
years, of the House, the Senate, and the White House, and they elected 
not to pass this royalty bill because they knew it would damage the 
economy.
  Like the gentleman from Arizona just said, this is a single attempt 
to kill this one bill. Twenty-five percent of the Nation's copper needs 
could be met for the next 50 years, and they're trying to kill the 
bill. That's what defies explanation.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part B of House Report 112-258.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the 
rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 21, after line 8, insert the following:
       (e) Additional Conditions Related to Mining Operations on 
     Conveyed Federal Land.--As additional conditions of the land 
     exchange under this Act, Resolution Copper shall agree to the 
     following:
       (1) To locate and maintain the remote operation center for 
     mining operations on the conveyed Federal land in the town of 
     Superior, Arizona, for the duration of such operations.
       (2) To actively recruit and provide an employment 
     preference for qualified applicants who reside in the State 
     as of date of the consummation of the land exchange for 
     employment positions related to mining operations on the 
     conveyed Federal land.
       (3) To ensure that all locatable minerals produced in 
     commercial quantities from the conveyed Federal land remain 
     in the United States for processing and use.
       (4) To ensure that all equipment used to mine or support 
     mining activities on the conveyed Federal Land is made in the 
     United States.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 444, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, 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.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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.

[[Page H7107]]

  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.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield the balance of my time to the cosponsor of the 
amendment, the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Our worthy chairman has put up a dozen canards, none 
of which really address the underlying issue here. This amendment is a 
very simple one that would locate in Arizona the headquarters for this 
mine. Is there something wrong with that? We are not moving this off to 
Finland. Come on.
  This amendment would also provide that the copper--and it's been 
stated by the proponents of the bill that 25 percent of the copper 
needs in the United States would come from this mine, so why not use 
this copper in the United States? It seems to me to be perfectly 
reasonable, despite all the canards that we just tossed around here a 
few moments ago.
  The other part of this has to do with the equipment. Is the worthy 
gentleman from Washington opposed to using American-made equipment in 
American mines? Is that what this is all about?
  Yes, there may be some definitional problems. I'd be delighted to 
work with you on the definitional problems, but the underlying point is 
why would we set up all of this so that we could import the equipment 
from China or Japan or some other place. Why not simply require that 
this mine, which under the bill itself is an enormous giveaway of 
American property, of property owned by the American people and the 
enormous unparalleled giveaway of our value, why not simply require 
that at least if they're going to be given all of this, they be 
required to buy American-made equipment for the mine operation?
  What's wrong with that? Why not make it in America? If this mine is 
in America, why not use American-made equipment and hire Americans and, 
in this case, Arizonans? You got a problem with hiring Arizonans? You 
got a problem with locating in Arizona the headquarters of this mine, 
or would you prefer London or maybe somewhere in Australia?
  Come on. These are very simple amendments so that Americans can go to 
work. These are very simple amendments so that this company will buy 
American-made equipment to mine our copper which, under your proposal, 
is given away.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Gosar) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1904) to 
facilitate the efficient extraction of mineral resources in southeast 
Arizona by authorizing and directing an exchange of Federal and non-
Federal land, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________